Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Haha, best evidence I see is this.

Warhammer fantasy sub-reddit, around for nearly a decade finally reached 3000 subs a few months ago.

AoS sub-reddit, reached that number in the first year and now is at over 7000 subs in only 2 years.

So yeah, AoS is doing fine compared to fantasy.

Besides that, how can 40k cannibalize AoS anymore than it did fantasy? Most fantasy players I've seen did both and they dated back to fantasy's glory days.

The only way 40k can hurt AoS is if GW focuses exclusively on it again and lets it's other games wither on the vine. With how they've made clear efforts to never do that again I see little concern.

It can cannibalize sales in the fact that (and I'm talking locally) I had folks actually considering buying into AoS. They were getting fed up with 7th ed and actually liked AoS's rules when I demoed.

Once 8th edition dropped, everybody -- including me since I'd like to actually play a game now and again instead of evangelizing --- bought in. The AoS stuff left on the shelves is not being replaced while new 40k stuff is coming in just about every week.

MadMarkMagee wrote:
I strongly dislike AOS, don't like what GW did with WFB, liked the game concept/style of WFB better, don't like the style or setting and prefer the low-fantasy?? /: Brandon Sanderson/patrick rothfuss/Martin/Raymond E. Feist/LOTR/1000AD - 1600AD style of WFB then the more comic book/marvel style of AOS. A LOT of people feel the same way I do. They are interesting in getting back into 40k but not so much AOS.

So will 40ks success have any effect on AOS. I would say yes because GW will be be pumping RND into 40k and specialist games because they are making so much $$$ there. This will mean not enough support for Sigmar. If the game is to grow then GW need to get more people in by releasing models, and trying harder to catch more peoples imagination.

And yet, a LOT of people weren't buying WHFB in the first place.

What gets me is this idea that the audience is a zero sum game, and that 40k and AoS are pitched at the same crowd. I do not believe they are.

A) Some people want guns, other people don't want any guns. Fantasy is a different beast, and some prefer it over SF, and other people don't.

B) AoS is still more streamlined than 40k. Some people want the extra bits 40k has, others don't.

Both can co-exist just fine.

 privateer4hire wrote:
It can cannibalize sales in the fact that (and I'm talking locally) I had folks actually considering buying into AoS. They were getting fed up with 7th ed and actually liked AoS's rules when I demoed.

Once 8th edition dropped, everybody -- including me since I'd like to actually play a game now and again instead of evangelizing --- bought in. The AoS stuff left on the shelves is not being replaced while new 40k stuff is coming in just about every week.

AoS is kind of in a holding pattern right now, with largely filler releases, while 40k gets launched and it has lead to less AoS stuff to be excited about (though the Kharadron Overlords are pretty sweet).

Once 40k has settled down a bit, I think AoS will see more interesting releases (Shadespire, new campaign, new factions) which will lead to more people being excited about the game. AoS had an uphill battle getting started and the fact that it has become popular at all is really a testament to the game's quality. As long as GW keep releasing good models and supplements, the game will have a life. I think it will always be the slightly smaller, slightly cheaper, slightly more casual little brother to 40k though.

The Path to Glory thing coming up for preorder probably this week will probably have a little bump, but I think the bigger bump will be GHB2.

That said, while I think there is some splitting of consumer money between 40k and AoS, I don't think they're completely overlapping in their markets. Some folks want sci-fi, some don't, and even though the games are similar now, they're different enough to offer different play experiences. Not everyone is going to want both, though some (like myself) will probably alternate between the two but eventually settle on one as a "primary" and play it more (for me, currently thinking AoS, since the "feel" for Chaos Daemons in there just seems more "fun" to me).

 Sqorgar wrote:
I think it will always be the slightly smaller, slightly cheaper, slightly more casual little brother to 40k though.

And for some of us that's a feature, not a bug.

What's wrong with that?

rmeister0 wrote:

MadMarkMagee wrote:
I strongly dislike AOS, don't like what GW did with WFB, liked the game concept/style of WFB better, don't like the style or setting and prefer the low-fantasy?? /: Brandon Sanderson/patrick rothfuss/Martin/Raymond E. Feist/LOTR/1000AD - 1600AD style of WFB then the more comic book/marvel style of AOS. A LOT of people feel the same way I do. They are interesting in getting back into 40k but not so much AOS.

So will 40ks success have any effect on AOS. I would say yes because GW will be be pumping RND into 40k and specialist games because they are making so much $$$ there. This will mean not enough support for Sigmar. If the game is to grow then GW need to get more people in by releasing models, and trying harder to catch more peoples imagination.

