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.

auticus wrote:
Its a roller coaster. They release a book that isn't too bad, then follow that up with a wtf.

I mean it does seem they want to go on the approach that everything has some sort of crazy gimmick. The power levels specifically vary, but that appears to be their goal. Give every faction a gimmick, and it will balance out in the long run.

Exceept it doesn't when some books are ok and other books are FEC or skaven level.

 Eldarain wrote:
Sword of Judgement?

Yeah. Some hot dice to be sure but not tremendously so; two 6s initially, re-rolled the other eight for two more 6s, each does d6+1 MWs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

auticus wrote:

the capacity of each to simply dominate the field is so far beyond what an average list puts out.

That is the new average.

We both know it isn't. Even by average tourney list standard the carnage was crazy. This is despite me suffering no casualties*.

*And a hundred or so traitorous underlings were trick-duped into being kill-slain on the front lines, a true-true skaven victory!

It was said tongue in cheek. For some groups though that is close to business as usual though

auticus wrote:
It was said tongue in cheek. For some groups though that is close to business as usual though

Ah, totally misinterpreted!

Auticus does seem to largely feel the game is beyond broken but the tourney players want to keep it that way so they can feel good about finding the wombo-combos.

He's not wrong, at least from how I can see it. There are a lot of wombo-combos you see, and the AOS design team being mostly UK tournament guys means they have a finger on the pulse of the competitive AOS crowd, in the UK at least, and seem to want this style of gameplay although I do wonder how much is them wanting it and how much is GW wanting krazy kombos to sell models. It might be a bit of both, the team certainly doesn't seem to mind it.

It does show, however, that the AOS team seems way more passionate about the rules for their game than the 40k team seems to be. I've noticed this for a while where the AOS team seems to take more pride in what they're doing, and care more about the game while the 40k team seems to just be going through the motions and seem reluctant to really care about compeittive play.

Its not beyond broken. A few minor tweaks and it woukd be great.

Seraphon and fec summoning and nagash recycling/summoning are big negative play experiences. If they were like say...khorne... they would be ok,

Saying summoning is like any allegiance ability doesnt take into account you get to actually see the free point count.

A unit that cost 160 prs that is summoned is a free 160 extra pts.

An ability that does a mortal wound on a 6 cant easily be given a point cost.

Wayniac wrote:
Auticus does seem to largely feel the game is beyond broken but the tourney players want to keep it that way so they can feel good about finding the wombo-combos.

He's not wrong, at least from how I can see it. There are a lot of wombo-combos you see, and the AOS design team being mostly UK tournament guys means they have a finger on the pulse of the competitive AOS crowd, in the UK at least, and seem to want this style of gameplay although I do wonder how much is them wanting it and how much is GW wanting krazy kombos to sell models. It might be a bit of both, the team certainly doesn't seem to mind it.

It does show, however, that the AOS team seems way more passionate about the rules for their game than the 40k team seems to be. I've noticed this for a while where the AOS team seems to take more pride in what they're doing, and care more about the game while the 40k team seems to just be going through the motions and seem reluctant to really care about compeittive play.

I think you have a very valid point here, and I agree it shows through in the game. As much as I criticize it AoS is still fun as hell, especially for narrative.

auticus wrote:
Its not beyond broken. A few minor tweaks and it woukd be great.

Seraphon and fec summoning and nagash recycling/summoning are big negative play experiences. If they were like say...khorne... they would be ok,

Saying summoning is like any allegiance ability doesnt take into account you get to actually see the free point count.

A unit that cost 160 prs that is summoned is a free 160 extra pts.

An ability that does a mortal wound on a 6 cant easily be given a point cost.

You are also failing to see that those 160pts of Horrors are not very good, they are the same cost as IDK Eels. Summoning takes the cost into account.

