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.

 ServiceGames wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I'm looking into AoS, but only in a Skirmish level situation. My problem is that AoS is a veritable mountain of material to sift through when thinking about starting.

I'm right there with you on that one. AoS 2.0 has made the game more convoluted than 40K 8th. It's so much more difficult to understand and get into than it used to be. I honestly think it's funny that AoS was supposed to be GW's attempt at not only move the story long but bring in new players. Now, it's complexity may be on par with 7th Edition.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
In addition to my distaste for the large task of painting entire armies anymore, Skirmish (or Hinterlands, as I have that from before Bottle had to stop) seems to distill that down to just needing the Skirmish book, warscrolls for any units I want to take, and the expanded points list that can be found on the Grand Alliance forums that allows other units that aren't in the Skirmish book.

This is another thing I understanding. I recently got married and have a two year old stepson. My time to paint is... well, very very limited. So, trying to work on painting entire armies is tough. This is why I'm focusing more on things like Kill Team, possibly Necromunda in the future (I don't think a single person at the GW shop I play at have any interest in the game), and some form of AoS Skirmish as I hear the current formula for figuring out points for a matched play Skirmish game can make those games very unbalanced.

SG

Part of the reason that AOS 2.0 looks the way it does is the initial reaction to the game, and the fixes that had to be put in with GHB. That's also why 40K didn't adopt a carbon copy of AOS when they rolled out 8th. AOS and 40K are sort of meeting in the middle now, and will wind up being identical products far sooner than you'd think. An interchangeable set of systems is the ultimate goal, especially if they want to hedge their bets on the long run. I think that's also why AOS was rolled out with rounds.

Sqorgar wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
There's no strawman at all, my little friend. I referenced your posts directly where you spouted incessantly about the success of a system we have documented PROOF of floundering on launch and the full year following, and you respond with insults to my intelligence. There's no need to get Kitty... er, catty about it. There was a vocal push to make AOS upon launch a success, but the financials revealed a different story. GW righted the ship AND its staff, and is seeing success because of it.

First, I didn't insult your intelligence. I insulted your reading comprehension.

So reading comprehension instead of intelligence. An insult is an insult and speaks volumes of the kind of person you truly are.

Sqorgar wrote:Second, from GW's financial report 2015-2016:

We made progress in what was another busy and rewarding year. We started the financial year off with a huge product launch; Warhammer: Age of Sigmar, one of the biggest changes we’ve ever made to one of our core universes. Our design to manufacture was outstanding, over-delivering in terms of original concept art to final manufactured models, producing some of the best models we’ve ever made. The simplified rules, supporting the models for those who like to play, made it much easier to get started. We learnt some valuable lessons during the year on how to deliver product system changes on this scale and as we released more of the range in the second half of the year, we finished the year with sales of Warhammer: Age of Sigmar at a higher rate than Warhammer has enjoyed for several years.

Now there's no doubt that they said they ended the year with sales "at a higher rate than Warhammer has enjoyed for several years" and now the discussion will be about how AOS was initially a disaster and they "righted the ship". Not sure we can quantify the "disaster" without itemized receipts. I believe killing WHFB was a PR disaster, but that AOS' success was in line with the launch of a new game system/product (thus following the diffusion of innovations curve, where initial sales were to innovators and early adopters, with the majority of players still a ways off).

Nor can we quantify the success without receipts, if we're playing that game. From the statement, you can see that the second half of the year was also them slamming product out at a higher rate. It says as much. It also doesn't take into account any WFB purchases made at the time since all counted as AOS sales because of rebranding

Now, as more than a few posters will attest, WFB was dying a slow death due to the high barrier of entry inherent to the 8th Ed. ruleset. Passing that up could have been pulled off by Warmaster, and that game didn't exactly blaze the shelves.

Sqorgar wrote:Expectations were artificially high due to it being a replacement for a tentpole product. AOS was more successful in getting new players than old ones (partly because it was so different, and partly because of WHFB). But at least they righted the ship pretty darn quickly - certainly not "floundering... the full year following", unless you understand floundering to mean "doing better than what it replaced" (which, who knows? You might).