And yet, a LOT of people weren't buying WHFB in the first place.

What gets me is this idea that the audience is a zero sum game, and that 40k and AoS are pitched at the same crowd. I do not believe they are.

A) Some people want guns, other people don't want any guns. Fantasy is a different beast, and some prefer it over SF, and other people don't.

B) AoS is still more streamlined than 40k. Some people want the extra bits 40k has, others don't.

Both can co-exist just fine.

People weren't buying WHFB because most of the older players had what they needed and WHFB didn't have the sheer release saturation of 40k. It's somewhat telling that GW were surprised at how well The End Times was doing, as if they realised putting out new stuff would get people buying again or something.

Also, and most importantly, it struggled to gain fresh blood because the cost of entry was absurdly high even for a wargame. In 40k for example, you generally get a 'squad' at its maximum size (usually around ten) with certain rare exceptions like Conscripts. In Fantasy almost every army was at its peak by 'hording' up, which when you're looking at £16 for 10 Empire State Troops is going to put off newbies very quickly. Not to mention WHFB was an even bigger mess at lower points levels than 40k where you could at least get to 500pts and play relatively well, unlike Fantasy which both cost more as a whole AND only became playable properly at 1000pts (and even that's debatable).

I know AoS fanboys like to blame the WHFB fanbase for its flagging - although Hastings stated it was making GW a profit, just not the profit GW wanted - but in the end it was GW outpricing its audience and further driving/keeping them in 40k.

Haha, best evidence I see is this.

Warhammer fantasy sub-reddit, around for nearly a decade finally reached 3000 subs a few months ago.

AoS sub-reddit, reached that number in the first year and now is at over 7000 subs in only 2 years.

So yeah, AoS is doing fine compared to fantasy.

Reddit only really became big a few years ago. AoS only launched a few years ago and with Fantasy players pretty much despising it they naturally weren't going to go to the Fantasy sites, and instead established their own/set down flags on places like Reddit.

 Arbitrator wrote:
People weren't buying WHFB because most of the older players had what they needed and WHFB didn't have the sheer release saturation of 40k.

Also, and most importantly, it struggled to gain fresh blood because the cost of entry was absurdly high even for a wargame. In 40k for example, you generally get a 'squad' at its maximum size (usually around ten) with certain rare exceptions like Conscripts. In Fantasy almost every army was at its peak by 'hording' up, which when you're looking at £16 for 10 Empire State Troops is going to put off newbies very quickly. Not to mention WHFB was an even bigger mess at lower points levels than 40k where you could at least get to 500pts and play relatively well, unlike Fantasy which both cost more as a whole AND only became playable properly at 1000pts (and even that's debatable).

I started getting in Warhammer Fantasy back in the day, and was able to build up a decent force. But it did have its issues. I started wargaming with 40K, and enjoyed it. Then I decided to get into Warhammer Fantasy to give it a shot, picking Lizardmen back before their latest hardback army book. I enjoyed it, and played well in the game at a couple local tournaments with a balanced, mixed army of monsters and infantry.

That said, I did have some gripes with the game:
- The number of repeat models, and the cost involved in newer kits. Back when I first started, it wasn't too bad. But just the sheer number of infantry required was much more than I was used to, even as a Guard player! As GW approached the End Times, that was at the beginning of their "We are a model company!" which drove up the prices of any new kit that came out. So while my Suarus weren't expensive, my Bastiladon and Carnosaur were more expensive than I would have liked by about 10-15%. This was also the same time that saw the demise of the Battalion box, so bulking up armies was more costly than before. Aside from the fact that I was not a real big fan of having so many of the same model or unit on the board.

- Moving the models on the tabletop in formation. UGH. If it wasn't for my magnetic movement trays, I would not have stuck with the game. You have to move the block of infantry as a large block with pivots and stay in formation, and you can't glue them all together on a single base because each model is its own wound tracker, and comes off as a casualty over the game. (I'm not a fan of Kings of War's system of suffering damage on the unit either, but is there a middleground?) I like the IDEA of moving models in large formations into other large formations, but it was hard to do without a good movement tray system. Which leads us into....

- Fitting the miniatures on their bases. Thankfully, Saurus Warriors are easy to fit together and are consistent, . But Chaos Warriors and some other models don't have that luxury, which killed my enthusiasm and curbed my efforts for working on other armies. The finagling of models and bits to fit perfectly on their bases was too much for me - it took me way too long to get my Skinks arms to all fit in formation.

