Admiral:
A stop to folly sorely needed, with GW’s fantasy sales having entered an age of sinking. A standard game is indeed useful, especially since you can expect to find some people playing the big game wherever you move. At least on the small Swedish scene, 9th Age has taken over completely as far as I know.
Doombeard:
Hopefully this will draw back some of the old players to use AoS as an additional rule set.I hope not, I'm perfectly happy with the new crowd. There's a nice air of positivity and progressiveness on the AOS Facebook Groups.
Dînadan
Anyone still doubting that AoS has been a financial desaster for GW?Got any proof of that? You on the board of Execs? Same old story from the haters
Firehammer
Bitterman:
Got any proof of that? You on the board of Execs? Same old story from the hatersWell, they've just flipped a 180 on one of the defining features of AoS - no points - so perhaps the onus is on you to give reasons why you think it might be doing well?
Doombeard
You can all criticize all you want, but the fact is in the last few weeks we've seen more positive engagement from GW with AOS than we ever did with WFB in its dying yearsMaybe if they'd shown that positive engagement before, WHFB wouldn't have been "dying", and GW wouldn't have killed it.
Doombeard:
The reasons I think its doing well is because every day my Facebook feed is filled up with posts by people saying the same thing, they are new players looking for advice on what army to get started with. I’ve seen for example a LOT of kids, including plenty of girls and young folk from non gaming backgrounds entering into the hobby at a grass roots level and older players for example crossing over from 40k. Amy Snuggs is a great example of the new breed of AOS talent bursting onto the scene!
All of these people are entering painting logs and posting photos of armies they are building up, maybe if you join some of the Facebook AOS groups I suggested earlier in the thread or listen to some of the podcasts you will get a taste for this burgeoning community.
And then to make a fair comparison, maybe instead of comparing to WFB which had about 30 years of growth compare it to the number of players playing WFB 1st edition, and then look at how much WFB 1st ed grew exponentially up until its final edition , and then apply that same growth curve to the current number of people playing AOS in 30 years time, and I think you would possibly get something outnumbering it 10 to 1 or 100 to 1. Nowadays with Social Media to help galvanize and web marketing, not to mention the already existing Fantasy market they built up over the years, its had a much stronger start to life than WFB 1st Ed, maybe not reaching the same numbers they’d hoped for or projected, (and who knows why?) but that’s a story for another day.
I don’t agree with the having no points being a defining feature of AOS, not at all, that is only a defining feature created by people who have complained about the lack whereof, who are unable to take a step back look at it from a non-comparable progressive viewpoint. You can define it however you want right? The pessimist among us would define it by what its missing or lacks, or if you are more of a glass half full kind of guy you could see through to ways around that or progressive new ways of playing.
Sure you can wave your finger at bi-annual reports saying no growth reported, or say only one sixth of the stock has sold, but when you plant an acorn and you go back to the tree in a few years, you don’t measure that tree’s success based on its height and impressiveness and upward growth, you measure its success based on the strength of its roots, as they are the thing which anchors it to the ground, and keeps it standing in storms and feeds it water , what I feel and my argument would be is that GW are laying a foundation and you nor I nor any financial report or ‘inside source’ can really say how well its doing until we have the benefit of hindsight in several years time.
So until then, grab a drink, put some music on get out your paintbrushes and credit card, and buckle up for the ride because AOS is going to some interesting new places and it’s going to be quite a journey!
cornixt:
It just looks like GW is backtracking on everything.
Engaging with fans rather than denying there are problems and shutting them down, and reinstituting a points system rather than saying it is all just for fun - might be seen as desperation rather than just trying to do a positive thing. Whatever the cause, they need to find their feet quickly or the system may end up dying as a proper large open-ended game. If it fails, I could see it devolving into a smaller limited system like Necromunda with periodic updates, which is probably where it would have stayed in the first place if they hadn’t killed off Warhammer to replace it with AoS.
Doombeard:
Or if you look at it another way, maybe the priority was to ditch the competitive gaming stratosphere first and hit the reset button, making sure that the list builders and competitive WFB players were not the priority and placed at the bottom of the pile and placing that last on the list of importance, in the hope it doesnt spoil the game again.