No, expectations were high because AOS was supposed to BE a tentpole product. And do some legwork and check the threads on the other forums. I'm sure there may be some on here as well. There were several US retailers and distributors clearing out the AOS initial release at 50% off. That's not something someone does if product is moving. I view floundering as poor sales and poor player participation. AOS had both for the first year of its release. Once again, I point out the LTD ED books that you flat out ignored at least on three occasions. These were produced at lower volumes than their WFB counterparts, and took well past that year to sell out. The sell out time on the WFB books? Days in some cases, Damning evidence whether you want to ignore it or not.

Sqorgar wrote:The important thing to note is that they righted the AOS ship BEFORE the General's Handbook came out. Fiscal year ended May 29th, while the first GHB came out in the following June. Adding points to the game didn't fix a failing game system. By then, AOS was established, growing, and doing better than WHFB.

How long do you think it takes for them to whip up a hard copy book? If AOS was doing as perfect as you think it was during that year, GHB wouldn't have even been produced. They threw everything at the launch, and wanted it to stick. Their response was to go through the long process of writing, editing, and printing a book to fix things that you state didn't need fixing. Period.


Financially GW is doing well for itself over the past year or two. How much of that is AOS and how much is 40K I'll let you speculate. They have no intention of stopping AOS, so I can only assume that it's still batting better than WFB 8th did. The question yet again is whether the GHB is responsible for the current success of AOS or not. Given how AOS 2.0 looks, I'd say we got our answer there.

Sqorgar wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
I'm surprised this thread made it to 3 pages before it began spiraling toward the inevitable petty squabble between WHFB players and AoS players.

Though that's not what the squabble is about (it's about whether AoS failed and the GHB "fixed" it), I think we should probably come to terms with the fact that a large part of why people (from GW communities) are not playing AoS is the very negative first impressions, largely due to what happened to WHFB. I don't think it is relevant anymore, but bad first impressions linger (fester?).

No, this is about your outlandish claim that AOS saved GW. You've since tried to clarify that you meant "Save GW's soul" from the disputing comments you got from the original debate. For my part, I brought it on this thread by mentioning the "saved GW" aspect, and you drug it in here whole hog with insults and flippant tone.


Earlier someone mentioned the demeanor of the players as part of the reason they don't play AOS, and I'm starting to see why.

 EnTyme wrote:
I'm surprised this thread made it to 3 pages before it began spiraling toward the inevitable petty squabble between WHFB players and AoS players.

Yup, I am just watching this thread with interest as old arguments come out of the woodwork.

 shinros wrote:
Yup, I am just watching this thread with interest as old arguments come out of the woodwork.

WFB is still playable. You can buy square bases online... some you have to get from eBay and may take a while to get to you, but they are something that can still be gotten (and aren't terribly expensive). To the best of my knowledge, there are no rules in AoS that specify that your models have to be on round bases. They can still be on Square bases making it so that both WFB and AoS can be played. Plus, if you are a WFB fan instead of an AoS fan, there are rulesets like The 9th Age that can be used to play the game.

There's really no reason to squabble. Everyone can play the game they enjoy.

SG

I just can't get into it. I have a large Empire army that also serves as a stand in for mercenaries working for Ulrika in a vampire counts army. I do not want to take the time to rebase everything (150+ Empire troops alone not to mention cavalry plus zombies, ect.) and the fractured nature of the rules and the battalion bonuses make configuring army lists a pain. I have a 2,000 point Khorne Bloodbound army of new models that I could play but I don't have the same connection to them that I had to my Fantasy army. I am happy people are liking AoS and I like looking at the new models. It's a shame I can't enjoy it as well.


Wierd double post. The chaos gods are after me!

There are no rules stating you can't use squares. GW said you use whatever base your model came with.

