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.

 Don Savik wrote:
I can't believe some people are still extremely salty about Age of Sigmar all these years later.

Considering it crashed a lot of people out of the hobby, the fact that it was a ludicrous thing to do and the fact that the replacement was a bizarro mockery of 40k fantasy of course people still hate it with a passion.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Assuming they keep to the same scale, I think the Old World will be comparatively "skirmish" sized as opposed to the mass battle game that was WHFB around 7th/8th edition. Basically a return to pre-6th edition where armies were a hero, 3-4 block of cavalry/infantry (not more than 20 models each), and a monster/warmachine each.

Not too familiar with the differences in old editions so this is helpful. I think that would be perfect for an army. One of the great things about Age of Sigmar is that it plays really well with 1000 point armies, which are relatively cheap (like 2 start collectings). If that can mirror that with this game then it would work great. Have the option for large battles but don't make it the standard.

I will say I still think AoS is crap, even now. I loved Fantasy because it felt better as a different system to 40k. Now they feel too similar for my liking, so yeah I still don't like AoS.

Haven't kept all up with this but hope it's good and a return to fantasy as I loved it.

 Olthannon wrote:

 Don Savik wrote:
I can't believe some people are still extremely salty about Age of Sigmar all these years later.

Considering it crashed a lot of people out of the hobby, the fact that it was a ludicrous thing to do and the fact that the replacement was a bizarro mockery of 40k fantasy of course people still hate it with a passion.

It wasn't ludicrous to re-imagine a game that was costing them money. Old GW didn't know how to make people buy that game. It was too confusing and expensive for new players to get into. Could they have done it more gracefully? Sure, but that was during the time when old management of GW was still in charge.

And its not a mockery of 40k or fantasy, its just the difference between high fantasy and low fantasy in a setting. While obviously a difference in style for people, I don't think that warrants the amount of hatred it gets. Is it a bummer that people can't play their game because it got discontinued? Sure. Does that mean Age of Sigmar is a bad game? No.

Also nothing is stopping you from playing it. I still play Mordheim from time to time. Games get discontinued sometimes, that's just life.

edit: I guess I am just saying that harboring all that negative emotion all these years is bad for you. Reconcile and move on.

 Olthannon wrote:

 Don Savik wrote:
I can't believe some people are still extremely salty about Age of Sigmar all these years later.

Considering it crashed a lot of people out of the hobby, the fact that it was a ludicrous thing to do and the fact that the replacement was a bizarro mockery of 40k fantasy of course people still hate it with a passion.

It also destroyed several armies outright at the start and removed several others. Yep I can get why some really are salty about AoS and what it did; especially as it didn't need to be done. Old World was already picking up in the End Times and had GW put the same resources into it; improved the 500-1000 point games (ergo that bracket newbies play in as they build up) etc... And Old World could have survived very well. Heck they could have just trashed most of the Old World back and basically done the Age of Sigmar Old World style - Sigmar marching in with legions of loyal warriors after a period of chaos blight where Chaos mostly won and beat everyone back and re-set many national boundaries etc...


Anyway enough of what might or could have been - we have to live with what is.



I think provided GW gets the price point right there's no reason a 2K rank and file games can't work. All they need is the right marketing; the right models; the right price point and the right support leading up to 2K. One issue that Old World had originally was that the 500-1000 point games where beginners were going to mostly be; didn't work all that well. It also was not all that fun for rank and file and was far more open to imbalances and auto win/loss situations (bad match ups). AoS has improved on that a lot and its clearly something GW recognise as a concern. You can't drop big games entirely because your loyal fanbase desire them and they are visually more impressive. But you can provide Underworlds and Warcry and Meeting Engagement rules; you can make something like Killteam and Warcy into their own product lines with their own marketed rules not just have them as a back page in the big rule book. Plus being a specialist game GW might expect reduced return on investment compared to a main-studio game. Ergo its profiting thresholds might be lower or at least accepted to grow more slowly.


