AoS Played AOS (rant) warning: If you like AOS don't read

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Regardless, I do not think a game that necessitates fixing via house rules to create balance is a good way to relaunch/restart a product you already had, particularly one with thirty years behind it.

You're not alone in that line of thinking. I feel that the Age of Skidmark is a very poor substitute for Warhammer Fantasy.

 

[snikrit]

Well, we already have great skirmishing games to play. While 40k is no longer my cup of tea, it is still among many good skirmishing wargames (I will always miss those armories for starters).

However WHFB and 40k were always quite different, which only becomes more apparent if you ever ventured to play low fantasy games. AoS just wasn't necessary, even if fantasy sold less than space marines, there are avenues for promotion and easier access to new players GW just doesn't employ.

 

[Qupakoco]

Baseless, obviously, but nice that you have expressed them.

Just like AoS!! Baseless models would be superior, but it's nice to have them expressed

Great job keeping this as a civil argument everyone.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

A poll from Warseer:


Original post can be found here: http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?412998-How-has-AoS-changed-your-buying-habits

 

[Sleboda]

Yeeouch. I will have to pull up sales figures and press statements when I have some more time.

It was more of a reference to this bit and the like:

I highly doubt there was much consideration into making an actual game out of AoS, and I feel it is safe to say it shows. ... I just don't think you can really call AoS a game when a fundamental rule is: put your whole collection down. There is no meritin that system. ... GW has been trying to push models without consideration for their game systems for quite some time now...

Also

I do not think a game that necessitates fixing via house rules

Good thing it doesn't, then.

 

[Sleboda]

A poll from Warseer:

Too bad that poll is not taking into account the gamers not on Warseer...as in most of the target market for AoS.

We, the crusty veteran forum-going old timers mean almost zip to GW's data.

"oh noez! People we already wrote off don't like us! Whatever shall we do?"

 

[ASSASSIN_NR_1]

"oh noez! People we already wrote off don't like us! Whatever shall we do?"

Seems to me like a douchey move.

For some AOS might be the thing, but not for me, I want an army game, not a skirmish game, no matter what that skirmish game might be. Not saying skirmish games can't be good, but I personally don't think AOS is in that category, and it seems that poll agrees with me.

If AOS is the game for you Sleboda, that is great, but it just seems that for a big part of the community it is not really what they wanted.

Too bad that poll is not taking into account the gamers not on Warseer...as in most of the target market for AoS.

If it isn't for the existing player base, then who? I know of zero people who have gotten into the hobby by themselves. Besides GW is not exactly good at promoting, so the target audience will not even know that AOS exists, when GW has just annhihilated it's player base.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Too bad that poll is not taking into account the gamers not on Warseer...as in most of the target market for AoS.

We, the crusty veteran forum-going old timers mean almost zip to GW's data.

"oh noez! People we already wrote off don't like us! Whatever shall we do?"

True that the poll only shows a loss of interest among a more veteran group gamers, but it is still establishing a loss of income that was previously there. You state that this is not GW's target audience (with which I would agree) but you provide no evidence of them picking up sales from this new target audience they have focused on. So at the moment, we've established movement in the negative direction only. Those people that they "wrote off" still channeled money into their wallets.

AoS' financial success in comparison to WFB will come down to how much of a gain they can make in the new market vs. how much of a loss they'll take from the market they cast aside. AoS has a couple of pros and cons in this regard...

Cons

• GW does no real advertising with which to gather new players (I've heard they've gone to a few conventions, but these apparently did not go well for them)
• The existing player base which they cast aside will now likely recruit their friends to join other games by companies other than GW

Pros

• AoS is aimed at a more simple audience (and for the record I'm not stating that if you play AoS you are simple), but it is a less intellectually demanding game which targets a larger group of the general populace. This strategy has a proven track record which can be can be seen in the success of reality TV.
• AoS is admittedly far easier to get into and get started with

Ultimately the strategy could reap benefits, but it is risky none the less. GW has been bleeding its market shares to its competitors for quite some time now. Casting aside your current group of customers in hopes of replacing them with a larger more lucrative group is risky. A better strategy is to keep your customers while actively seeking out new ones.

In the end only time will tell how this turns out for them. Personally, I hope they crash and burn, but I acknowledge the possibility that this could still turn out positively for them.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

do not think a game that necessitates fixing via house rules

Good thing it doesn't, then.

Actually it does require it. AoS is virtually unplayable at anything beyond a child-like level without some sort of comp/balance system in place. Playing RAW AoS is about as fruitful as consuming paint chips.

 

[Mr Phat]

Regarding that poll.
I think its pretty important to remember that
"Have stopped all purchasing GW products" is pretty equal to "I stopped smoking"
.....since when? half a year? last month? a week? THIS HOUR?

In any case those who answered cant be said to have given up on it in total, as they bothered enough to go to the forum and vote.

 

[Mr Phat]

Actually it does require it. AoS is virtually unplayable at anything beyond a child-like level without some sort of comp/balance system in place. Playing RAW AoS is about as fruitful as consuming paint chips.

That is not an universal truth you know.
Whatever it requires it or not depends on what you expect of it.
I can see the fun in creating scenarios for you friends to beat, or the like.
Its just not what I PERSONALLY expect from AoS, and thats why "I" need Houserules for it to work.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

In any case those who answered cant be said to have given up on it in total, as they bothered enough to go to the forum and vote.