Why is introducing a points system suddenly backtracking? Its backtracking because everybody moaned about it not having one when it first came out in comparison to WFB? MTG doesnt have a points system, are you going to hate on that too? Is it backtracking because a GW rep stood up and said “OK This is AOS, this is how it is folks, it doesn’t have a points system and is going to stay that way, forever infact, and its never ever going to develop or change” Or do you look at it as, the starter set is teaching new players the most important rule, just have fun and don’t worry about endless list building, but concentrate on having an actually enjoyable gaming experience?
I think its a fairly narrow minded view to expect AOS to not grow and develop and change a lot over the years as it is such a hollow framework started from scratch, the possibilities are endless. Thats the whole point, a hollow framework built to allow adaptability.
Its like working in a really old company, 30 years old, which has defined everything which is so good about all you love, for so many years (right??!!) - the way their pipeline is set up in this big old computer based design company , its so old, and they’ve been doing things the same way for so long (because they are the BEST at doing it and it JUST works) , but they are limited by that pipeline and restricted because its so archaic , whilst its really good, it cant be changed or adapted to new technology or concepts, like a really big slow ship, it can’t just change its course and turn quickly this way and that because of its large hulking leviathan nature.
Opposed to that you have a younger company that has more of a modern pipeline, which allows more of a hollow framework, for which to be adaptable with and versatile and change to market demands and to change this way and that, and go wherever it wants without being restricted.
Which one of these ships is going to be more attractive to younger and progressive type of people, risk takers, people with less invested, casual and liberal and free and going to visit more interesting places, and which type of ship is more for old people wanting to go on an aged old pleasure cruise, complete with dated cabaret act, buffet and average age being over 40+, just going on the same old route, full of patrons who are more conservative and want ‘old faithful’ and surety and to pay for a package deal and know things work and know what port is coming up next and which direction the compass is pointing.
Its not to say which way is the right or wrong way, but a hollow adaptable framework is much more appealing to me than being ushered down a one way dead ended alley which is sadly what WFB turned into.
Dînadan:
How many of those new players stick around Doombeard? It’s all well and good saying you get ten new people in the group per week, but if nine of those don’t keep it up and three existing players drop out at the same time, then that doesn’t bode well.
Also, just because you have seen a growth of players in the group’s you’re a member of, doesn’t mean that AoS is doing well overall as I doubt every single player has joined those groups so it’s unlikely that you are getting a clear indication of the overall player base.
The problem with comparing it to first ed Fantasy is that that’s not exactly a perfect comparison as Fantasy didn’t give the proverbial finger to an existing system or setting. The point of AoS, aside from IP protection allegedly, was to reenergise the Fanatsy consumer base for GW, so an indication of growth needs to be based on how many new players it’s drawn in and how many stick around compared to how many they lost. Only a fool can say that AoS wasnt tainted by its replacing Fantasy - the alienation of many of the existing customers is what has lead to it getting a bad rep rather than it standing or falling by its own merits and flaws.
And I disagree with you - points free was a major thing highlighted when it was first released. And how can you say it’s not a defining feature when that is something that has set it apart from most of the games GW have produced and that there hasn’t been any facility for points play outside of homebrewed stuff? I’m not saying that a system needs points to be good, I doubt any of us here truely believe that, but the point remains that the lack of points was a key feature that set AoS apart and thE fact that GW are now introducing a points system shows a change in direction. And as I’ve said, it’s really something they should have had from the start to ease the transition for the old guard.
And as for your comments on the old guard, that makes you sound as bad as the rabid anti-AoSers. As a defender of the system, you should be trying to show off why you think it’s great, not all but going f**k you to anyone who thinks otherwise. Even with a points system, the rabid haters aren’t likely to be drawn to it, but it could drawn back the moderates and those who are just upset over the destruction of something they loved, and that can only be a good thing as they were the sort who were positive about Fantasy even while other were moaning and hating it. Their positivity and experience can only be a boon to AoS and if anything means that there’s more likely to be an influx of new blood as instead of them warning them away they’ll be talking positively about it and hyping it. But I doubt you’ll see it that way considering your comment 
Dînadan:
The comparison to MTG is a poor example. I’m not an expert, but I’m fairly sure that you can’t just turn up with a million cards against someone who only has a starter set. You can turn up with an extensively tested and min-maxed deck but you’ll still have restrictions (and like the broken combos that you can make with AoS, you’ll be mocked and derided for such a move, but it’s still not as bad as bringing a million cards).