Crypt Horrors:
Move 7"
Wounds 12
Save 5
Attacks Each: 1" 3 , 4+/3+, 0 rend, 2 damage
Abilities, re-roll 1's, heal 1 wound, can be 3 damage on a 6

Morrsarr Guard:
Move 14" with Fly
Wounds 12
Save 4+
Attacks Each: 2", 1", 2" 2+1+D3, Rend 0, D1, D3, D1 damage
Re-roll charges
Abilities, MW's on 3+/6+ (1/D3) start of combat, If they charge change main weapons to -2 rend and 2D

For the same points you are getting over all less movement, no fly, less attacks, no MW potential, 1 lower save, no rend potential, and no re-roll charges, less reach.

But really you summon in Crypt Flayers, they do cost 10pts more, but you get Fly and a range weapon, with -1 rend. Over all they are better, but still you are losing 1/2 the movement, 1 point in saves, less attacks, no re-rolls of any kind.

When looking at summoning armies you need to also look at the Raw stats and compare them.

I had a game at adepticon where a FEC player summon in Flayers, killed a few Raiders then i shot back and killed them off, it was a pointless summon (FYI he did win, b.c thats b.c they double turn me and double attack with the Grsitlegore Ghoul King on Terrorgheist, that nasty guy, he won b.c of that 1 hero, not b.c of summoning).

Hey to a slaves of darkness or kharadron player that 160 pts may be to you overcost but thats even more of an uphill battle that they have to deal with.

Not as big a deal if you are also powergaming but if you arent powergaming, dont bother playing.

auticus wrote:
Hey to a slaves of darkness or kharadron player that 160 pts may be to you overcost but thats even more of an uphill battle that they have to deal with.

Not as big a deal if you are also powergaming but if you arent powergaming, dont bother playing.

Comparing anything to those two armies is moot IMO, everyone knows they are bad and under powered, when they get a new book, if it still feels that way, then i will fully agree with you.

Why they only hit mostly on 4+ and 5+ saves is crazy (KO i mean) when my buddy and i first play i thought he was joking, full dwarf army is bad saves and bad to hit.. wtf Glass shooting with no good shooting is terrible, especially when you give up powers and fighting.

There is half of the game that falls into the same category.

Your response is dont play weak factions and you wont notice the imbalance.

Sucks to be the chumps that threw away good money on trash.

auticus wrote:
There is half of the game that falls into the same category.

Your response is dont play weak factions and you wont notice the imbalance.

Sucks to be the chumps that threw away good money on trash.

No, i didnt say dont play weak factions, dont put words in my mouth to fit what you want. I was stating how you are comparing is off.

If you have an average power rating of 5 for most armies (the average) with 2-3 armies at PR 8-9 and 2-3 armies at PR 3-4, but then you have 1 army at power 10 and 1 at power 1, yes those 2 armies are a problem and needs to be addressed for sure. BUT thats not what you are saying, you are comparing a level 1 to a level 6 and then saying the level 6 is the problem, I'm saying that KO is the problem, and when they are fixed if its still a problem then for sure i will agree with you.

Edit: My english is bad


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To add: I would rather make KO better than make 3-4 other armies worst. KO is a problem, if you make summoning armies worst, then sure KO will be better vs those few armies, but then armies like Skaven, DoK, Deepkin, BCR, Bonesplitterz, Gloomspite, etc.. will still be just as strong, but now more dominating in the meta.

Fix KO, SoD and wait for Slaanesh and Seraphon to be released, then if summoning is still a problem lets fix it.

How they do their army releases is exactly the provlem. You can never have everything relative when it takes years to get to every faction.

I would rather them not pretend those factions are viable by selling them to begin with until they address their issues.

Right now there is
Kharadron
Slaves to darkness
Most of the high elf
Dark elves under malerion
Slaanesh
Wanderers
Duardin
Free people

That are way below the power curve. Then they have fec and skaven that make even the more modern books seem handicapped.

The trickle down affect waiting YEARS is not acceptable.

auticus wrote:
How they do their army releases is exactly the provlem. You can never have everything relative when it takes years to get to every faction.