- Limited setting. This one comes from the benefit of hindsight, and yet is also one of the things that kept me out of the game as long as it did. Yes, it sucks that the Old World was paved over for AoS, but it still existed in the past; where Age of Sigmar has almost limitless opportunities for personal fluff and ways to explore the Realms, Warhammer Fantasy was much more akin to a historical game with magic in how it played, as the Old World was mapped out with nothing new likely to happen short of an underwater faction or two rising from the oceans (which would have been cool!). The Old World was certianly awesome in its fluff and setting, but it didn't leave much room for customizing your armies aside from paint jobs. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is something to consider as well.

Aside from the cost aspect, Age of Sigmar fixed my biggest beefs with the game, and I have enjoyed it. I have actually been enjoying it a lot more than 40K recently.

As for 40K eating into AoS sales, it will happen for a while until the next AoS update, without question. It doesn't affect me right now though, as I don't have the money to spend on the new 40K books, so I am pretty much stuck with AoS for the time being, and I'm okay with that (though recently I have been giving a lot of thought to the GW LotR miniatures game and working on more terrain at home).

Here where I am, WHFB wasn't selling because the market was over-saturated with used models that anyone could pick the game up and get a used army for 1/10th the cost of retail.

And as it was generic fantasy, there were a ton of non-gw options as well.

From a business perspective, canning WHFB for AOS was probably one of the smartest things that they could have done.

rmeister0 wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
I think it will always be the slightly smaller, slightly cheaper, slightly more casual little brother to 40k though.

And for some of us that's a feature, not a bug.

I know. I'm a slightly smaller, slightly cheaper, slightly more casual player.

Arbitrator wrote:I know AoS fanboys like to blame the WHFB fanbase for its flagging - although Hastings stated it was making GW a profit, just not the profit GW wanted - but in the end it was GW outpricing its audience and further driving/keeping them in 40k.

I don't think anyone blames WHFB. It just makes a compelling case for why something like AoS was ultimately the right decision. I don't think a mass army game is really what the market (in general) wants. RuneWars is by the biggest board game publisher in the world built on the mechanics of the biggest miniature game in the world and I don't think you could pay people to care about it. CMON has an upcoming kickstarter for Song of Ice and Fire (one of the most popular IPs right now) created by Eric Lang (one of the most popular game designers), and while the kickstarter will do gangbusters on the miniatures alone, it has almost zero chance of catching on.

I agree the fantasies problem was the high cost of entry + sheer amount of effort required to get all those models painted.

I think the problem with WFB was it was a bit too "massed". But I like the idea of units moving around in block formations, it looks nice. They should have just gone for a smaller game size, lower cost, rules reboot, with some sort of magnet/tray system out of the box. Maybe expanded the fluff instead of the a bomb...

A lot of WHFB's failure also stems from Kirby... The "New GW" could have turned it around...

From the AOS games I've watched sigmar looks very messy, more so then 40k because the game seems to be played with more models then 40k.... Not saying the game is messy, it just looks messy to me anyway.

It has been said before but it stands to truth that is 'AoS' had merely been a very, very heavily pushed spin-off/sister game to WHFB it would have gone down well with just about everybody. Hell, they could even have kept the round bases thing. It would've provided a good entry point for new players, give Fantasy players a reason to dabble in something different while adding to their collections and potentially bring over a different audience who might 'move up' to WHFB. At worst they might've risked temporarily annoying hardcore fanboys who believed it was taking resources from 'ranked' WHFB. Instead we got- well, yeah.

Throwing the baby out with the bath water was such a monumentally stupid decision that could only have come about from Kirby. It's so stupid infact it's why I stick to my belief WHFB as a setting was killed primarily because Not-Space Marines wouldn't have fit into the Old World and boy oh boy did Kirby want the sterling of those Space Marine players.

WHFB biggest problem was there annual release.

The chances of your army getting new models was 0.

Ever race was dark eldar, they released a few models and a codex, then 5 months later the next one. Hell if you played brets for an example your book was about3 editions out of date.

I uised the same models for nearly 7 years with not a single update.

 Arbitrator wrote:
It has been said before but it stands to truth that is 'AoS' had merely been a very, very heavily pushed spin-off/sister game to WHFB it would have gone down well with just about everybody. Hell, they could even have kept the round bases thing. It would've provided a good entry point for new players, give Fantasy players a reason to dabble in something different while adding to their collections and potentially bring over a different audience who might 'move up' to WHFB. At worst they might've risked temporarily annoying hardcore fanboys who believed it was taking resources from 'ranked' WHFB. Instead we got- well, yeah.