The real trick is sitting LotR alongside Old World and alongside AoS without them poaching each others roster and market too much. I do have a sneaking thought that perhaps Old World is going to be what we have when the LotR licence expires. It might be the Tolkien Estate isn't going to renew it in 3 years time; or that they don't want to allow it to develop or perhaps want a bigger percentage cut than GW wants to give. Or perhaps GW just feels that with the films done the golden age of profit is gone from LotR and as much as they might have staff who love working on it; as a company they want a product they don't pay royalties on and have full control over - and which hasn't got the risk that if it takes off well, you end up having to pay more in royalties next time the licence comes up for renewal/review

Not just a price issue with big games - painting Goblin 63 of 200 is not exciting. Units were just too big.

 Overread wrote:

The real trick is sitting LotR alongside Old World and alongside AoS without them poaching each others roster and market too much. I do have a sneaking thought that perhaps Old World is going to be what we have when the LotR licence expires. It might be the Tolkien Estate isn't going to renew it in 3 years time; or that they don't want to allow it to develop or perhaps want a bigger percentage cut than GW wants to give. Or perhaps GW just feels that with the films done the golden age of profit is gone from LotR and as much as they might have staff who love working on it; as a company they want a product they don't pay royalties on and have full control over - and which hasn't got the risk that if it takes off well, you end up having to pay more in royalties next time the licence comes up for renewal/review

Wouldn't surprise me at all. In all honesty the golden age of profit from LOTR was gone more than a decade ago. The Hobbit movies came and went with only a minor blip in profits. I get the feeling that these days GW keeps on the LOTR licence more to prevent a competitor getting it more than anything else.

I also wouldn't be surprised if this is lined up to replace 30k, which has struggled since Alan Bligh's unfortunate passing and is getting near the end of content anyway - unless GW decides to go down the Scouring route. Given the constant bubbling up of rumours that Forge World may be folded into central GW, ending 30k and replacing it with a plastic TOW might be GW's way of creating a third in house line. I'm open minded to the idea that plastics may be more widespread in this range than people expect because a) a resin army at WHFB scales would be cost prohibitive b) Blood Bowl is primarily plastic and c) GW recently massively increased their production facilities.

 Londinium wrote:

 Overread wrote:

The real trick is sitting LotR alongside Old World and alongside AoS without them poaching each others roster and market too much. I do have a sneaking thought that perhaps Old World is going to be what we have when the LotR licence expires. It might be the Tolkien Estate isn't going to renew it in 3 years time; or that they don't want to allow it to develop or perhaps want a bigger percentage cut than GW wants to give. Or perhaps GW just feels that with the films done the golden age of profit is gone from LotR and as much as they might have staff who love working on it; as a company they want a product they don't pay royalties on and have full control over - and which hasn't got the risk that if it takes off well, you end up having to pay more in royalties next time the licence comes up for renewal/review

Wouldn't surprise me at all. In all honesty the golden age of profit from LOTR was gone more than a decade ago. The Hobbit movies came and went with only a minor blip in profits. I get the feeling that these days GW keeps on the LOTR licence more to prevent a competitor getting it more than anything else.

There may be some wait and see on the Amazon LotR series.
First, if it creates a bump.
Second, if they can get (did get?) the license for that material (if its separate).

That assumes that GW wants to take a risk on a license agreement for a Second Age show with largely unknown characters, and deal with Amazon (not sure how well they'd cope being the minnow next to the orca in the room)

 Graphite wrote:
Great news! This is set about 150 years before the rediscovery of Blood Bowl, and therefore is in a parallel dimension where The End Times never happened.

At least, that's how I'm going to think of it!

(Map looks awesome. Orcs with a "c")

I was wondering when the Nuffle tome or whatnot was found.
Ooh it could be indeed for people that don’t like AoS.
And then normal history for anyone else

LotR wasn't competition for WFB when LotR was at its best, and it won't be now. Those are very different games and fill (or will fill) different niches in GW's portfolio. If a customer overlap exists between the two, it's in the form of people who play multiple systems anyway.

