Again I ask the question, Is GW going full DRAT??

[nightlord]

I have to ask the questions. I mean if anyone is old enough to remember that Warhammer was GWs first main game. I remember when they went main stream the wall was covered in Warhammer, warhammer 4ok(rogue trader) , and epic (Space Marine). And over the years GW had many FUN spin off games. Space hulk, Necromunda, Manowar, Bommers over the sulpha river.(Mehh) Hero Quest. And im sure several more I cant remember right now.

Then recently Warhammers 30th Anniversary came up and WHAMM. Warhammer as we know it is gone. We now have Age of Sigmar. WTF!!! The last time GW completely redid a rules system this drastic was EPIC to EPIC 40k. And look what happened. Its a dead game system.

Look around and see other games systems that went through this same idea of major rules changes. Wizkids Mech warrior clicks ; Dead. Epic (titan legions) Space Marine; dead. Dust; Nearly dead.
Battle Tech(originally Battle Droids); Dead, revamped, died again.

Now lets go back, Warhammer had several hard backed army books all ready released. Several armies were waiting to be released again. And Age of Sigmar replaces it on its 30th anniversary.

Guess what??!! Warhammer 40k 25th anniversary is coming soon. Are we to see the same thing happen to the last great game left on the map???!!!

And will Khaine slip into the realm of Chaos and Kill Slaanesh too???!!!

[Gene Williamson]

I feel your pain.. I been a serious GW collector since the early 90s; For the first time in my life I completely shut down buying anything from them.
It wasn't the prices (though they are getting outrageous), it was the way they handled their business. They released codexs that seemed incomplete and expect you to spend $60+ on them.. Look at the last few codexs /army books for 40k; they are basically reprints or like the Harlequin and two Mech Adept; a lot of fluff but only about 10 pages of rules that could been on two.
Everyone that likes Age of Sigmar complains that the people that don't like it hasn't tired the game yet.. I have played a number of games and watched even more. My stance still stays.. Like standard GW today.. Get it out the door management; the game feels incomplete.. I don't mind the simplified rules; or the silly rules, what gets me is the no point values.. If they wanted to keep it simple each unit could have a number and color.. some type of balance system.
About every game around me.. you could look at the table and wager which side would win before the game started..
I don't know any more.. Unless they do something amazing Games Workshop will need to find someone else to help pay their bills

[pretre]

Pretty sure 40k 25th already came and went.

[3eland]

I like AoS. More than whfb actually (although we still play it on occasion).

We play an assortment of systems from AoS, 40k, malifaux (recent), infinity, warmahordes, boardgames and videogames (yeah we LAN party it up sometimes or play multiplayer games from home).

On a good week we all meet up on the weekend to play. So we have time for longer games. On a bad week we meet up on a weeknight and only have approx. 4 hours to play. We usually have 3-5 people each game night (small I know) and I am the only one with two tables (we move from house to house so not one person is always the host) so it makes it hard to have two huge games going at once.

Aos is nice for this. Its quick to set up and gives us the fantasy style play of the old world. We are all good friends so there is no... "That guy" stuff... And our games of AoS usually go to turn 4-5. Sure sometimes there is a match up that sees the game end early but as "unbalanced" and "not well written" as the internet claims it to be, we find we have more fun than 40k or whfb.

We also play with the book missions and, like I said previously, no one is a jerk and brings "broken" stuff so our experience with it has been positive.

That and I love the Stormcast Eternals. Reminds me of the gods from immortal (awesome movie).

One of the lfgs says AoS sells better than 40k. The other says its about the same.

I understand a lot of people hate gw for what they did. And I agree it is nothing like whfb. But that is kind of the point. Personally if there is anyone to blame, it is the players.

Ever since I started playing, all I ever see is gw whine. People saying that whfb isn't balanced or that one army is superior than another (woc and helf vs orcs as an example). They complain that the rules are too much (115 page rule book anyone?) Or that the army books are too expensive. They complained that getting a decent force was too expensive (my buddy wanted to start vamp counts and the list he wanted for a 2k army was over a thousand dollars....). Complain this, complain that. The "vets" were no longer buying since they had everything other than the new shiny kit here and there. They weren't getting enough from whfb to keep it going.

So, gw decided to change it up. They introduced a simple rule game that required the use of any previously bought model. Games can be played with however many models you have. They got rid of the army books and made everything free.

And what happened?

Sure a majority got mad and left. But from my own experience and from talking to the flgs' and the other communities around my area, AoS has gotten big and people are buying.

Want to run a demigryphon army with griffon leader? Sure!