If you plan on playing in tournaments though, mostly you do have to rebase to rounds because most tournaments, to include pretty much all of the GTs, enforce rounds.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
AoS saved GW in the sense that it tanked so badly in the initial year it got GW to wake up and realize interaction with customers is important. Also that the games sell the models, the models do not sell the games. Dumping Kirby no doubt helped as well.

I find this line of thought hilarious.

GW changed because Kirby stepped down and the new CEO had a different (read: actually sane) way of doing things. Kirby left office on january of 2015, half a year before Sigmar even released.


And of course, we have no hard data on the sales for AOS so it "tanking" without anyone making an affirmation on this (aside from a bitter man whose rumourmonger star had faded away for quite a while) is pointless. And tiresome after this long.

For me, I'm wholly uninterested in the AoS world, finding players is problematic, the Stormcast faction comes off as a wholly unimaginative "fantasy marines" copypasta job, none of the new factions really appeal to me, the increasingly exaggerated proportions and styles of the models in Blizzard fashion turn me off, my old Fantasy chaos collection doesnt really translate well to the new rules, and the costs on new kits are too high to interest me.

Time however is probably the biggest issue, with life and so many other games out there, AoS is just not on the radar, so maybe everything else is irrelevant

I have all the rules for 2nd ed AOS but I have yet to get a game in mainly because no one plays it locally. I know a few people with old WHFB models but they just not interested in 2nd ed for whatever reason. I don't have much interest in the game as well since I also have never liked the new fluff for the game. The fact that GW discontinued the army I used to play, Bretonnia, didn't help either. Yea they have rules for them online but I tried them in 1st ed AOS and found them to really lackluster, especially against armies that got updates such as stormcast.

 ServiceGames wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I'm looking into AoS, but only in a Skirmish level situation. My problem is that AoS is a veritable mountain of material to sift through when thinking about starting.

I'm right there with you on that one. AoS 2.0 has made the game more convoluted than 40K 8th. It's so much more difficult to understand and get into than it used to be. I honestly think it's funny that AoS was supposed to be GW's attempt at not only move the story long but bring in new players. Now, it's complexity may be on par with 7th Edition.

It looked very daunting to me too when I picked it up starting with 2.0, but there's really just one big hurdle - getting the hang of how force selection works with allegiances and keywords. And that only really applies if you have an old collection of models that might be scattered aross multiple books at this point. Anyone coming in new can just pick up any single tome, buy the units featured in it and they're good to go. Gameplay is much smoother than 40k, IMHO, especially because they kept command point abilities at sane levels and single models don't typically roll 30 attacks that can hit anywhere on the table.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
AoS saved GW in the sense that it tanked so badly in the initial year it got GW to wake up and realize interaction with customers is important. Also that the games sell the models, the models do not sell the games. Dumping Kirby no doubt helped as well.

I find this line of thought hilarious.

GW changed because Kirby stepped down and the new CEO had a different (read: actually sane) way of doing things. Kirby left office on january of 2015, half a year before Sigmar even released.


And of course, we have no hard data on the sales for AOS so it "tanking" without anyone making an affirmation on this (aside from a bitter man whose rumourmonger star had faded away for quite a while) is pointless. And tiresome after this long.

The changes did not start happening until 2016--look at the prices on the Fyreslayer release and tell me that is not Kirby-era thinking. Note how the GHB came as a result of feedback instead of being a day 1 release, note how the battletome structure entirely changed, note how the campaign books that were being pushed as a big deal never got continued. The way AoS was managed for the first year/year and a half is completely different than after. If it was so successful why change things so dramatically?

I don't really like a large portion of the models, I feel I need something more to get my teeth into. I don't feel for the game. Nobody in my area admits to playing it. They are all 40k or Lord of the rings.

Personally I am waiting to buy into the new lord of the rings set, and concentrating a lot on collecting vintage miniatures that I like and fondly remember.

It does take time for new management to get settled in and for any changes they make to take effect.

Form me, the game is fine and I like the models. However, the list construction is a bit silly. You need a bunch of different books, a matrix of allies, and possibly some downloads. If they had a truly decent army builder, it would go a long way toward increasing interest in the game and some of the armies.