Voss wrote:

 Londinium wrote:

 Overread wrote:

The real trick is sitting LotR alongside Old World and alongside AoS without them poaching each others roster and market too much. I do have a sneaking thought that perhaps Old World is going to be what we have when the LotR licence expires. It might be the Tolkien Estate isn't going to renew it in 3 years time; or that they don't want to allow it to develop or perhaps want a bigger percentage cut than GW wants to give. Or perhaps GW just feels that with the films done the golden age of profit is gone from LotR and as much as they might have staff who love working on it; as a company they want a product they don't pay royalties on and have full control over - and which hasn't got the risk that if it takes off well, you end up having to pay more in royalties next time the licence comes up for renewal/review

Wouldn't surprise me at all. In all honesty the golden age of profit from LOTR was gone more than a decade ago. The Hobbit movies came and went with only a minor blip in profits. I get the feeling that these days GW keeps on the LOTR licence more to prevent a competitor getting it more than anything else.

There may be some wait and see on the Amazon LotR series.
First, if it creates a bump.
Second, if they can get (did get?) the license for that material (if its separate).

That assumes that GW wants to take a risk on a license agreement for a Second Age show with largely unknown characters, and deal with Amazon (not sure how well they'd cope being the minnow next to the orca in the room)

It’s fedinit a different license. Only the Tolkien estate is the same. The rest of the production side is all different and that’s who they’d need to deal with also.

 Olthannon wrote:

 Don Savik wrote:
I can't believe some people are still extremely salty about Age of Sigmar all these years later.

Considering it crashed a lot of people out of the hobby, the fact that it was a ludicrous thing to do and the fact that the replacement was a bizarro mockery of 40k fantasy of course people still hate it with a passion.

A ludicrous thing to do and yet its selling better than WHFB ever did and is in fact the best selling fantasy miniatures product line on the planet, whereas WHFB was playing second fiddle in sales to LotR for a number of years - even when LotR was post-peak and barely selling in and of itself.

think provided GW gets the price point right there's no reason a 2K rank and file games can't work. All they need is the right marketing; the right models; the right price point and the right support leading up to 2K. One issue that Old World had originally was that the 500-1000 point games where beginners were going to mostly be; didn't work all that well. It also was not all that fun for rank and file and was far more open to imbalances and auto win/loss situations (bad match ups). AoS has improved on that a lot and its clearly something GW recognise as a concern. You can't drop big games entirely because your loyal fanbase desire them and they are visually more impressive. But you can provide Underworlds and Warcry and Meeting Engagement rules; you can make something like Killteam and Warcy into their own product lines with their own marketed rules not just have them as a back page in the big rule book. Plus being a specialist game GW might expect reduced return on investment compared to a main-studio game. Ergo its profiting thresholds might be lower or at least accepted to grow more slowly.

The real trick is sitting LotR alongside Old World and alongside AoS without them poaching each others roster and market too much. I do have a sneaking thought that perhaps Old World is going to be what we have when the LotR licence expires. It might be the Tolkien Estate isn't going to renew it in 3 years time; or that they don't want to allow it to develop or perhaps want a bigger percentage cut than GW wants to give. Or perhaps GW just feels that with the films done the golden age of profit is gone from LotR and as much as they might have staff who love working on it; as a company they want a product they don't pay royalties on and have full control over - and which hasn't got the risk that if it takes off well, you end up having to pay more in royalties next time the licence comes up for renewal/review