And why do you have to clear away the list builders and what not? This new approach shows that you can cater to all markets. If it was just a case of seeing to casual play first, then all that was needed was to have the rules focus on those and have points play be a foot note until after books based around free play and narrative play have been produced and pushed for their novelty. And to be honest points players are probably where a large share of profit lies along with narrative play; free play is good for introducing people by getting them to buy whatever looks cool, but they’re only going to be doing that, buying the odd thing that looks cool. Same with existing players who will only be buying because it means they get to use stuff that they couldn’t due to the restrictions of points play, but few are going to be buying loads (most would probably only be buying stuff to keep on playing WHFB). Points players on the other hand, if they’re min-maxers/waac/etc will always be buying whatever gives them the edge so will be buying in bulk whatever the latest metta is, so will be bringing in large influxes of profit which can be used to support projects for casual players. Similarly a large profit can be made from narrative players as they buy everything needed for the narrative campaign, but they probably number fewer than either free play players or points play players.
Quite frankly the attitude some (note, some, not all) AoS players have towards points play, the old guard, etc is just as toxic to the hobby as the rabid anti-AoS crowd. This hobby should strive to be inclusive and open to all ways of playing, not snubbing people for enjoying a different way of playing just because extremists of that way abused that way’s system.
Skink:
Easy there chaps, there’s no need to get personal. Dammit, you make me wish I hadn’t commented on the new Orc models now.
Firehammer:
1.) What Skink just posted.
2.) Tom Kirby is on the board. And he thinks the best way to protect GW IP is to blow it up … and that doubling prices is the solution to all revenue problems, so being a board member is no indication of being informed or competent. But as said above, turning 180 degrees on most of Tom Kirby’s crazy decisions is a hint … and of course the financial reports with total revenue flat for 10 years, including the doubling of prices, in a growing market.
3.) As any Magic-player knows, the game certainly HAS a point cost system called Mana (and certain restrictions called formats: Standard, Commander, legacy, Vintage, Casual, …).
4.) I am glad that there are some people having fun with the game, believe me, even if I haven’t met any personally. In my area, three or four bought the starter set and then went on to other things. Veterans didn’t bother at all.
5.) And Warhammer didn’t just die, it was killed by GW in several steps. When Warhammer was at its peak, GW had a facebook page, an official GW Forum, had FAQ input and test players from the community, official GW tournaments and painting contests, Game Days, a White Dwarf with content worth collecting, staffed GW-stores and FLGSs with demo-games, supported fan-websites (until hunted down by GW lawyers) … and the pricing was cheaper than todays “discounted” offers (starter boxes at 60$, army books 20$, 16 troops for 30$). So don’t tell me, that all those things were invented in AoS times.
BTW if you want to know why Tom Kirby blew up Warhammer Fantasy, google about the GW vs. Chapterhouse lawsuit in USA, a complex story providing deep insights on how the higher GW management thinks. That’s the point at which GW snapped from lazy to crazy. Roundtree now tries to repair one mess after the other, being a rational man and seeing the numbers.
Admiral:
…for wasting millions on a lawsuit against a company producing conversion kits requiring their customers to first purchase GW kits was such a splendid idea… Yes, Chapterhouse lawsuit is pivotal to understand the actions of Games Workshop nowadays.
Still, whenever their senses return from the IP fever, I hope there’ll be a place for both AoS and WHFB.
Timothy Archer:
The comparison to MTG is a poor example. I'm not an expert, but I'm fairly sure that you can't just turn up with a million cards against someone who only has a starter set. You can turn up with an extensively tested and min-maxed deck but you'll still have restrictions (and like the broken combos that you can make with AoS, you'll be mocked and derided for such a move, but it's still not as bad as bringing a million cards).Come on Dinadan are you not tired to twist the things all the time , AOS players are crazy because you are making fun of everything they are having fun with , those AOS players were Warhammer players yesterday and they loved it, and they still love it , don't try to make them tell something else because this is just in your mind...
