The Current State of Age of Sigmar

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.

**kodos**

ccs wrote:
EnTyme wrote:
What's the source on this?

Does it matter? It's 8 years out of date. Just a snapshot of history at this point.

it just proofs that sales are directly related to advertising, shiny new models and "meta"
a faction that is out of date, has no shiny new models and is not relevant for the meta is doing 0$ (see Blood Angels Codex)

also, new boxes sell better while as soon as they are outdated, by design and/or rules they are going down

while a Box that can be used for conversions and/or has the better layout sells better than the similar box (CSM squad vs SM squad sales, 90% of the Marine range is interchangeable and can be used for more than one faction while Empire Knights can only be used for one)

the Fantasy Battalions have always been a bad box regarding price and content and therefore sold worse than the individual boxes of the same faction

Overall conclusion from this table is that if Warhammer Fantasy would have had the treatment that AoS has now (regular realses, FAQ/Errata, shiny new models without needing outdated bad models for the core) it would done much better.

**Amishprn86**

Yep and 7th 40k is a perfect example of that.When Kevin Rountree started to take over from Tom Kirby.

Kevin Rountree is the reason for new 7th formations, star collecting boxes, etc.. and some of the newer models that SOLD LIKE CRAP with no good rules was Tom Kirby's doing (aka the new Tyranid models in 7th, Tyrannocyte, Scorecysts, Harusepx, Malicepter) where Tau and Eldar had 0 new releases but had a book with a new rule, Tau had almost 0 players at the time, then instantly everyone wanted to play Tau and became the most popular army at events for a year.

But IDK if saying fantasy would benefit from it isn't really correct as you are forgetting 1 really important thing. Did GW actually want WHFB to continue? The market is already filled with games kin to, GW had a chance to either fix fantasy or make something new and different. I honestly think GW just didn't want to continue with fantasy how it was.

**kodos**

GW didn't wanted to continue with Fantasy at all from mid 7th Edition onwards

they just wanted to get as much money out of it and turn it into something different

Why 40k worked better for GW:
- smaller amount of models needed to start
- model design more constant inside the factions
- one model range for different factions (more profit)
- Players were less tolerant regarding rules from the Community (Fantasy always had a comp, from 4th onwards even in pick up games in stores, while a 40k comp was hardly accepted by players for tournaments in 7th)
- strict WYSIWYG needed to play (no unit fillers or count as)

So they wanted to be all their games similar and they never really tried to make Fantasy work, but wanted a 40k with fantasy theme (and just sell models only but this did not worked well)

**Lord Kragan**

kodos wrote:
GW didn't wanted to continue with Fantasy at all from mid 7th Edition onwards

t

Weird given fantasy represented about 46-47% of the model releases from that time period.

**kodos**

And also the statement that GW is a company selling models, not games started at that time period

They also tried to sell 40k models for Fantasy and official said that Fantasy don't need FAQ/Errata as they don't make mistakes

Just everything regarding rules after the Daemon army book said that they didn't care about the game at all and just want people to buy models

and this works also better with AoS as 1 box from each for a new faction as display works better than 10 times the same box for diorama/display

**Lord Kragan**

kodos wrote:
And also the statement that GW is a company selling models, not games

Which yeah... it's what they do. They sell models, not games.

Go to a GW store and ask for Halo or Assassins Creed, see the answer. That statement was outright followed by "We are not Gamestop" and two paragraphs afterwards said: the game is important for our success.

**Cronch**

NinthMusketeer wrote:

Also remember that while squishy you can protect them with Idoneth shenanigans as Amish mentioned, and that they still hit like trucks. It takes a very durable enemy to be able to disregard them.

My biggest issue is those annoying 32mm bases, meaning I can get exactly one row of them to fight. And yes, they do have decent attack value for battleline, but they also have 5+ in melee with 1W, so they have all the lasting power of an origami swan

**Amishprn86**

Cronch wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:

Also remember that while squishy you can protect them with Idoneth shenanigans as Amish mentioned, and that they still hit like trucks. It takes a very durable enemy to be able to disregard them.

My biggest issue is those annoying 32mm bases, meaning I can get exactly one row of them to fight. And yes, they do have decent attack value for battleline, but they also have 5+ in melee with 1W, so they have all the lasting power of an origami swan

You can get 2 rows of 32's if you are able to be spaced out first row about a 1mm each guy. So its not as bad as you might think. I also play BoC and use 50 Bestigors (basically just thralls) they too are on 32's and i never had any problems. Now if i had good ways to take a few 30 mans then it might be a problem but i take them in 5x10.

**NinthMusketeer**

32s definitely aren't 25s, but one can reasonably get 1.5 ranks in by staggering them.

Amish is extremely correct about learning IDK; they have one of the steepest learning curves. Their continued performance as tier 2 at tourneys does show that once one figures it out there is light at the end of the tunnel.