 ServiceGames wrote:

 shinros wrote:
Yup, I am just watching this thread with interest as old arguments come out of the woodwork.

WFB is still playable. You can buy square bases online... some you have to get from eBay and may take a while to get to you, but they are something that can still be gotten (and aren't terribly expensive). To the best of my knowledge, there are no rules in AoS that specify that your models have to be on round bases. They can still be on Square bases making it so that both WFB and AoS can be played. Plus, if you are a WFB fan instead of an AoS fan, there are rulesets like The 9th Age that can be used to play the game.

There's really no reason to squabble. Everyone can play the game they enjoy.

SG

And I DO play the game I enjoy. I've been very fortunate to have a group of people who play 6th, including what looks to be a new gamer joining, and I pay attention to the models released as the goal is to eventually own each army for 6th, and some of the models released still work for that system.

The reason for the squabbling is that some people are given to hyperbole and either stating their feelings and opinions as facts, misrepresenting facts or fabricating them entirely. Not one to sit idly by and let that lay out in the open without contesting it.

I raise that putting "IMO" in front of every statement is tedious; online it is very easy to seem to be putting out opinions as facts even when there is no intention to do so.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I raise that putting "IMO" in front of every statement is tedious; online it is very easy to seem to be putting out opinions as facts even when there is no intention to do so.

Generally speaking, I do that. My posts tend to be filled with sentences that start with "I think", "I feel", "we must assume", "I believe", "presumably", "apparently", and I even use statement softeners like "generally speaking", "tend to", "probably", and so on. I'm starting to reconsider the difficulty of the part on the SATs where you read a passage and it asks you "which of the following statements are the author's opinion?" Apparently, it is not as trivial as I had once assumed.

A good general rule of thumb for this when discussing online with others is - it is all opinions. Online discussions are rarely factual (if they were, there'd be nothing to discuss) and rarely personal. Enjoy the discussions in the spirit in which they are made, which is a challenging of ideas, not a challenging of character.

Personally, I'm not playing AOS because I simply do not have the time. The release schedule has been so bewilderingly fast, so much new stuff to take in and enjoy, that we've found we have to be selective in our gaming.

We're playing a lot of kill team and bloodbowl, 40k and shadespire and now adeptus titanicus it's too much.

I have the beginnings of a nurgle demons army painted up, but they've sat in a drawer for the last 18 months without budging and probably will do for the forseeable.

Simply put, if GW slow down a bit, then maybe I could catch up.

I just started playing the game after years of refusing to get involved. The models got me into the game. Varanguard knights really caught my eye. Then I decided to go about learning how to play them.

There I learned about the big wall to entry. Learning how to build your army is absolutely insane. Too many books to buy. Plus - the balance seems horribly off. It scares me to invest more. I have watched a few games and it just seems that nighthaunt wreck everyone so what is the point in playing my everchosen - who don't even have real army rules?

The balance is indeed garbage. Your everchosen are one of the worst "armies" in the game right now. They are hugely over pointed, and the Night Haunt are fairly optimal so you will always have lopsided matches against them with everchosen barring your opponent purposely downbuilding them to match a "C" or even a "D list.

auticus wrote:
The balance is indeed garbage. Your everchosen are one of the worst "armies" in the game right now. They are hugely over pointed, and the Night Haunt are fairly optimal so you will always have lopsided matches against them with everchosen barring your opponent purposely downbuilding them to match a "C" or even a "D list.

We shall see - I am kind of waiting for the supposed rules update this year they have promised.

Nowhere to play.
Little interest in the new style of art and models.
No interest at all in new fluff.
No value for money.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nowhere to play.
Little interest in the new style of art and models.
No interest at all in new fluff.
No value for money.

 Xenomancers wrote:

auticus wrote:
The balance is indeed garbage. Your everchosen are one of the worst "armies" in the game right now. They are hugely over pointed, and the Night Haunt are fairly optimal so you will always have lopsided matches against them with everchosen barring your opponent purposely downbuilding them to match a "C" or even a "D list.