And why do you have to clear away the list builders and what not? This new approach shows that you can cater to all markets. If it was just a case of seeing to casual play first, then all that was needed was to have the rules focus on those and have points play be a foot note until after books based around free play and narrative play have been produced and pushed for their novelty. And to be honest points players are probably where a large share of profit lies along with narrative play; free play is good for introducing people by getting them to buy whatever looks cool, but they're only going to be doing that, buying the odd thing that looks cool. Same with existing players who will only be buying because it means they get to use stuff that they couldn't due to the restrictions of points play, but few are going to be buying loads (most would probably only be buying stuff to keep on playing WHFB). Points players on the other hand, if they're min-maxers/waac/etc will always be buying whatever gives them the edge so will be buying in bulk whatever the latest metta is, so will be bringing in large influxes of profit which can be used to support projects for casual players. Similarly a large profit can be made from narrative players as they buy everything needed for the narrative campaign, but they probably number fewer than either free play players or points play players.
Quite frankly the attitude some (note, some, not all) AoS players have towards points play, the old guard, etc is just as toxic to the hobby as the rabid anti-AoS crowd. This hobby should strive to be inclusive and open to all ways of playing, not snubbing people for enjoying a different way of playing just because extremists of that way abused that way's system.
Dînadan
Bitterman:
The reasons I think its doing well is because every day my Facebook feed is filled up with posts by people saying the same thingWell, yes, AoS Facebook groups probably will have a fair amount of AoS activity. That's fairly tautological. Use this forum as a sample and you'd probably conclude Chaos Dwarfs are the most popular army in any game ever. I'm not really sure what that means for the wider scheme of things, though. All the wider scale evidence we have access to (not least of which, GW's own behaviour; what other wargames make big changes to the core rules less than a year after release?) paints a different picture.
Doombeard
Sure you can wave your finger at bi-annual reports saying no growth reportedYeah, fair point, it is ridiculous to go around bringing facts into things. :~
cornixt:
Why is introducing a points system suddenly backtracking? Its backtracking because everybody moaned about it not having one when it first came out in comparison to WFB?Because they said it wasn't going to have one, and it didn't. Now it will. That's backtracking.
Doombeard
Which one of these ships is going to be more attractive to younger and progressive type of people, risk takers, people with less invested, casual and liberal and free and going to visit more interesting places, and which type of ship is more for old people wanting to go on an aged old pleasure cruise, complete with dated cabaret act, buffet and average age being over 40+, just going on the same old route, full of patrons who are more conservative and want 'old faithful' and surety and to pay for a package deal and know things work and know what port is coming up next and which direction the compass is pointing.Which one was successful and disbanded, and which one wasn't successful and is slowly turning into the old system?
Doombeard
Dînadan:
Did you actually read my posts Timothy? At no point have I attacked AoS. I have never bullied anyone for liking AoS. If you had bothered to actually read what I’ve said you’d see that I’m supportive of AoS fans being able to express their sentiments. I am not persecuting you, despite what you may think. My point is that AoS was tainted by how GW handled its introduction and that gave it an unfair rap in the eyes of many; I have always maintained that if GW had handled things better then it would have been given a fairer hearing. Please read my posts and Doombeard’s - he is the one screaming about how anyone who likes points should go away and leave AoS alone even though the inclusion of points no more impacts him than the option to play without points impacts point players.
And I didn’t say you need to earn it, I said there’s no need for it at present. I said that unless the forum gets overwhelmed and it’s hard to tell what thread relates to what system, then AoS threads can just be posted in the general Chaos Dwarf or General Wargames boards as appropriate. My point was that we have a General Wargames forum, not a seperate forum for each and every system, so until it becomes impractical, there’s no reason why AoS threads can’t go in the same section as WHFB threads (eg see a new CD mini, then post it in the general CD forum. See a new elf mini, post it in the general Wargames forum, just like you would have done before AoS came out, etc).