It took 2 years get all of 40K on the same codex version - the first time in ages
It's taken longer for AoS because through its lifespan its had vast changes to it as a product. AoS Launch, AoS 1.0 and AoS 2.0 were massive shifts in the management (very massive between the first and the second) and in the attitude and product design. Quite simply AoS at launch was a totally different product. The Lore and models might be the same but the attitude toward it and what it was have shifted dramatically.

So it has taken longer and honestly I'd only "count" the time since the 2.0 release as being valid to discuss in terms of balance performance. You might extend it to include 1.0, however the 1.0 Battletomes had no alliance abilities and the like. They were very bare-bones Battletomes rushed out as GW started to make the game more into a formal wargame. 2.0 is really where AoS as we understand it today began its proper life. So since then I'd say GW has 2 years or so to bring all armies currently released up to a Battletome Release.

Right now there is
Kharadron
Slaves to darkness
Most of the high elf
Dark elves under malerion
Slaanesh
Wanderers
Duardin
Free people

To be fair 7 of those factions have never seen a tome and have possibly been on the chopping block until further notice. I am actually surprised you didn't put Tomb Kings in there for the sake of posterity. A core rule of the system is that tomes make an army so I doubt people are flocking to them by accident. Especially considering the undeniable fact that these factions are almost all Direct Order only except for KO and Slaanesh. If you are someone who orders directly off the GW website I would argue that you are in most likelihood not an unknowing novice.

So of all those you listed I would say your argument about "not selling models" I would say Kharadron Overlords the only one that fits the bill as Slaanesh are not in the worst position and is also used in 40k.

Now, as a fan of beautiful models and models that I can buy, paint, and just collect, I am extremely grateful that GW hasn't stopped selling them. I am actually miffed they removed Tomb Kings as I would have loved to buy some of the models just for the sake of the non-game hobby.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

It's taken longer for AoS because through its lifespan its had vast changes to it as a product. AoS Launch, AoS 1.0 and AoS 2.0 were massive shifts in the management (very massive between the first and the second) and in the attitude and product design. Quite simply AoS at launch was a totally different product. The Lore and models might be the same but the attitude toward it and what it was have shifted dramatically.

There has also been the layover of GW not knowing entirely what to do with all the AoS factions and how to flesh them out properly. It seems that as of late they are consolidating and trying to get their house in order and with that we'll see some shifts in how they view factions and whether they are going to continue supporting certain model ranges moving forward. A part of me wonders if the next GHB will reveal to some extent their proposed faction plan.

 Overread wrote:

auticus wrote:
How they do their army releases is exactly the provlem. You can never have everything relative when it takes years to get to every faction.

It took 2 years get all of 40K on the same codex version - the first time in ages
It's taken longer for AoS because through its lifespan its had vast changes to it as a product. AoS Launch, AoS 1.0 and AoS 2.0 were massive shifts in the management (very massive between the first and the second) and in the attitude and product design. Quite simply AoS at launch was a totally different product. The Lore and models might be the same but the attitude toward it and what it was have shifted dramatically.

So it has taken longer and honestly I'd only "count" the time since the 2.0 release as being valid to discuss in terms of balance performance. You might extend it to include 1.0, however the 1.0 Battletomes had no alliance abilities and the like. They were very bare-bones Battletomes rushed out as GW started to make the game more into a formal wargame. 2.0 is really where AoS as we understand it today began its proper life. So since then I'd say GW has 2 years or so to bring all armies currently released up to a Battletome Release.

If you watch episode 2 of their podcast, its taking longer b.c they spent a year making a system to pump them out really fast all around the same power level. This was released when the BoC book game out, if you look at how fast the new battletomes has been released, i think its safe to say most will be out this year.

I find it difficult to reconcile how so many people are ok with the current situation and will go to lengths to defend the abysmal internal balance and poor external balance.

Gw literally has no incentive to make things better because bad balance is not just tolerated, its embraced it seems.

This is quite literally a phenomenon not seen in any other game system.

If a company sells models for a faction and lets that faction br unviable at all to play, they are deceiving those who are coming at the game not to collect and put on a shelf.