Want to run purely beasts? Why not!

Want to run a mixture of armies in a grand scheme of battle? Go for it!

The "vets" I have spoken with have bought more since AoS dropped than they did in the 5 years before it (total). Many people play with their children now (not saying you couldn't before but with 100+ pages of rules it made it hard) and love sharing their hobby with their young ones.

I'm not saying AoS is for everyone or that it was meant for everyone. They lost a large portion of players sure, but they are getting a lot more new ones.

Its too soon to tell how AoS is going to do. The large majority of people willing to express themselves online are all negative (I can only say this from the Facebook group I'm in and warseer) bcz those who try to show their support are put down, called "brainwashed" or "gw fan boys" and so they keep quiet.

I was called that once. I was told "maybe you should go play a real game sometimes". Okay. I've played (or still play) whfb, 40k, mordhiem, necromunda, inquisitor, malifaux, infinity, warmahordes, epic, historical, other systems I have no clue their names (one was with zombies - we tend to try different systems out a lot), tons and tons of board games.

I don't know. I agree there are things about gw that make no sense and that I do not agree with. But I don't believe AoS is all that bad. And like I said, if its anyone to blame, its the player base.

We will see how well it fairs in the long run. Perhaps one day it will fail like all the people seem to state. Perhaps it'll be the turning point of gw. They have been working on AoS since 8th. They have put a lot of money into it and a lot of people into it. It's not something they decided overnight. So if people think they would spend millions of dollars to shoot themselves in the foot, just so they fail... Well they obviously don't know much about how business works.

I'd like to close this by saying I respect all opinions on the matter and that this was merely my own. I enjoy a heavy debate so I welcome all rebuttals and anything else (keep it civil though please).

Ryan

[spiralingcadaver]

Sorry, but I gotta' disagree with the "players' fault" bit.

Players complain on just about all games. So what? You respond, by making things they like better, by saying "this is what we were thinking and why we believe it's a good idea..." by saying "hey, we get you've got a problem, different strokes"... or by shutting down all your social presence.

Most game companies other than GW have been pretty transparent, and doing open betas on new editions (if not for each book even) for a long time now. It works. If things are shocks, there's the time from the beta to the release for people to calm down. Players who want to can contribute and make the game better and hopefully closer to what they think is fun/balanced.

I'm fine with the concept of gutting the game and starting over with a simpler design. I'm not fine with the execution. In making a basically free-form romp with no limitations, they threw balance out the window (no force size or type restrictions) and made what I still consider a half-finished game, because at the end of the day, even RPGs and co-ops are designed around at least a loose balance and AoS is still theoretically competitive (of course not in the tournament sense but the pvp sense). And I don't understand how one plays a competitive game with no balance structure built in.

I think that if GW had bothered to do something to actively connect with their player base, they could have made a good, light-weight game that satisfied both romp players and ones who wanted a fight, and not alienated their older fanbase so heavily while still opening their market. While I won't say competitive balance never hurt casual gaming, I will say that it's extremely rare that it does.

And no, I don't buy that we should trust GW knows what it's doing: they've been trying random new stuff for years, which has been extremely hit or miss, and a lot of their practices just seem extremely dated.

[3eland]

Well if GW was still for the people and not for the share holders then yes I could see that.

Unfortunately they need to please those people with the big cheques with numbers none of us will ever see in a lifetime.

I mean there used to be a forum designated by GW just for rumours and now they are so tightly closed that even a breathe of a rumour is slammed by an IP lawyer (okay maybe that's a little extreme, I know lol).

I'll admit the execution of AoS could have been a lot better, should have been a lot better. It is way too early in the game to know how AoS will do and whether it was actually a success or not.

That and Harry(maybe Hastings I don't remember) says 40k will be getting a new change in the next few years. And he has very rarely been wrong. I cannot quote exactly what he said but it is definitely a change. Whether it is similar to AoS we will have to see.

Also, whether it is good or bad for GW is yet to be seen.

I do know this, both FLGS' that I go to have to reorder the AoS starter set every week (I do not know if that is true now, been a while since I have been in last) so something is definitely happening. I know many people use them for 40k stand ins though LOL.

Re: Players - That would be true if GW was actively communicating with the generic fanbase that the other companies are doing. This is where I feel GW is slacking on and really needs to rethink/improve. PP, Malifaux, and many other game systems have a forum on their website for the players. This is smart. It works. From my understanding GW used to but there was so much hatred that they were forced to close them. All they have to go off of with their "no marketing system" is the letters and emails that are sent in. And I don't think people send in many "I love what you are doing, don't change anything" letters LOL.