There is no "getting the price point right". GW is going to price the minis the way it prices its minis, its going to be $40-50 for a box of 10 infantry or 5 cavalry, the horde factions might get a box of 20 guys for $60, and the elite guys will get a box of 3-5 dudes for $50. If its a big battle game at 2k points you'll need 100+ minis average, if its a small battle game at 2k points you'll only need 50-60. As a publicly traded company GW also isn't going to let an underselling less profitable product line drag it down and feth up its profit margins - games like Blood Bowl and Adeptus Titanicus have seen the support they have because they blew GWs own sales expectations away on release date. I forget the numbers but from what we've been told by GW staff past and present, Blood Bowl exceeded GWs one-year sales forecast by a huge margin on release day, Adeptus Titanicus sold several times more copies within its first two weeks of sales than GWs bean counters figured it would sell over the course of an entire year. Necromundas success was similarly explosive.

GW is pushing more specialist games because it can see a bigger return on investment from them than it can with its mainline games, rather than the other way around. Everyone playing Adeptus Titanicus is buying stuff produced from a smaller number of molds than what would be needed to develop the model range of a single 40k faction, i.e Space Marines notwithstanding, Adeptus Titanicus sees better ROI than most 40k or AoS factions do because everyone is buying the same handful of kits regardless of what faction they are playing. Blood Bowl teams each only require a single set of molds each and see consistent sales because most blood bowl players collect multiple teams rather than just sticking to one particular faction - it means less development costs for GW overall because they don't need to continually support any one faction and can focus on continually pumping out new stuff that they know will sell consistently and predictably, which is the best thing anyone in this industry can hope for as its low risk and you can easily forecast it. Necromunda makes money hand over fist for similar reason - the entirety of its plastic miniatures range is currently captured in just 17 model kits, 13 of which are divided across 8 or so "factions" and the remaining 4 are available for use with any faction (and 2 of those 4 utilize the same molds and are simply packaged differently) - the buy in is low enough that most people collect 2 or 3 of these factions simultaneously and most people end up buying 2 copies of each kit for maximum flexibility. Specialist Games sell, they sell very very well, especially when compared to the actual investment GW needs to make on its end to support them.

As for LotR - thats another example of a game that hasn't done well as a big battle rank and file game. GW has tried to make it relevant multiple times over the past decade and none of those attempts have ever really succeeded. LotR's main success came when it was a narrative skirmish game, the attempts to revamp it as a big battle game have not really caught on with the community (and thats part of the reason why we've only really seen releases of one-off heroes and characters, etc. and re-releases of older kits the last couple years instead of the whole new armies and units that GW promised us when they relaunched the game a couple years ago). Your suggestion that maybe The Old World is being implemented because they are going to lose the LotR license is an interesting one though, it makes sense (although maybe not within the context of the new LotR material rolling down from Amazon - it'll depend on whether their license covers that as well though I would think GW would benefit from a "knock on" effect regardless), but as it stands I don't really see them really being potential competitors with one another, as that would imply that LotR was actual selling well enough to warrant the concern of internal competition.

 Overread wrote:

 Olthannon wrote:

 Don Savik wrote:
I can't believe some people are still extremely salty about Age of Sigmar all these years later.

Considering it crashed a lot of people out of the hobby, the fact that it was a ludicrous thing to do and the fact that the replacement was a bizarro mockery of 40k fantasy of course people still hate it with a passion.

It also destroyed several armies outright at the start and removed several others. Yep I can get why some really are salty about AoS and what it did; especially as it didn't need to be done. Old World was already picking up in the End Times and had GW put the same resources into it; improved the 500-1000 point games (ergo that bracket newbies play in as they build up) etc... And Old World could have survived very well. Heck they could have just trashed most of the Old World back and basically done the Age of Sigmar Old World style - Sigmar marching in with legions of loyal warriors after a period of chaos blight where Chaos mostly won and beat everyone back and re-set many national boundaries etc...


Anyway enough of what might or could have been - we have to live with what is.