Becauae i have never met a person who believes a game willingly and knowingly has garbage factions until theyve ecperienced gw. Everyone starts believing points are a balancing mechanic and provide for a good game

Cwrtainly no gw shop owner forewarns someone that those boxes of varanguard are utter flaming trash in the game and have been since they were released a few years back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The day gw lives up to their word and releases all of the other factions in one year, the first time ever, ill reconsider my stance.

Auticus actually my experience is people have been complaining about imbalance in GW products for DECADES without stop. The internet highlights it, but imbalance has been an issue for ages - its nothing new at all.

I've also noticed that Warmachine, Dystopian Wars, Halo, heck pretty much all the game systems get imbalance discussions thrown at them.


So based on those two lines of evidence its no shock to me that we do continue to get imbalance.



THAT said at present GW is making serious effort to improve balance. It cannot be ignored that the simple act alone of updating all the Codex at once led to GW getting the biggest spike in sales that they've ever seen - heck it was big enough that they beat every other UK company in the stock market for a while. For a company that makes models that's a phenomenal achievement - especially as its still a niche hobby.

Clearly better balance and updated rules IS a selling point for GW; one that they ignored (possibly in part due to the influence of Kirby and his lack of proper consumer research and feedback but also due to the fact that even before this GW was doing well and sitll the best of any wargame company in the fantasy/scifi market).


I will agree fully that GW should let us know the long term prognosis for how they are going to tackle the many factions of AoS, in fact I think most people have said that and wanted to know. GW isn't letting us know though and we can't really force their hand in any meaningful way - only make our case and hope its heard (and hoenstly most of us make our case in a forum and its NOT heard by anyone but other geeks).


Also note bad balance isn't embraced. Sure an army that is easy to win with is popular and one hard to win with is unpopular. So GW again has reason to want good armies unless their business plan is to funnel all sales into a few lines whilst investing in other and using them as lower profit.loss leaders - a business plan that is daft when a single mould is running hundreds of thousands to make.



As for GW store owners eh they are just hobbyists who get paid to play and market the game. They generally ahve a decent understanding of the game, but are not world class players who have memorized every efficent build. Though my impression is that GW Staff in the UK are on the whole better than in other territories - but that the situation overseas is improving.



As for updating all the rules at once - GW Did do it. They did it for 40K with the Index. For AoS they are taking longer, but then the rules are tied to other things and other products as well. Sure its taking a year or two to get AoS up to date, but 2 years since AoS 2.0 is not in any way bad I think considering how big the model range is. From that point on we'll have to see how GW tackles things.

Sure its taking a year or two to get AoS up to date, but 2 years since AoS 2.0 is not in any way bad I think considering how big the model range is. From that point on we'll have to see how GW tackles things.

My primary armies are slaves to darkness, tomb kings, and dark elves (no not witch elves, the dark elf army)

Its been four years almost since AOS dropped and none of those armies has been touched. If I want to have good games of AOS I have had to go out and buy and paint up factions I don't really care about. Great for the GW bottom line, I am a part of the enabling machine myself and only have myself to blame for that.

Also note bad balance isn't embraced.

With the sheer number of posts from people saying that there is no bad balance and the game is in a great place, I have to disagree with you.

Auticus actually my experience is people have been complaining about imbalance in GW products for DECADES without stop.

Its varied. In the 5th edition days ( late 1990s) the complaints were more on hero hammer and people didn't want hero hammer. They were sold a wargame fought between armies, but games in 5th edition were.. .well... a lot like AOS (it shows how much the community and what they want has so grossly changed in 20 years).

In the 6th edition days, most everything was balanced due to ravening hordes. Complaining existed but was minor.

The complaining back in those days was on price of models mostly as opposed to the rules being imbalanced (there were some issues with some wanky rules as well)

The true complaining about balance issues started when the demon book in 7th dropped. The demon book, vampire counts book, and dark elf book eclipsed the entire game. And it only continued from there into 8th edition where you had to build a certain way to have decent games.