Throwing the baby out with the bath water was such a monumentally stupid decision that could only have come about from Kirby. It's so stupid infact it's why I stick to my belief WHFB as a setting was killed primarily because Not-Space Marines wouldn't have fit into the Old World and boy oh boy did Kirby want the sterling of those Space Marine players.

Dude, move on. It's been two years. Moving to a new game and setting was the best thing for them to do. From gav thorpe

(Sixth edition invigorated the sales for a while, but as a rules system it simply became less and less accessible. I think 8th edition was a massive step in the wrong direction, enforcing even bigger units and larger armies as a norm, and from there only a complete reinvention was going to work as a game system that was scaleable.

In terms of the background and imagery I tried, along with the artists, other developers and miniatures designers of the time, to create as unique a Warhammer feel for the visuals as possible. But fundamentally Warhammer was just too close to its roots, in terms of Elves, dwarfs, historical armies and so on. It simply lacked the stand out characteristics of an original IP, so while its strength derived from the familiar and unique blend of influences, it left the background open to outright imitation by other creators and manufacturers.

I think most people can admit now that two years on AOS has been turned into a success. It’s certainly the most animated I’ve seen the Warhammer community in about a decade or more.)

Aos was the best decision could have made.

 Arbitrator wrote:
It has been said before but it stands to truth that is 'AoS' had merely been a very, very heavily pushed spin-off/sister game to WHFB it would have gone down well with just about everybody. Hell, they could even have kept the round bases thing. It would've provided a good entry point for new players, give Fantasy players a reason to dabble in something different while adding to their collections and potentially bring over a different audience who might 'move up' to WHFB. At worst they might've risked temporarily annoying hardcore fanboys who believed it was taking resources from 'ranked' WHFB. Instead we got- well, yeah.

Throwing the baby out with the bath water was such a monumentally stupid decision that could only have come about from Kirby. It's so stupid infact it's why I stick to my belief WHFB as a setting was killed primarily because Not-Space Marines wouldn't have fit into the Old World and boy oh boy did Kirby want the sterling of those Space Marine players.

You may want to check that axe you've been grinding. Pretty sure after 2 years, you've just got a handle left.

In theory I like the idea of a rank and flank game with huge armies of minis. I've never actually played such a game, so I might not find it so fun in practice.

It seems like something like 15mm scale with less expensive miniatures that were designed to work really well with movement trays might be better for really big games. (This is not meant to be a dig at WHFB.)

Strangely I've been finding myself more interested in AoS since the new edition of 40k dropped. I think it might be because I probably over-consumed 40k content and AoS is a nice break from all that.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
In theory I like the idea of a rank and flank game with huge armies of minis. I've never actually played such a game, so I might not find it so fun in practice.

It seems like something like 15mm scale with less expensive miniatures that were designed to work really well with movement trays might be better for really big games. (This is not meant to be a dig at WHFB.)

Strangely I've been finding myself more interested in AoS since the new edition of 40k dropped. I think it might be because I probably over-consumed 40k content and AoS is a nice break from all that.

Yeah something on the epic scale like that old war master game would have worked better for that massed rank and file style. Lots of 15mm models sharing the one base and the like.

Baron Klatz wrote:
I'd agree to that in part in their appeal but they're also appealing to fans of high fantasy knights and even Dark Souls players since they have extravagant baroque armor, serve a God-king, lose their humanity upon respawning, have lightning and faith based magic and ride dragons made from a highly intelligent one that betrayed it's fellows (the God-beasts) to help the God-king.

Dark souls 3 supports the image further as there are golden winged knights with face masks and a hallowed king who rides a storm drake while fighting you upon a storm (ride the storm!).

As a dedicated fantasy player AoS pulled me right in with it's fantastical setting with limitless possibilities. The realm of life battleplan map was enough to make me fall for the setting.

Anyway, agreed to AoS being on the upswing once GW focuses on it again. Hopefully something nice pops up with the GH2 release like more battletomes.

Actually no, Dark Souls is nothing like AoS. AoS is garish and flamboyant, Dark Souls is more somber. Dark Souls is closer to Berserk than to Lord of the Rings, and AoS isn't Berserk. Old WHFB was a little bit closer to berserk compared to AoS, as the focus was on ordinary people desperately fighting against an overwhelming foe instead of super men in shiny armor doing hero things. There's a reason why people call stormcast eternals sigmarines / ground marines.