Unless there's Skaven in the tunnel. Then you aren't getting out.

**Ashitaka**

It's from a certain infamous lawsuit, and represents, so far as I know, the only breakdown of this type we've ever seen.
I agree with the conclusions below, and it's also helpful to get some insight into the relative strength of 40K and WFB sales, even if it is old.

kodos wrote:
ccs wrote:
EnTyme wrote:
What's the source on this?

Does it matter? It's 8 years out of date. Just a snapshot of history at this point.

it just proofs that sales are directly related to advertising, shiny new models and "meta"
a faction that is out of date, has no shiny new models and is not relevant for the meta is doing 0$ (see Blood Angels Codex)

also, new boxes sell better while as soon as they are outdated, by design and/or rules they are going down

while a Box that can be used for conversions and/or has the better layout sells better than the similar box (CSM squad vs SM squad sales, 90% of the Marine range is interchangeable and can be used for more than one faction while Empire Knights can only be used for one)

the Fantasy Battalions have always been a bad box regarding price and content and therefore sold worse than the individual boxes of the same faction

Overall conclusion from this table is that if Warhammer Fantasy would have had the treatment that AoS has now (regular realses, FAQ/Errata, shiny new models without needing outdated bad models for the core) it would done much better.

**Tiger9gamer**

Amishprn86 wrote:
I played it slightly differently, i had 1 Soulscryer, King, Tidecaster, 1x9 Morrsarr, 1x6 morrsarr, 2x3 Ishlaen, 2x10 Thralls, 1x10 Reavers for 1990pts

So almost normal list, but i like Reavers, the ability to have 1 unit sit back and stop DSing and still at least deal damage is important to me, i use Ishlaen eels to tie up units and take important charges off my Morrsarr or to stop turn 1 alpha shooting like DoT, KO, and CoS.

I used to run Royal Council with a Tidecaster general to reverse the tides and turn 1 spent 3CP to give 3 units +9" able to run and charge. This is still possible and still is good, but now with FS and OBR, i'm not sure if its really viable is i stopped playing it.

EDIT: Grammar, spelling. English bad for me.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
To add, and yes vs some armies that are made to tank and spank, you will feel that you don't deal enough damage, that is where its hard to play IDK, you need to know when and where to deal you damage. If you missplay you will lose a unit easily. So it does take a bit to learn what you can and cannot handle. That is the highest learning curve for IDK i feel. We have 2 new local IDK players and they both are struggling with that now. When fighting some armies like FS, Ogre/BCR, OBR, etc.. yeah you will make a few mistakes the first few times you play them, but its good that why you know what works and doesn't works.

For me my biggest problem honestly was Skaven, i couldn't get past the clan rats fast enough b.c i have such low amount of units to deal damage, i have a 40/60 win/lost vs them, so i lost more than i won vs skaven. It also doesn't help the only skaven players i know are very good at playing them and i say they are better players than i am.

That is the general tactics for my shield eels as well. They are there to tie units up, get in the way for shooting and be annoying. My Ogor opponent hates them utterly, and even though I only have two units I think he hates them the most.

My army list is as follows

Spoiler:

I actually prefer to have the Akhelian corps to base my army around, as it provides me with an all at once drop style army and gives me an extra relic to play with. I am switched my unit of x6 and x3 into one big unit of 9 to save on activations during combat, but I do worry about the objective game. I think I just gotta practice more games with my llist and hope to get better.

**D6Damager**

Looks like GW is full on powercreep mode with the new Seraphon preview. They get Changehost ability for free and sole control of predatory spells is straight up busted..../smh

**auticus**

It depends on the teams that write the books and they seem to alternate or come close.

Slaves of lolness got their new book and brought up from trash fire level to meh level along with the gitz, khorne, etc...

Which meant the book after should be triple keeper masters of the universe undead level of stupid.

They don't disappoint

But as we're told often that balance and such aren't the primary drivers for playing AOS and that these things are ok, we should cheer for the seraphon players who now get to be OP busted for a while too.

**Thadin**

D6Damager wrote:
Looks like GW is full on powercreep mode with the new Seraphon preview. They get Changehost ability for free and sole control of predatory spells is straight up busted..../smh

Changehost: Seraphon already had this rule, but better in their old codex. Now, it's limited to one of two main types of Seraphon, not all Seraphon.
Sole Control of Predatory spells: Only the spells they pay points for and cast. This is how it should be for every army, IMO. However, Seraphon are supposed to be masters of every sort of magic under the sun. The rule makes sense.

**timetowaste85**

Yeah. The predatory spell thing...ouch.

**Overread**

Honestly I've not really heard anyone complaining that the Ossiarch Endless Spells are broken. I think the thing is when you can't control predatory spells every turn you just tend to use them in very "safe" situations where your opponent can mostly just move them to an annoying position if they gain control.

I can see a point where perhaps in 3.0 predatory spells become totally controlled by the caster rather than with the potential random opponent control coming into play.