I think provided GW gets the price point right there's no reason a 2K rank and file games can't work. All they need is the right marketing; the right models; the right price point and the right support leading up to 2K. One issue that Old World had originally was that the 500-1000 point games where beginners were going to mostly be; didn't work all that well. It also was not all that fun for rank and file and was far more open to imbalances and auto win/loss situations (bad match ups). AoS has improved on that a lot and its clearly something GW recognise as a concern. You can't drop big games entirely because your loyal fanbase desire them and they are visually more impressive. But you can provide Underworlds and Warcry and Meeting Engagement rules; you can make something like Killteam and Warcy into their own product lines with their own marketed rules not just have them as a back page in the big rule book. Plus being a specialist game GW might expect reduced return on investment compared to a main-studio game. Ergo its profiting thresholds might be lower or at least accepted to grow more slowly.


The real trick is sitting LotR alongside Old World and alongside AoS without them poaching each others roster and market too much. I do have a sneaking thought that perhaps Old World is going to be what we have when the LotR licence expires. It might be the Tolkien Estate isn't going to renew it in 3 years time; or that they don't want to allow it to develop or perhaps want a bigger percentage cut than GW wants to give. Or perhaps GW just feels that with the films done the golden age of profit is gone from LotR and as much as they might have staff who love working on it; as a company they want a product they don't pay royalties on and have full control over - and which hasn't got the risk that if it takes off well, you end up having to pay more in royalties next time the licence comes up for renewal/review

Yeah that ain't happening. They've just invested heavily in getting the game back on its feet, they're not just going to drop it after doing that. Especially when they're ramping up the plastic kits with a new, much more in scale plastic Treebeard coming soon. Also, they just hired another member to the Middle-Earth team not long ago. Not really something to do if they're planning on shutting it down.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Olthannon wrote:

 Don Savik wrote:
I can't believe some people are still extremely salty about Age of Sigmar all these years later.

Considering it crashed a lot of people out of the hobby, the fact that it was a ludicrous thing to do and the fact that the replacement was a bizarro mockery of 40k fantasy of course people still hate it with a passion.

A ludicrous thing to do and yet its selling better than WHFB ever did and is in fact the best selling fantasy miniatures product line on the planet, whereas WHFB was playing second fiddle in sales to LotR for a number of years - even when LotR was post-peak and barely selling in and of itself.

Correlation and causation are not the same. Age of Sigmar may be more popular and selling better, but that does not automatically indicate the complete replacement of the WHFB lore and game was the right move or that it is the reason for its success in the first place, just that something within the situation overcame the problem of attracting new players. I doubt many of those new players started AoS because of reasoning along the lines of "they destroyed WHFB, finally I'm interested!" but rather it was a game that was actually getting new stuff and generating interest again, while overall being more accessible. Those changes could have been made to WHFB too. I'm not expecting this to be a complete return to what there was before, but it'll at least be interesting to see how this turns out and what that indicates about the lore-change side of the AoS initial fiasco being a good decision or not.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Your suggestion that maybe The Old World is being implemented because they are going to lose the LotR license is an interesting one though

I really don't see it.

WFB is coming back because it's a unique, established IP that the previous management squandered to the point of killing it off. If anything, it's AoS that'd be the product GW would like people to buy in case they can no longer sell LotR.

Which, really, isn't all that likely to happen. New Line isn't going to get a better deal on the licence (who's going to buy it, only to re-release at best comparable designs into a cold market? Anyone knows a company dumb enough?) and the costs are likely covered by the sales, so holding on and trickling out content is in GW's best interest.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Your suggestion that maybe The Old World is being implemented because they are going to lose the LotR license is an interesting one though

I really don't see it.

WFB is coming back because it's a unique, established IP that the previous management squandered to the point of killing it off. If anything, it's AoS that'd be the product GW would like people to buy in case they can no longer sell LotR.

Which, really, isn't all that likely to happen. New Line isn't going to get a better deal on the licence (who's going to buy it, only to re-release at best comparable designs into a cold market? Anyone knows a company dumb enough?) and the costs are likely covered by the sales, so holding on and trickling out content is in GW's best interest.