There's not that many extravagant suits of Armor in dark souls. The most extravagant I can think of is the Armor of Favor set, and I thought that looked ugly. Ornstein and Smough's set come after. They're ok.
I've always liked the Drakeblood set. Such a nice suit of armor, and not too garish, with just a subtle amount of detail.

Is it possible that AoS took some inspiration from Dark Souls? Eh, probably. GW takes inspiration from a lot of things. But I wouldn't call them similar in terms of themes or appearance.

Btw, have they brought back ranks and facings yet? Or is it still like 40k where everything is in a loose formation?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
In theory I like the idea of a rank and flank game with huge armies of minis. I've never actually played such a game, so I might not find it so fun in practice.

It seems like something like 15mm scale with less expensive miniatures that were designed to work really well with movement trays might be better for really big games. (This is not meant to be a dig at WHFB.)

Strangely I've been finding myself more interested in AoS since the new edition of 40k dropped. I think it might be because I probably over-consumed 40k content and AoS is a nice break from all that.

Seems to work fine with KoW.
Then again, their system is unit based rather than model based (that is, in a unit takes enough damage it is removed, as oppposed to WHFB where you have to kill each individual model. Or just make them run away in close combat and run them down)

.

 AoS is garish and flamboyant, Dark Souls is more sombre Dark Souls is closer to Berserk than to Lord of the Rings, and AoS isn't Berserk.

The two swing wildly in theme, though. Dark Souls can go from stinking swamps to shining domains of the gods just as much as AoS does. If you're just focusing on artwork then there's just as much shining Stormcast charges as there are festering Nurgle corrupted lands, darkened lands of death and destroyed landscapes crawling with Skaven.

It's also funny to hear Berserk comparisons when chaos gets artwork heavily inspired by it. (I mean, demons destroying civilizations and corrupting men along with horribly slaughtering them? How could AoS compare...)

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-96cQrU80aoI/VsbVmRMfY_I/AAAAAAAAAFk/c3hzse9AANU/s320/Warhammer-Fantasy-fb-%25D0%25BF%25D0%25B5%25D1%2581%25D0%25BE%25D1%2587%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B8%25D1%2586%25D0%25B0-%25D1%2584%25D1%258D%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B4%25D0%25BE%25D0%25BC%25D1%258B-Age-of-Sigmar-2669734.jpeg

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qBnex-pQgQQ/VsbVmmifirI/AAAAAAAAAFo/KWToUUcwJPc/s1600/Warhammer-Fantasy-fb-%25D0%25BF%25D0%25B5%25D1%2581%25D0%25BE%25D1%2587%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B8%25D1%2586%25D0%25B0-%25D1%2584%25D1%258D%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B4%25D0%25BE%25D0%25BC%25D1%258B-Age-of-Sigmar-2671325.jpeg

focus was on ordinary people desperately fighting against an overwhelming foe instead of super men in shiny armor doing hero things.

If we saw Anor Londo fighting it'd be just that, armies of giant knights using massive weapons while their god threw lightning bolts around and clerics did everything from summoning forth more soldiers via magic to teleporting people back to their safe kingdom.

It's actually mirror opposite of AoS on that front. In Dark Souls you go from godly armies battling demons and god-like dragons that you only hear of in the background to the current struggle of men and undead against demons. In AoS you go from a mortal and undead armies fighting demons to the current godly armies battling demons and god-like dragons (the God-beasts).

Though AoS is actually rebuilding it's "age of fire" unlike Dark Souls so mortal armies should be a common sight again.

There's not that many extravagant suits of Armor in dark souls. 

Between 1,2 & 3 there's quite alot but just focusing on 1 alone has Anor Londo, Berenike knights and the Stone soldiers of darkroot basin that could easily be Stormcast stand-ins especially if you count them as being in a reforged state rather than hollow.

. But I wouldn't call them similar in terms of themes or appearance.

Now appearance can be debatable because there's not much showings of castles and the like for Undead burg and the like (well, probably not until we see more Death stuff as those places are very much in the lore) but otherwise you can get good connections like demon ruins=realm if chaos, B Blighttown=Nurgle's domains, Tomb of giants=realm if Death and the great hollow tree and ash lake could be right out of the realm of life.

Now in themes they are very similar as both are medieval mixes of Greek mythology and high/low fantasy with AoS differing by playing far more with Norse mythology influences and a higher fantasy setting.