Never underestimate the power of rage!


"The priest fell silent as Mazdamundi's corpulent bulk shifted upon the dias. 'The Great Plan has failed,' the slann intoned heavily. 'The Exodus must begin.'" ~The End Times, Volume 1~

Perhaps the Exodus he was referring to was players leaving GW for games produced by other companies!

 

[Mr Phat]

HAHAH! I had that thought too!

Of course in THEIR minds it means that THEY are leaving the OLD way behind that "didnt work" for something "better".

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Actually it does require it. AoS is virtually unplayable at anything beyond a child-like level without some sort of comp/balance system in place. Playing RAW AoS is about as fruitful as consuming paint chips.

That is not an universal truth you know.
Whatever it requires it or not depends on what you expect of it.
I can see the fun in creating scenarios for you friends to beat, or the like.
Its just not what I PERSONALLY expect from AoS, and thats why "I" need Houserules for it to work.

For the record I did not say that AoS was completely unplayable without a comp or balance system, I said it wasn't playable at anything beyond a child-like level. It would like you and I having a race, but we start at different times, travel in different directions, travel different distances and use different modes of transport; all unbeknownst to the other . Then one of us is declared a winner. It's pretty much pointless and would grow tiresome very quickly.

 

[Sleboda]

If AOS is the game for you Sleboda, that is great, but it just seems that for a big part of the community it is not really what they wanted.

I think my point is getting glossed over. "The Community" is really not on GW's mind. "The Community" was not relevant enough or strong enough to make Warhammer financially viable.

GW is a public company. What is more douchy, to sink more stockholder value into a small, losing proposition or to cut that small bit of diseased flesh away and make something new that will benefit the stockholders?

Were I still a stockholder, I'd be disappointed if they kept throwing good money after bad.

 

[Sleboda]

Ultimately the strategy could reap benefits, but it is risky none the less.

The risk of a new idea or venture has gotta be better than the certainty of the collapse and final death of an old one entirely, right?

If you believe the rumors (and I do in this case) GW was on the verge of cutting fantasy gaming entirely because this oh so awesome community of ours simply wasn't worth the effort.

 

[Mr Phat]

If you believe the rumors (and I do in this case) GW was on the verge of cutting fantasy gaming entirely because this oh so awesome community of ours simply wasn't worth the effort.

Thats what I have come to believe as true also.
Its a bad business really.
Too many models going between second hands, year old models waiting to be sold in the stores.
Its common sense.
While I believe they COULD have taken other measures to revive it (the End Times did fantastic as far as I am informed)
Age of Sigmar is actually an attempt of damage control to NOT letting the community down.

 

[Sleboda]

Actually it does require it. AoS is virtually unplayable at anything beyond a child-like level without some sort of comp/balance system in place. Playing RAW AoS is about as fruitful as consuming paint chips.

Sorry, man, but not only us that insulting, it's just not true. I understand you don't like the game, and that it does not suit the purpose you want it to, but I'm playing some good, fun, grown up games straight up with the only "comp" being the eyeball test.

Btw, the eyeball test vs points system seems to result in pretty much the same level of balance. Sometimes you get funky matchups with either one, but things are roughly close enjoy to enjoy and chalk them up to crazy moments.

EDIT: I will add this though. If you are saying it's not a good game for tournaments, I agree 100%. Then again, it's not tying to be one.

 

[ASSASSIN_NR_1]

You Sleboda has some good argumenst, but I have to go with NIGHTBRINGER. That is just how I feel about AOS, and just an opinion.

"The Community" was not relevant enough or strong enough to make Warhammer financially viable.

The risk of a new idea or venture has gotta be better than the certainty of the collapse and final death of an old one entirely, right?

Which is mostly GW's own fault, as I see it. Why would the AOS community be strong enough?

I do believe GW could have saved WHFB, but they have, for as long as I have played the game, done a marhlect job of promoting their games.

Sorry, man, but not only us that insulting, it's just not true. I understand you don't like the game, and that it does not suit the purpose you want it to, but I'm playing some good, fun, grown up games straight up with the only "comp" being the eyeball test.

From my perspective there might be something about what you say here, but (you knew it was coming) I think it is a much simpler game than WHFB and not in the best way, as, from my perspective, much of the depth is gone, and there is not much personalizing (at least compared to WHFB) making the whole game more simple, and effectively making it so that you cannot surprise your opponent that way.
With that said I won't say that there are no tactics at all, but it seems to have been toned down severely compared to WHFB.

I think we should just agree to disagree, and say that it is a game for You Sleboda and others, but that it is certainly not for all, and have taken away a lot of the things that made WHFB the game I (and other WHFB "loving" minds) like.

 

[Sleboda]

Which is mostly GW's own fault, as I see it. Why would the AOS community be strong enough?

I meant the Warhammer community. The AoS community is not really a thing yet and may never be. I suspect GW would prefer it If future "communities" were limited to the kids on your block.

I do miss the surprises you mentioned. Customisation was fun, even if 90% of the time the same item combos were taken.

I loved WFB, and would have preferred for it to stick around. I like it better than AoS, but then again, AoS is so different that it's not really a fair comparison.

A better comparison would be to Kings of War. I will be playing KoW as my ranks and blocks, point value, competitive game - my replacement for Warhammer. I'll be playing AoS when I want the models on the table to be more important than the rules that govern them.