No I still believe that the player base (but yes in turn combined with GW's weird vision of marketing since there seems to be none at all) was the biggest thorn.

I don't think it was intentional of course. GW prices didn't help at all though. I will be the first to admit that their pricing is way too extreme when compared to other systems. Their idea that "we make better looking models so it's worth it" is a little funny too. Malifaux models are by far the sexiest sculpts I have yet to own.

Ryan

[spiralingcadaver]

We're pretty much in agreement, except for the part about for the people being mutually exclusive with for the shareholders. Happy customers and a product that makes them want to come back for more are good for business. Dumping your base for another demographic is risky at best.

[3eland]

I think we can all agree that what GW did was extremely risky.

I mean the internet (relating to Warhammer) exploded.

Ryan

[akum]

Its funny, I have yet to see someone playing AOS, the group at my store continues to play 8th edition, unfortunately this doesnt really give them new stuff to play with, or income for the store or GW.

[reegsk]

Pretty sure 40k 25th already came and went.

The Warhammer 30th Anniversary did, too. It started in 1983, so the 30th was two years ago.

[nightlord]

"From my understanding GW used to but there was so much hatred that they were forced to close them. All they have to go off of with their "no marketing system" is the letters and emails that are sent in. And I don't think people send in many "I love what you are doing, don't change anything" letters LOL."


This was a simple fix. Beta Testing. Something GW has never done IMO. All it would take would be GW to release a simple set of new rules of the up dated system online and let people play them and get feed back via emails and postings.

I know this sounds a little juvi, but me and my friends decided IF we ever win the POWERBALL lottery. we will buy controlling interest in GW . Then GW staff and decision makers LOOK OUT!!!.

If 40k turns into something like AOS. I don't know what I will do with my self. I have 8 built 40k armies and enough stuff I collected to build 8 more.

I may just curl up in a corner and cry knowing my hobby and passion for a game I played since it first started has finally died.

Also please realize this. How much of an impact ,IF 40k turned into something like AOS, GW would have on the World Markets. How many companies out there are built around 40k system alone. Companies that make resin bits. Alternate models. Paints. Glue. Resin Bases. Modeling stuff in general. Carrying cases, ETC ETC.

To give you an idea how much of an impact AOS has had on Warhammer fantasy already. Just go look at this sites section on this matter and see how many are trying to sell there fantasy stuff now.

[3eland]

I agree with you. Many other companies release beta rules. It's smart and is proven to work. Gw seems to think that they only need internal testers. I do not know how many people they have to test but I read a while ago that AoS was play tested for almost two years.

Re: 40k - Harry(or Hastings) said it would not be exactly like AoS but it is for sure a simpler version and no more books. From his understanding it would be more like cards for warmachine. Now whether that is similar to scrolls for AoS, we have to wait and see.

Ryan

[spiralingcadaver]

Well, re: 40k, that sounds irritating and entirely possible. Too bad. I've just been slowly getting back into the system.

[3eland]

Well from my understanding GW has always been anti-tournament. Sure they supported it but their intention with the game was for fun fluffy battles. Jervis has gone on record stating this many times.

As much as people hate Mat Ward, he was a great rules writer. 8th edition is probably the greatest edition of Fantasy (by the majority of people online anyway). Now, from a tournament perspective, Mat Ward broke the game many times. From a fluffy perspective, everything he did was tame vs what you read in the background.

After he left, there was really just Jervis left. Some say Ward left because of End Times/AoS (since it would destroy everything he put into it). Really we do not know for sure but it would be a pretty good thing to bet on.

Jervis is anti-compete. So it makes sense that Fantasy became what it is now (AoS) and that 40k may become a lot less than it is.

[spiralingcadaver]

Yeah, I recognize the stance, but I don't understand it. At all.

Why make a game where the goal is to fight and kill each other not a competition? Like, what is that? I totally get non-competitive gaming and have been primarily playing co-op games and RPGs with my circle for the last year or so as an indicator of how much I enjoy that style, but, I don't get how that translates into an opposed fighting game.

And I'm not opposed to light-weight games, either. But imbalanced, competitive, light-weight games tend to fall in the category of Ameritrash, where there's an obvious best way of playing and high production values.

And if it is an opposing game that has some balance, then there's skill and luck.

But AoS doesn't feel like it fits either of those categories... I still don't understand how one plays? What does an AoS game look like in practice? 'cause I can't wrap my head around it. Not to be insulting, but it seems like pushing toy soldiers around and doing whatever with some basic stat lines and random stuff, until you get tired of it.