And just because I don’t like the minis doesn’t mean I’m a rabid hater. Go and actually re read what I’ve posted on the minis, let’s take the recent Orc release. When the first blurry pics appeared I said I didn’t like them but was willing to wait for clearer pics before passing judgement and that I thought that the paint scheme didn’t help. When clearer pics surfaced I said I liked them with a few modifications and that the pics of a different paint scheme indicated that the chosen yellow was probablably what was making people think they looked like space marines. At this time I also said I rather liked the shaman and the wyvern. When the pre-orders went up with pics from different angles I said I liked the idea behind the choice to have no armour on their backs but that the execution was lacking and spoiled the look for me. I also said that the pics of old minis in the new scheme proved that it was the new scheme, not the sculpts which. I also reiterated that the wyvern was nice and that it’d be good to convert into a lamasuu. NONE of that is rabid hatred, it’s taking an objective view and saying "I like X about these minis, but not Y."
You seem to have mistaken any statement that is not “OMG this is teh amazeballs” for a rabid attack on AoS; you’re like a political extremist who’s screaming that they’re being pursecuted just because a law that doesn’t agree with their political/religious/etc view has been passed even though theyre not. I’m willing to bet if I posted the same things on a AoS haters forum I’d be screamed at for being some dumb kid for liking AoS. And just to make it clear for you, I’m not calling you that, just saying what a rabid AoS-hater would call me just because I dont show equal hatred for the system.
So far, posts by both you and Doombeard have been very anti-anyone who doesn’t love AoS. If you want to be shown respect, then please chill yourselves and don’t interpret everyone who has a different opinion as attacking you or AoS, because as I said, it’s you who is turning things toxic.
It is wrong to baselessly attack AoS, and wrong to tell AoS lovers that they’re doing things wrong, but by the same measure it’s wrong to claim you’re being attacked when someone has just voiced an opinion that they don’t like an aspect of AoS or dislike an AoS mini. Heck, I’m sure there are countless AoS fanboys who also don’t like some of the new minis, the paint scheme GW has presented them in and so forth.
This site is better if we all get along. That means that people shouldn’t go off on rants about how much they hate AoS or troll AoS threads. But at the same time it also means that people of neutral positions shouldn’t be branded as haters and returning players shouldn’t be told to get lost and never return just because they prefer a different way of playing. In fact you’ll probably have more converts by playing nice with them - let them come for points but stay for free play and narrative play.
Firehammer:
Which one of these ships is going to be more attractive to younger and progressive type of people, risk takers, people with less invested, casual and liberal and free and going to visit more interesting placesX-Wing? ;)
Doombeard
Thommy H:
The one thing I dislike about Age of Sigmar, as a business decision, is that it turned basically every online Warhammer community into a raging trash fire that never seems to go out. It’s pretty sad. The same half-dozen arguments going around and around and around, the same two entrenched camps, generally the same people popping up to make the same snide comments in every single thread. Here, Warseer, Dakka…other places, I’m sure. I should try to get into that Facebook scene everyone tells me about, except I can’t log into FB without having to wade through people I went to school with fifteen years ago posting semi-literate racist rants.
The future is weird.
Dînadan:
You can always block those people and not have to deal with them*
*this poster shall not be held accountable for any real life fall out that comes from following this advice. Of course you’re probably better off without them in your life anyway so…
Firehammer:
Comments by Warseer’s rumour legend (and friend) 75hastings69:
AoS is selling worse than WFB did, it’s popularity is much lower, if GW don’t reach out and get someone to start buying/playing do you think GW will support AoS for very long if it is actually making them less money than WFB did???I have been in the “rumour posting business” for years on Warseer and Dakka, and I learnt to trust Hastings blindly.
That’s what this 3 ways to play is all about, they have got to try and appeal to a bigger market, because the market they selected (picked at random) is not spending enough money. Hence the very very early warning to sharholders despite having 2 very popular launches (BaC and DW:O) AND some well received 40k releases… this should at least be some kind of indication of how much AoS tanked even for the most ardent fan of it.They aren’t changing it, they are adding options as they have been doing since the game was released. I’m not saying you’re wrong by the way but you’re so desperately hateful of GW that your opinion is not worth that much anymore on its own I’m afraid.That is fine, I will accept “additions”. But don’t think these “additions” are because the player base wants them. These are necessary to try and win back/actually get some form of customer base for their fantasy IP.
My annoyance is the fact that people are like “yay GW are awesome for bringing back points” whilst conveniently forgetting they actually removed them in the first place.