Btw, have they brought back ranks and facings yet? Or is it still like 40k where everything is in a loose formation?

Haha, nope. Though you could always use ranks the game is still fluid and streamlined skirmish.(though I refer to it as mass skirmish since you're still using armies rather than individuals. )

 Future War Cultist wrote:
What's wrong with that?

Nothing at all. Being second to the king of tabletop just means you're the prince of it.

Fair enough, I guess you can see it that way. That chaos art does look a little bersek. I kind of like it, actually.

I miss my ranks and blocks of units. The fact they blew up the old world doesn't bother me as much as the departure from rank-and-file combat.

I can handle the fluff change. I play necrons in 40k, and their fluff is quite different from when I started them. I don't like most of the changes there, but it's fine, I'll just do what I want.

I can handle the difference in design and most of the new artwork. I don't like it, but I play lizardmen anyway, so it doesn't really matter. Its not like like I'm being forced to play sigmarines or paint everything gold, or stare at the latest drawing of gold armored men doing golden manly man things.

What I can't handle is that it went from a ranked formation based game to a loose skirmish type game, like 40k.
I already play 40k, I don't need to play fantasy 40k.

 Arbitrator wrote:
It has been said before but it stands to truth that is 'AoS' had merely been a very, very heavily pushed spin-off/sister game to WHFB it would have gone down well with just about everybody. Hell, they could even have kept the round bases thing. It would've provided a good entry point for new players, give Fantasy players a reason to dabble in something different while adding to their collections and potentially bring over a different audience who might 'move up' to WHFB. At worst they might've risked temporarily annoying hardcore fanboys who believed it was taking resources from 'ranked' WHFB. Instead we got- well, yeah.

Throwing the baby out with the bath water was such a monumentally stupid decision that could only have come about from Kirby. It's so stupid infact it's why I stick to my belief WHFB as a setting was killed primarily because Not-Space Marines wouldn't have fit into the Old World and boy oh boy did Kirby want the sterling of those Space Marine players.

After all the wailing and gnashing of teeth LotR kept getting over it "diverting" resources away from WHFB, the amount of vitriol AoS got would likely have been the same. And having yet *another* completely different fantasy game in a completely different setting would have diluted the creative teams and the marketing position for each game.

They needed a game with a smaller model count to get around WHFB's barrier to entry. And now they got it.

Rank and file worked very well for Warmaster, and I really wish that game had gotten some plastic models rather than the really fragile metal they put out. But WHFB had been pushed to a scale that no longer worked in 28mm (or 32mm, or whatever it really is these days).

Yeah, 8th ed whfb was a bit of a mess. Favored huge blocks of infantry too much, which had to be balanced by introducing instant killing super spells...which worked just as well against smaller elite units.
7th ed was better, imo.

Baron Klatz wrote:Haha, best evidence I see is this.

Warhammer fantasy sub-reddit, around for nearly a decade finally reached 3000 subs a few months ago.

AoS sub-reddit, reached that number in the first year and now is at over 7000 subs in only 2 years.

So yeah, AoS is doing fine compared to fantasy.

Besides that, how can 40k cannibalize AoS anymore than it did fantasy? Most fantasy players I've seen did both and they dated back to fantasy's glory days.

The only way 40k can hurt AoS is if GW focuses exclusively on it again and lets it's other games wither on the vine. With how they've made clear efforts to never do that again I see little concern.

The next guy sums it up as well, but here's one grain of sand in the beach that conflicts with your "evidence". Do you know what website/forum/social media/whatever I've never set a digital foot on? Reddit. I've had people read me some things from there, but I've never had any interest to actually hang out there. Do you know how long I've been playing fantasy? Since the tail end of 5th Edition. Know how many armies I had at the height of my playing. EVERY ONE except Wood Elves, Tomb Kings, and enough Skaven to play a full sized force with. Your "evidence" fails to take me OR my brother into account. So we can hardly call it "evidence".

Arbitrator wrote:People weren't buying WHFB because most of the older players had what they needed and WHFB didn't have the sheer release saturation of 40k. It's somewhat telling that GW were surprised at how well The End Times was doing, as if they realised putting out new stuff would get people buying again or something.