I would actually say the internal balance of the game was solid from 2000 - 2007 or so. After 2007 it went off the rails and GW has never recovered, and its fan base seems to largely be ambivalent to it. "just play an army that isn't junk"

auticus wrote:

Sure its taking a year or two to get AoS up to date, but 2 years since AoS 2.0 is not in any way bad I think considering how big the model range is. From that point on we'll have to see how GW tackles things.

My primary armies are slaves to darkness, tomb kings, and dark elves (no not witch elves, the dark elf army)

Its been four years almost since AOS dropped and none of those armies has been touched. If I want to have good games of AOS I have had to go out and buy and paint up factions I don't really care about. Great for the GW bottom line, I am a part of the enabling machine myself and only have myself to blame for that.

Well you know that Tomb Kings are gone - totally and utterly gone at present. Your greatest hope is possibly the community survey, though I don't know if AoS and the TK have quite the same power behind them that Sisters of Battle have (yes I've also read reports that GW were going to release Sisters anyway, however a big community ask that defends your investment is just as good and even sets up the theory that if TK got a similar level of support it might make them worth adding to the list if they were not already added adn just a long way off).

Dark Elves are also gone - they've been gone along while along with the rest of the elf forces - who honestly I think are going to come out worse from all the other armies that got shattered when GW launched AoS. Though we still don't know GW's long term plan you already know that at least the witches and like got portioned out into their own army.

Slaves to Darkness are still in and likely to get updated this year. If not then early next year. AoS does need more work than 40K to get it up to speed, and I do appreciate that the lifespan of AoS isn't short and it has been a rough ride. That said I'd have expected you really happy right now because the Battletomes are coming out very fast now and its got a high chance of Slaves being "soon" within possibly months not years. It's a far cry from just one edition ago where it wasn't when but if you'd ever see a battletome before the next game edition.

My primary armies are slaves to darkness, tomb kings, and dark elves (no not witch elves, the dark elf army)

Then the question would be whether these were your armies before AoS or after AoS. If these were your WHFB armies then I would argue GW has made it perfectly clear that AoS is not WHFB and was never intended as a continuation of anything existing. Their squatting of Tomb Kings was a heavy-handed testament to that.

As Overread mentioned two of your armies are no longer existing armies. Dark Elves have been split into so many mini-factions that I would at best call them ally-able forces rather than single factions except for the Daughters of Khaine.

Slaves to Darkness is perhaps the only army of the three you might see a meaningful update to this year since they've been selling Battleforces and whatnot including them as well as featuring them in Warhammer Underworld and I think Warcry to some extent. I do, however, believe that when we finally get StD they will be something different and very likely joined with Everchosen.

On an unrelated note I agree with Overread that the community survey is our last best hope to revive Tomb Kings in some form or another. If able I will very likely add a note about wanting them back even if I do not intend to play them. I just want some of their more prettier models to paint and collect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AoS does need more work than 40K to get it up to speed, and I do appreciate that the lifespan of AoS isn't short and it has been a rough ride. That said I'd have expected you really happy right now because the Battletomes are coming out very fast now and its got a high chance of Slaves being "soon" within possibly months not years. It's a far cry from just one edition ago where it wasn't when but if you'd ever see a battletome before the next game edition.

The bumpy ride is kinda what I am enjoying about AoS. It means that there are meaningful surprises around the corner and things are interesting for this jaded soul of mine, even if we get annoying crap like some Nagash shenanigans.

The release schedule has also been at a breakneck pace recently in both AoS and 40k and I am enjoying it thoroughly except for my wallet. With the new CSM Revised codex they've established that they will do a second release within an edition to update things which means that we might not have to wait entire editions for updates.

Dark elves are even a compendium army now I think? It's the clearest sign that the concept of a united DE force (as old WHFB knew it) is also axed. Much like the old Tomb Kings I'm afraid. And the GW devs already stated that it's basically a bone thrown to those older players, but they never want these unavailable "legacy" armies to rise to the top of tournament scenes again (like the very first year of AoS).