We shall see - I am kind of waiting for the supposed rules update this year they have promised.

Do you mean the twice a year FAQ? If so they've already released it in July alongside the new edition. The next isn't due until January 2019.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

auticus wrote:
The balance is indeed garbage. Your everchosen are one of the worst "armies" in the game right now. They are hugely over pointed, and the Night Haunt are fairly optimal so you will always have lopsided matches against them with everchosen barring your opponent purposely downbuilding them to match a "C" or even a "D list.

We shall see - I am kind of waiting for the supposed rules update this year they have promised.

Do you mean the twice a year FAQ? If so they've already released it in July alongside the new edition. The next isn't due until January 2019.

I thought there was supposed to be a STD and ever-chosen update this year. That's what I was told - pretty recently.

Unfortunately for me, I'm just not able to get a game in. When 8th edition launched last summer, our local AoS group literally just dried up and died. Everyone plays 40K exclusively now in my area. :(

I don't think the game is very fun. My experience with Iron Jawz is charge everything and then lose because all the other armies are better then yours in combat.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

auticus wrote:
The balance is indeed garbage. Your everchosen are one of the worst "armies" in the game right now. They are hugely over pointed, and the Night Haunt are fairly optimal so you will always have lopsided matches against them with everchosen barring your opponent purposely downbuilding them to match a "C" or even a "D list.

We shall see - I am kind of waiting for the supposed rules update this year they have promised.

Do you mean the twice a year FAQ? If so they've already released it in July alongside the new edition. The next isn't due until January 2019.

I thought there was supposed to be a STD and ever-chosen update this year. That's what I was told - pretty recently.

You mean a battletome and not an update for Slave to Darkness then. Anything not announced is just a rumor, with varying levels of reliability depending on where the rumor started. Any sort of 'update' outside of a new battletome for Everchosen would likely be in the General's Handbook which we've already received for this year.

The main reason I don't play is that the factions I'm interested in aren't likely to get new models anytime soon. I like the Seraphon line, but most of the Saurus models are super old and don't match the aesthetic of the newer ones... like the guy who rides the big dino. GW seems almost exclusively interested in releasing models for brand new factions.

I strongly dislike Warmachine/Hordes, but at least there you know your faction will get a few model releases per year. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's been since August of 2013 that Lizardmen/Seraphon got new models. I know some have been reboxed for 9th, but they're not new models. That makes 5 years between releases, and it's not like new models are coming tomorrow. How many years would I have to wait for a new Seraphon unit? My only real hope would be to see a handful of push fit models sold as a Warhammer Underworlds kit.

Why am I not playing AoS?

Because Fantasy was always secondary for me compared to 40K. I had a hard enough time keeping up with it before AoS and once Fantasy died, I just didn't have the time or enthusiasm to relearn a whole new game system.
Especially with the complexity of 7E 40K at the time.

And I also played Daemons at the time, so I had the models. I just don't do well with multiple games systems at one time. 40K is enough for me.

-

 Ghaz wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

auticus wrote:
The balance is indeed garbage. Your everchosen are one of the worst "armies" in the game right now. They are hugely over pointed, and the Night Haunt are fairly optimal so you will always have lopsided matches against them with everchosen barring your opponent purposely downbuilding them to match a "C" or even a "D list.

We shall see - I am kind of waiting for the supposed rules update this year they have promised.

Do you mean the twice a year FAQ? If so they've already released it in July alongside the new edition. The next isn't due until January 2019.

I thought there was supposed to be a STD and ever-chosen update this year. That's what I was told - pretty recently.

You mean a battletome and not an update for Slave to Darkness then. Anything not announced is just a rumor, with varying levels of reliability depending on where the rumor started. Any sort of 'update' outside of a new battletome for Everchosen would likely be in the General's Handbook which we've already received for this year.

Well thanks for the info - now I know not to hold my breathe.