**Thadin**

Overread wrote:
Honestly I've not really heard anyone complaining that the Ossiarch Endless Spells are broken. I think the thing is when you can't control predatory spells every turn you just tend to use them in very "safe" situations where your opponent can mostly just move them to an annoying position if they gain control.

I can see a point where perhaps in 3.0 predatory spells become totally controlled by the caster rather than with the potential random opponent control coming into play.

I would much prefer this method as well. You pay the points, you should control it. If this means that all Endless spells raise in price, then so be it.

**ccs**

auticus wrote:

~ we should cheer for the seraphon players who now get to be OP busted for a while too.

I do. I greatly look forward to the challenge & seeing all the crazy my seraphon playing buddy will be able to bring.

**NinthMusketeer**

I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen predatory spells hurt the side that cast them. Because if there is a not-insignificant risk of them doing that then the player just casts something else.

As for the changehost teleport, Seraphon currently do that twice per turn already via allegiance + great rememberer command trait. What they need is power creep on things that aren't teleporting or summoning; those serve as a crutch for the army right now and it isn't really viable outside of that.

**EnTyme**

I'm with Ninth and Thadin on this one. There may be some broken rules in the tome, but these seem fine to me.

**Wayniac**

I seem to agree more and more with auticus that the AOS team has a "for fun" group and a "competitive" group and they alternate writing books. The "fun" group will make decent rules that are solid but have nothing too crazy in them (i.e. the way everything should be), while the "competitive" group will always have something that's busted which the comp players will immediately gravitate to, whether that's an entire faction rule or something like Petrifex where anyone can look at it and immediately see it's the only option that will ever be taken since it's so much better than the rest.

**EnTyme**

I'm not denying that certain armies have been given significantly better rules than others (Whether it's because of different rules design teams or not, I can't say. I don't know how GW structures their company). I'm saying I don't consider the rules mentioned to be too extreme. They already had a version of the Changehost rule, and the predatory spell rule doesn't seem as strong to me as some seem to think. I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen an army hurt by their own predatory spell, and it was usually due to a major misplay.

**Amishprn86**

If you watch AoS shorts they have said many times they try to have 3 ways all armies can play, and focus on theme, style, and feel of the army first, then they balance it. So really its most likely they are not testing the army enough before hand. They even went over how the meetings work a couple times.

**auticus**

They seem to have had this problem since 7th edition matt ward demons. Thats a long time of just not testing enough.

**NinthMusketeer**

They don't balance it. I don't know what they do, maybe they think they are balancing it, but the results speak otherwise. Matched play is essentially a game mode in permanent beta.

**auticus**

I don't think they think they are balancing it. At all.

I think they know exactly what they are doing, and I can't knock them for it because it obviously sells.

**Future War Cultist**

Wayniac wrote:
I seem to agree more and more with auticus that the AOS team has a "for fun" group and a "competitive" group and they alternate writing books. The "fun" group will make decent rules that are solid but have nothing too crazy in them (i.e. the way everything should be), while the "competitive" group will always have something that's busted which the comp players will immediately gravitate to, whether that's an entire faction rule or something like Petrifex where anyone can look at it and immediately see it's the only option that will ever be taken since it's so much better than the rest.

Absolutely. You can actually tell which ones are which too. The former group likely made the likes of the Gloomspite Gitz and the Kharadron Overlord books, and the former made the Flesh Eaters.

Obviously I prefer the first groups methods.

**Thadin**

Deja Vu

Now's probably a good time to stop the 'balance bad' circlejerk that's popped up for the however-many-th time this thread, and move on to better topics to be had.

WarCom put out an article advertising an 8 Stegadon + 1 Bastilidon list. Under Coalesced giving it -1 damage taken to min 1. Now, unless the Stegadon get's a bump in damage output I don't see this list being effective, especially since it won't hold objectives well. I'm still hopeful that Seraphon will be made a stronger army, that isn't wholly reliant on summoning as the current version is.

**NinthMusketeer**

TBF, when the topic is "The Current State of AoS" then talking about how the balance is bad is rather on topic. Though I think for some of us it is more 'venting' to feel better

At any rate, ditto on your hopes for Seraphon not needing double teleport and mass summons as a crutch anymore. I don't expect to see monster-mash dominating the meta either; despite a handful of armies able to run behemoth battleline only Gristlegore has ever proven viable and even then only because the monsters are summoning in regular units to hold objectives.

**Thadin**

I agree that it's pertinent to the thread, but it was just devolving to 'Balance is bad" again, and being thoroughly unconstructive.

A friend of mine who's keeping a keen eye on the Seraphon release noticed that the GW Web Store changed over-night, Stegadons got pushed to the very first listing. Methinks they're trying to sell a lot of them quickly to maybe release a new kit soon? Whether or not a Steggagedeon list will actually be effective.