I fully agree it isn’t going anywhere.

But to answer the question, who would buy the license?
Mantic probably.
They love a good licensed game.

 Don Savik wrote:

Also nothing is stopping you from playing it. I still play Mordheim from time to time. Games get discontinued sometimes, that's just life.

edit: I guess I am just saying that harboring all that negative emotion all these years is bad for you. Reconcile and move on.

It's extremely good for me, it helps with my posture.
As you yourself said the post above, you don't know the older editions that well. But for a lot of people who played WHFB since the dawn of time AOS cut deep. I don't know if you know, but people love to harbour old grudges. Some people even write them down in a big book.

There's a huge audience who will absolutely spill cash on good fantasy, GW know that. AOS is just new Coke.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Olthannon wrote:

 Don Savik wrote:
I can't believe some people are still extremely salty about Age of Sigmar all these years later.

Considering it crashed a lot of people out of the hobby, the fact that it was a ludicrous thing to do and the fact that the replacement was a bizarro mockery of 40k fantasy of course people still hate it with a passion.

A ludicrous thing to do and yet its selling better than WHFB ever did and is in fact the best selling fantasy miniatures product line on the planet, whereas WHFB was playing second fiddle in sales to LotR for a number of years - even when LotR was post-peak and barely selling in and of itself.

Correlation and causation are not the same. Age of Sigmar may be more popular and selling better, but that does not automatically indicate the complete replacement of the WHFB lore and game was the right move or that it is the reason for its success in the first place, just that something within the situation overcame the problem of attracting new players. I doubt many of those new players started AoS because of reasoning along the lines of "they destroyed WHFB, finally I'm interested!" but rather it was a game that was actually getting new stuff and generating interest again, while overall being more accessible. Those changes could have been made to WHFB too. I'm not expecting this to be a complete return to what there was before, but it'll at least be interesting to see how this turns out and what that indicates about the lore-change side of the AoS initial fiasco being a good decision or not.

GW tried to make changes and revitalize the game for a decade - its actually really dumb to think they didn't or that there were still other viable options on the table that they could have exercised considering the costs involved with them not only abandoning all their past work and development but also the investment needed to launch the new game.

WFB is coming back because it's a unique, established IP that the previous management squandered to the point of killing it off.

Theres literally nothing unique about it, which is why countless knockoff minis from 3rd parties exist for it, and why I expect that whatever they do with The Old World is going to leave a lot of people unhappy that there is going to be some sort of major departure from the expectation of what these minis are supposed to look like.

If anything, it's AoS that'd be the product GW would like people to buy in case they can no longer sell LotR.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that audience interest is going to necessarily be channeled into AoS - the thematic and aesthetic jump from LotR to AoS is huge, the jump from LotR to The Old World is significantly smaller.

New Line isn't going to get a better deal on the licence (who's going to buy it, only to re-release at best comparable designs into a cold market? Anyone knows a company dumb enough?) and the costs are likely covered by the sales, so holding on and trickling out content is in GW's best interest.

Licensing isn't that clear cut or simple. It could be possible that New Lines license is sunsetting under the Tolkien estate and GW is going to lose the license regardless. Amazon is also apparently licensing the tv show from both the Tolkien estate AND New Line for its TV series (apparently Amazon is using production assets from the films to maintain visual consistency, etc. with the film universe, so its not a setting reboot but rather a continuation/spinoff of the settings), its possible that New Line would be receiving royalty checks from any game licensed under the Amazon license anyway, so in that sense New Line doesn't really even care - but that also indirectly makes the film license more valuable, which means GW may be asked to pony up more money to renew the license or lead another firm to more aggressively pursue the rights and outbid GW in the process (I could see Asmodee doing it, they already have the Marvel and Star Wars miniatures gaming licenses, they could always add LotR to the stable).

There's a huge audience who will absolutely spill cash on good fantasy, GW know that. AOS is just new Coke.