BTW, if you want to play strong StD with powerfull allegiances, I think you can just pick any of the mono-god books and run with it, so it's not like you cannot have a strong showing right now with a StD/Everchosen mix. It's just awkward through "borrowing" another book.






But I'll agree that it sucks. My death army was in exactly the same boat a little over a year ago now. And look where old VC death players are at now! Two of the stronger books out there and one gorgeous new model-line that can go effortlessly with the old VC stuff.

It's like Eldarsif essentially sums it up: it's a wacky roller-coaster right now, but I'm liking it.

And this is 100% personal preference, This game has units that can do insane things (dice abide) and utterly demolish other units in one turn. But I actually enjoy the faster game pace as well compared to 2 armies slowly eroding each other, locked into 4-5 rounds of combat grind with nothing really happening.

My only real issue is that you can't have every new release crazier than the last if there are huge gaps between when you release and who you release for. That's gakky design because you are limited by time in what releases you can do, and everyone who you decide to bless with a release gets a bonus while those you don't (whether that's because you never want to, or because you didn't have time; the reason is really irrelevant) suffer and continue to suffer as the gap widens.

This goes doubly so with GW where there's always a chance that the next release will change the design paradigm and push things even further and now include recently released armies too that don't share that paradigm. E.g. Sylvaneth in 1.0 changed the game paradigm by making Battletomes more like Codexes with special things in them.

When you change the way you design armies halfway through releases, it just makes for balance all over the place because some armies are using old tomes with GHB alliances (usually bad but not always, see Seraphon), some are using pre-2.0 tomes with the newer paradigm (not as bad, e.g. Sylvaneth), some are using early 2.0 design (Maggotkin, Deepkin?), some are using the new design (FEC, Skaven, Stormcast?), and some are doing even more new things (Khorne, Fyreslayers) so what you have is a bunch of various tiers that are all essentially using different design goals since it's too much for GW to update all at once (not that they would even if they could) but they don't STOP. They don't come up with a good paradigm and say we're happy with this, let's bring everyone up to speed to this style first, they start to do some in that style, have a "brilliant" idea to shift the paradigm and then continue along with whatever the next army on their plate is using that new (and often OP) paradigm while leaving everyone else in the dust.

Then the question would be whether these were your armies before AoS or after AoS.

These are the armies that I have an emotional investment in. None of the other armies do anything for me. It doesn't matter if they were pre or post AOS.

For me to have a good game of AOS where I'm not losing simply because of list, I have to collect and paint a force that I don't care about.

They don't come up with a good paradigm and say we're happy with this

Most likely because AoS is a big exploration into a new system for them. They threw away what they knew and introduced a new game with new rules while also trying to haphazardly attempt to support indirectly what came before. I don't think people fully realize that the fantasy line of Warhammer miniatures was all but dead to GW and it has had to a lot of soul searching, growing, and evolving to get to where it is today. I would argue that with 2.0 we are actually seeing GW get properly behind their new line and supporting instead of the token gestures they did before.

I mean, if I were to judge AoS at its 0.0 and 1.0 zenith I would say that it was a mediocre to an okay game. Nothing special about it and truth be told not very exciting. It feels more that 2.0 is the team coming into its own and actually making AoS into what they want it to be because from Maggotkin(which is the first 2.0 prototype) and up the game has been fun and with it the game has also become more popular due to the fact that it is giving us something that is entertaining and is much closer to being fully supported than what came before.

Could GW do better? Sure. They could provide us continual point updates in apps and embrace fully the digital generation. That in itself would fix a lot of issues people are having.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

These are the armies that I have an emotional investment in. None of the other armies do anything for me. It doesn't matter if they were pre or post AOS.

For me to have a good game of AOS where I'm not losing simply because of list, I have to collect and paint a force that I don't care about.

But it does matter. It matters because you participated in a game that had no promises for 2 of those factions(and the third didn't get any potential promises until recently). I mean, chances are you did in the weird interim between WHFB and AoS, but then you are suffering from the same problem every early adopter must face. I mean, I have some HD-DVDs here that I bought for some strange reason. They now sit in my storage as dust magnets.