Also, and most importantly, it struggled to gain fresh blood because the cost of entry was absurdly high even for a wargame. In 40k for example, you generally get a 'squad' at its maximum size (usually around ten) with certain rare exceptions like Conscripts. In Fantasy almost every army was at its peak by 'hording' up, which when you're looking at £16 for 10 Empire State Troops is going to put off newbies very quickly. Not to mention WHFB was an even bigger mess at lower points levels than 40k where you could at least get to 500pts and play relatively well, unlike Fantasy which both cost more as a whole AND only became playable properly at 1000pts (and even that's debatable).

I know AoS fanboys like to blame the WHFB fanbase for its flagging - although Hastings stated it was making GW a profit, just not the profit GW wanted - but in the end it was GW outpricing its audience and further driving/keeping them in 40k.

Haha, best evidence I see is this.

Warhammer fantasy sub-reddit, around for nearly a decade finally reached 3000 subs a few months ago.

AoS sub-reddit, reached that number in the first year and now is at over 7000 subs in only 2 years.

So yeah, AoS is doing fine compared to fantasy.

Reddit only really became big a few years ago. AoS only launched a few years ago and with Fantasy players pretty much despising it they naturally weren't going to go to the Fantasy sites, and instead established their own/set down flags on places like Reddit.

It was rules that gave benefits for having 10x10 regiments that caused the high entry cost. Back during 6th Ed. your average boxed set was a playable regiment parked right at $20-25 US, and you didn't get any real incentive to go past 4 ranks deep, nor any real bonus to go wider than 4 columns other than to get another attack. Tack on the fact that Battalion sets on average got you to 1,000 points minus a character for $90 US, and the barrier for entry was not all that high. It wasn't until the 10 man infantry & 5 man knight sets that you really got to see pricing at its worst. And THEN is when they decided to make 8th a horde game. THAT is what killed WFB. That, and no advertising power, no real support, no real active push like they do for 40K.

And as far as army size? Both my gaming clubs had no problem getting balanced games in at 1,000 points.

Future War Cultist wrote:

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
In theory I like the idea of a rank and flank game with huge armies of minis. I've never actually played such a game, so I might not find it so fun in practice.

It seems like something like 15mm scale with less expensive miniatures that were designed to work really well with movement trays might be better for really big games. (This is not meant to be a dig at WHFB.)

Strangely I've been finding myself more interested in AoS since the new edition of 40k dropped. I think it might be because I probably over-consumed 40k content and AoS is a nice break from all that.

Yeah something on the epic scale like that old war master game would have worked better for that massed rank and file style. Lots of 15mm models sharing the one base and the like.

The problem with Warmaster was that, unlike Epic, it didn't bring anything new to the table except the Epic play style. Monsters? Both systems. Massed ranks? Both systems. I take it back, they had a sphinx in Warmaster. Scads different. It's part of the reason Epic is not as popular as it once was. Almost everything you had in Epic that was exclusive to that game scale is now in 40K proper, so you don't see the support for Epic that you used to. Sure, there are pocket enclaves, but nothing like it was.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Yeah, 8th ed whfb was a bit of a mess. Favored huge blocks of infantry too much, which had to be balanced by introducing instant killing super spells...which worked just as well against smaller elite units.
7th ed was better, imo.

To me personally, 6th was better. 7th broke a couple aspects of the core game that I can't get behind, and the less said about the 7th Ed army books, the better.

rmeister0 wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:
It has been said before but it stands to truth that is 'AoS' had merely been a very, very heavily pushed spin-off/sister game to WHFB it would have gone down well with just about everybody. Hell, they could even have kept the round bases thing. It would've provided a good entry point for new players, give Fantasy players a reason to dabble in something different while adding to their collections and potentially bring over a different audience who might 'move up' to WHFB. At worst they might've risked temporarily annoying hardcore fanboys who believed it was taking resources from 'ranked' WHFB. Instead we got- well, yeah.

Throwing the baby out with the bath water was such a monumentally stupid decision that could only have come about from Kirby. It's so stupid infact it's why I stick to my belief WHFB as a setting was killed primarily because Not-Space Marines wouldn't have fit into the Old World and boy oh boy did Kirby want the sterling of those Space Marine players.

After all the wailing and gnashing of teeth LotR kept getting over it "diverting" resources away from WHFB, the amount of vitriol AoS got would likely have been the same. And having yet *another* completely different fantasy game in a completely different setting would have diluted the creative teams and the marketing position for each game.

They needed a game with a smaller model count to get around WHFB's barrier to entry. And now they got it.

Rank and file worked very well for Warmaster, and I really wish that game had gotten some plastic models rather than the really fragile metal they put out. But WHFB had been pushed to a scale that no longer worked in 28mm (or 32mm, or whatever it really is these days).