This comparison would be apt if new Coke was more financially successful than old Coke had ever been.

Lotr isn't going anywhere. It was dead about years ago from GWs side but they realized there's still a significant playerbase in some countries so they resurrected the game. If they kill the game it would be end times 2.0 at this point, driving players away. The Lotr Community would also probably rather move to a historic setting or just a different rulebook (Saga age of magic, for example is already pretty popular) than to Old World or AoS, the Design difference between those two Fantasy settings is already too large with the one being heroic high fantasy and the other one true scale low fantasy. Or they would do the same they did in the Kirby years, continue to play the game as usual but slowly dwindle because of the lack of support and limited availabality of models.

Will lizardmen be part of the old world since they have been on the planet for ages?

Sf

StarFyre wrote:
Will lizardmen be part of the old world since they have been on the planet for ages?

Sf

We don't know, but my guess is unlikely. The Old World isn't the name of the planet, its the name of a continent - and the lizardmen don't really ever go to that continent.

Here begins the runback of GWs big feth up.

 Don Savik wrote:

 Olthannon wrote:

 Don Savik wrote:
I can't believe some people are still extremely salty about Age of Sigmar all these years later.

Considering it crashed a lot of people out of the hobby, the fact that it was a ludicrous thing to do and the fact that the replacement was a bizarro mockery of 40k fantasy of course people still hate it with a passion.

It wasn't ludicrous to re-imagine a game that was costing them money. Old GW didn't know how to make people buy that game. It was too confusing and expensive for new players to get into. Could they have done it more gracefully? Sure, but that was during the time when old management of GW was still in charge.

And its not a mockery of 40k or fantasy, its just the difference between high fantasy and low fantasy in a setting. While obviously a difference in style for people, I don't think that warrants the amount of hatred it gets. Is it a bummer that people can't play their game because it got discontinued? Sure. Does that mean Age of Sigmar is a bad game? No.

Also nothing is stopping you from playing it. I still play Mordheim from time to time. Games get discontinued sometimes, that's just life.

edit: I guess I am just saying that harboring all that negative emotion all these years is bad for you. Reconcile and move on.

You're the one who stated "I can't believe some people are still extremely salty...". It's not like I go to sleep every night thinking about it, but yeah, it still pissed me off the way GW did it when someone brings it up.

At the time Fantasy died, I had been playing on and off for about 20 years and had unfinished armies that remain unfinished.

Fantasy was always my preferred game to 40k, preferring rank and file to skirmish games. AoS may be a perfectly fine skirmish game, I didn't really play it because I simply did not want another skirmish game. It could be the best skirmish game in the world, it doesn't matter because I was perfectly happy in my rank and file world.

The way GW did it was always going to piss a lot of people for a long time. They didn't just let Fantasy die off then stop selling it, they killed it. I don't blame GW for stopping support of Fantasy, but the way they did it was bad.

chaos0xomega wrote:
GW tried to make changes and revitalize the game for a decade - its actually really dumb to think they didn't or that there were still other viable options on the table that they could have exercised considering the costs involved with them not only abandoning all their past work and development but also the investment needed to launch the new game.

Very little was done in the few years prior to Fantasy's death, and the few things that were done in the years prior to that weren't well received. They made WHFB a very hard game to start, with very large armies becoming the norm it was getting prohibitively expensive and time consuming for new blood and my goodness were the rules far more complicated than they needed to be. I remember after a hiatus and getting back into the game after the new rulebook and even though I broadly knew how the game worked, it took us agggges to play flipping back and forth through several different books with many bookmarks needed by the end (unfortunately it was a game that was massively dominated by luck also, the side which made worse decisions won and the end result was the person we were introducing to the game got put off). Rules were overcomplicated and unnecessarily fragmented through multiple sections and IMO were far too luck based.