I have a feeling GW will never provide the experience you seek. Not unless you become a developer for them.

With respect to auticus I think a big issue is that they kept a lot of holdovers from WHFB to not piss off the old guard who had WHFB armies and wanted to use them in AOS (which ended up largely happening anyway). So you have situations where someone had an army from years ago, wants to keep using them and expects to be able to.

 Eldarsif wrote:

They don't come up with a good paradigm and say we're happy with this

Most likely because AoS is a big exploration into a new system for them. They threw away what they knew and introduced a new game with new rules while also trying to haphazardly attempt to support indirectly what came before. I don't think people fully realize that the fantasy line of Warhammer miniatures was all but dead to GW and it has had to a lot of soul searching, growing, and evolving to get to where it is today. I would argue that with 2.0 we are actually seeing GW get properly behind their new line and supporting instead of the token gestures they did before.

I mean, if I were to judge AoS at its 0.0 and 1.0 zenith I would say that it was a mediocre to an okay game. Nothing special about it and truth be told not very exciting. It feels more that 2.0 is the team coming into its own and actually making AoS into what they want it to be because from Maggotkin(which is the first 2.0 prototype) and up the game has been fun and with it the game has also become more popular due to the fact that it is giving us something that is entertaining and is much closer to being fully supported than what came before.

I think also the focus changed a lot. AoS at its 0.0 launch was basically copy-catting Forgeworld with Plastic with a side order of Magic The Gathering Unhinged.
Basically it was following the mantra "we are a model company" to its extreme end. I think that's why we saw them fragment so many armies into tiny forces. I think at that stage the game plan was to basically have 4 "alliance" armies and for GW to add and remove smaller niche forces within those alliances at a whim. So they'd have the ability to add loads of crazy models with a short bit of fluff behind them in small and big bursts, but also able to remove them from the game as well. A mould breaks, a line isn't selling - BAM - its gone. The super casual and jovial rules were working toward that end as well, by removing serious rules I think the intent was to make it purely about models (building and painting) and less about the game. So imbalance, lack of points, lack of rules for a model, rules that are 5 years old etc... all wouldn't "matter" because there was no serious game to it.

It was a huge experiment and it mostly failed. Oh to be sure it had a period of increased sales over Old World (which I think more highlights how bad Old World was selling come the end); however it also totally disillusioned the core Old World market that GW had just been exciting with the "end times" event. It also turned away a large portion of players long term. I think had GW stuck with their guns we'd have seen AoS tick over with cool model releases, but lacking any real structure of major fanbase that was organised and promoting itself heavily. We'd also likely have a billion "home made" rule systems trying to make it "work"


AoS 1.0 was a kneejerk reaction to stem the anger and disillusioned market and as such was rather simplistic in structure - mostly warscroll cards and some points.

IT wasn't till we saw 2.0 that we really saw an overall firming up of the game as a game in itself as most of us would understand it.

0.0 was the experiment; 1.0 was the beta; 2.0 is the launch.



As for holdovers I think AoS will never lose its "hold over" aspect because even in the lore its still tied to the Old World model line. It will always have that legacy to work with. GW made a deliberate choice with that when they could have retired the whole Old World line and went with a new game. So I don't see it so much as a "hold over" I see it simply as the evolution of the original game (albeit with some issues along the way).

We can call it hold overs all day long. The thing is they sell those holdover models. If they are selling the faction they need to make the faction playable. Otherwise just get rid of the models.

I will maintain that in my opinion the reason AOS 0.0 failed was because of people being unwilling to adopt a 70s/80s style wargaming mindset in the 21st century. The idea that you had no points and had to discuss what sort of game you wanted to have is very much rooted in the historical wargames of old and comes from a simpler time before people wanted to make everything highly competitive.

If people were more willing to do that rather than try and do whatever to "win", and if pickup game mindset wasn't so prevalent where you barely know the people you're playing against so you don't care to talk about the type of game you want to have.