See above about Warmaster, I don't want to retype. And to address the smaller model count game: Warhammer Skirmish or Mordheim. Both games did exactly that. 250-500 point games which give you a chance to see how the stats function and the basic mechanics of the game as you build to the larger game, WFB. They didn't need AOS to do that, they already had it. They just didn't push it.

I was thinking to move to AoS but 8th edition forced me to stay

 Just Tony wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Yeah, 8th ed whfb was a bit of a mess. Favored huge blocks of infantry too much, which had to be balanced by introducing instant killing super spells...which worked just as well against smaller elite units.
7th ed was better, imo.

To me personally, 6th was better. 7th broke a couple aspects of the core game that I can't get behind, and the less said about the 7th Ed army books, the better.

7th was the edition I started in, so I wouldn't know.
My first lizardman army book was from 6th ed, and judging by the content (tactics articles, alternate army lists, blessings of lizardmen gods, etc), it does seem like 6th ed was a nice edition.

Mordheim was indeed a skirmish level game set in the old WHFB setting, that GW never supported. Like necromunda. Because they hate money.

You know that annoying rule in 7th where swarms crumbled like undead for losing combat? Wasn't in 6th. Same for the cheesefest that was being able to have one unit fight in two combats in one combat phase if they pursued into another unit. Have to look up again whether that second combat had to be someone that was already engaged that turn. But if you had flanking cav, you could potentially run down two units a turn with that one unit. Even more so if that unit caused Fear. 7th gave you a bonus for BSB AND a unit standard, 6th made you choose one or the other. 6th also only needed 4 models to make a rank.

In fact, there are only really two things 7th did that we agree to absorb into 6th over at my current gaming group and over on classichammer.com which is the Insane Courage rule, and the rule where a wizard can only use generic power dice, or the dice they themselves generated. No more Skink power dice batteries for the Slann.

Sad thing was that Mordheim was running LONG after GW sent it to Specials Games to die. I was able to get games for a while, and I think it was shortly after that female Vampire character that hunted Vampires was released that our club moved on from Mordheim and concentrated on WFB or 40K

The next guy sums it up as well, but here's one grain of sand in the beach that conflicts with your "evidence". Do you know what website/forum/social media/whatever I've never set a digital foot on? Reddit. I've had people read me some things from there, but I've never had any interest to actually hang out there. Do you know how long I've been playing fantasy? Since the tail end of 5th Edition. Know how many armies I had at the height of my playing. EVERY ONE except Wood Elves, Tomb Kings, and enough Skaven to play a full sized force with. Your "evidence" fails to take me OR my brother into account. So we can hardly call it "evidence". 

Haha, so? Not every fantasy player uses it nor every AoS player. Reddit and Facebook have been growing in alot of popularity over forums though and it's still a good indicator for how active and growing the fanbases are.

What was Arbitrator trying to say? I suppose his meaning went over my head but the gist of it sounded like Reddit didn't count because people are only now using it. Well seeing how massive the subscriber counts for 40k and general warhammer are that means Fantasy is even worse off if it hasn't sprung up to those numbers despite them "dropping flags there now".

they already had it. They just didn't push it. 

I'll agree to this, though. If they and 6th were properly supported and pushed instead of left to wither then maybe the Old World would only have gotten a high fantasy face-lift instead of a entire setting reboot. Oh well, hindsight being 20/20 and all that.

 ArtyomTrityak wrote:
I was thinking to move to AoS but 8th edition forced me to stay

Haha, can't blame you. If I was a bigger sci-fi fan I'd definitely be getting a imperial guard army instead of Wanderers and Free Guild. Maybe one day though.

So basically your point is that because more Reddit users play 40K than any other GW game that it sets a precedent? Did you also age cap those members? As it stands, you also see a TON more teens who get into 40K and drop it as soon as their dating life takes off. Once again, it isn't a viable metric no matter HOW you try to spin it.

I also said there's a huge general warhammer sub-reddit too. Mix of all GW games fans that's been around as long as the other sub-reddits and shows there's a massive Warhammer community there regardless of whether they play 40k or not.

I take that as a good indicator of what's growing in popularity. Also who cares about age cap? I see "just getting into it" & "returning player" posts pop-up almost daily. Tabletop brings in a huge variety of players that show constant activity in the Reddit. I think that's way more important than trying to predict when they'll put the game on hold down the line. (They usual return sooner or later anyway with their absence replaced by another player)