I agree Warhammer Fantasy wasn't as sexy as 40k for a long time before it died, but it's not like the Fantasy setting didn't have a lot of fans and potential at its death. Other companies would loved to have a world with so many pre-existing fans and potential.

If GW wanted WHFB to continue, they needed to rewrite the rules from scratch (even if it was in the same vein, they were just becoming bloated rules), start pushing a version of the game that worked well at a couple of hundred points, have a skirmish based offshoot game, trim down the range, and either redo or cull some of the old crusty models, and maybe start expanding the races to give existing players something new to buy.

I also think the random charge distance was horrible and reduced many games to winning or losing on 1 or 2 unlucky rolls, which definitely put me off in later years. It was brought in to stop people inching forward to stay out of charge distance, but something like a counter charge and bracing system would have worked a lot better than random movement distances.

Wouldn't it be something if they just released an Old-World-themed Monopoly?

(I'd still buy it, if the scale was correct)

 Don Savik wrote:

 Don Savik wrote:
I can't believe some people are still extremely salty about Age of Sigmar all these years later.

snip
edit: I guess I am just saying that harboring all that negative emotion all these years is bad for you. Reconcile and move on.

I can't believe people are still worried about other people disliking what they like. Thinking something is bad isn't in any way detrimental to your health, neither is expressing that opinion. Besides I highly doubt you are qualified to make that assessment, and even if you are you have no way of knowing.

How come it is so common that when someone criticises a thing (like a game) the fans of that thing start attacking the person/s that is critical?

Ill take it like my club owner said about the death of Fantasy....

Back in the days of 5th and even older editions, he could charge $100s for a full massive weekend campaign and fill every single slot. By 7th and 8th Edition he'd charge half as much and be unable to even fill up half. As he was told it wasn't the lore or armies that was the issue for players, it was the rules that pushed those out of playing the game. Back to back bad editions followed by a lack of new models save for at the tail end of 8th.

GW killed Fantasy already through their own incompetence and now when the average teenager knows more about the Old World then that of the Sigmarized one by large margins to the point of hilarity do they come crawling back. Most of my friends are versed in Total Warhammer or Vermintide, have played the old Rpg as well. I had to explain to them wtf AoS even was and all I've gotten was, "O they ported Marines to it." It's a sad fact as someone whom does like the game of AoS but it is real.

StarFyre wrote:Will lizardmen be part of the old world since they have been on the planet for ages?

Sf

There's no reason they shouldn't be, if the setting is picking up anywhere between the Fall Of The Old Ones and the End Times, Lizardmen have been there.

chaos0xomega wrote:

StarFyre wrote:
Will lizardmen be part of the old world since they have been on the planet for ages?

Sf

We don't know, but my guess is unlikely. The Old World isn't the name of the planet, its the name of a continent - and the lizardmen don't really ever go to that continent.

They've been to the Old World continent lots. By boat, by magic portal, or from the Southlands. No reason to discount 5hem out of hand, especially with all the other races that just pop in constantly.

I have some hope in this new system, that it will be them making things better for the players they divorced with the explosion of Fantasy but I also know what hope is the first step on as well. I'd love to be wrong however.

I expect the biggest change to be the usual GW scale increase.
20mm bases will be no more and move to 25mm, the 25mm squares will move to a new and trendy 32mm size square. Although GW will tell us it's the same scale as previously, the older models will probably look puny to encourage sales of new models. Who knows, they may even avoid 25mm squares to stop their models being used for Oathmark.

 BlackoCatto wrote:
... now when the average teenager knows more about the Old World then that of the Sigmarized one by large margins to the point of hilarity do they come crawling back. Most of my friends are versed in Total Warhammer or Vermintide, have played the old Rpg as well...

Hmm. While anecdotal, that is interesting. And I don't think there are many AoS computer games. It's not like GW is shy about licensing - it implies that The Old World still has a lot more brand recognition to appeal to computer game developers.

Total War 3 can't be that far off, surely?