(…)
Indeed, I posted it in a thread where someone claimed it was performing better in other parts of the world, when in actual fact it isn’t. It’s selling badly worldwide. I got that info directly from my sources that people have been happy to trust before (with things like execution force, Betrayal at Calth etc.) yet the news of poor sales of AoS - even when backed up with lots of details that can be linked (shareholder warning despite other good launch products, GWs fantasy dropping totally out of the top selling games worldwide, the division of the previous fanbase even just on warseer should at least be some indication that around 80% of previous GW fantasy “fans” are not onboard with AoS etc. etc.) seems hard for some people to accept. Bizarre.I’m curious how badly? Also do the sources have any idea what GW will do if AoS is cancelled?Badly enough to change the “rules” and offer several ways to play within a year of launch
As myself and Harry spoke about around 3- 4 years ago at one point WFB was going to be dropped altogether, in fact let’s be honest apart from a large part the model range getting new namez it has been in all reality.
I imagine the same fate will befall AoS. Then GW will finally be the one trick pony that Kirby wanted them to be, and that will be his legacy to the tabletop gaming community, the destruction of a once great, innovative and fun quality tabletop wargames manufacturer into a company that lives by the tendering out of its Space Marine IP to IoS game manufacturers, that produces expensive monopose plastic models for a setting that no one feels any investment in, a company that GAVE it’s competitors the opportunity to pick up the things that GW deemed surplus and not making enough money and allowed them to build their own fanbase, a company that though it knew better what it’s customers wanted than they did themselves, a company that thought it was actually a plus point to tell investors that they did no market research. That is what I imagine will happen.
Of course now we have three ways to play Age of Sigmar it will all be fine
(…)
Normally new systems get a sales spike, and last a few years, not require change inside of a year to try and broaden the appeal. This is not the fault of AoS though, moreso the lack of an original target audience. It wasn’t intended for the existing fantasy crowd as they weren’t buying enough, yet no research was done as to who would buy such a product, and even worse no external advertising was done to bring in any new blood, they were effectively advertising the product to a market of existing customers who they had just lost well over half of.
(…)
By the way for those asking I do not have information on how other products sold or why this or why that, I will happily share with you all the two things I was implicitly told:-
1/ WFB was still making profit before end times, just not as much as some people would have liked. This is kind of ironic because IMO the reasons it didn’t make more profit is it was largely put on the back burners behind anything that had power armour (i.e. space marines/40k) - and I guess because of popularity that is understandable. And the cost of entry. However the making cost of entry so high is directly the fault of GW, the costs per army towards the end of WFB were beyond crazy, a small unit (one of many in an army) costing between 50 -100gbp is just crazy when there are so many alternatives out there. What is even more unforgiveable and moronic is that there would have been an easier fix to boost sales of WFB, release an entry level/skirmish game, get people buying the very same models you already sell for WFB but in smaller numbers, you’ve already paid for the development so any extra sales add to profit. Then once people have built a small force under skirmish rules let them add to it for the main WFB, they’ll have spent the same amount of money (if not a little more when you take into account the cost of the skirmish game) but it wouldn’t be in one big stupid hit!
2/ Sales of AoS are poor, and it doesn’t have a strong sales/customer base anywhere world wide. In some countries it is all but dead already, in others there is a small and slowly growing community, however these are not near the levels WFB had before it was decided to be scrapped (and this means sales BEFORE end times spike). The reception of the game from the wider community has been overwhelmingly negative, from the ruleset, to the background material.
Doombeard:
The one thing I dislike about Age of Sigmar, as a business decision, is that it turned basically every online Warhammer community into a raging trash fire that never seems to go out. It's pretty sad. The same half-dozen arguments going around and around and around, the same two entrenched camps, generally the same people popping up to make the same snide comments in every single thread. Here, Warseer, Dakka...other places, I'm sure. I should try to get into that Facebook scene everyone tells me about, except I can't log into FB without having to wade through people I went to school with fifteen years ago posting semi-literate racist rants.Yeah I think on that note I'm retiring, don't have time for arguing on forums. I'll be over on the AOS Chaos Dwarf page, the Age of Sigmar NZ page and the other AOS Facebook forums, good luck everyone its been a pleasure over the years watching your CD hobby, maybe I'll check back in the future but for now I have too much on. Hope everyone continues to play whatever version of WH they enjoy! Peace!
The future is weird.
Thommy H
