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

This is all well and good, but you have not put forth one single fact that supports this idea that AoS will benefit the stockholders.

How are they going to attract new players and fill the gap left behind when they abandoned their current customer base?
Where are these new customers going to be coming from?
How will the exodus of the old "community" to competitors going to affect their business?
How will they mitigate the negative vibe they've created?

Maybe they have answers to some or all of these questions and maybe they don't. Time will tell, but until it does you can not claim that AoS will benefit them in the long run. I don't know if AoS will be successful, I could see it going either way. I see AoS as the "reality tv" form of wargaming, so it might do very well for GW, however so far you haven't provided any facts or evidence to support your stance.

Like others have stated in this thread, if AoS works for you then go ahead an play it. None of us are trying to stop you. However the fact that thousands of custom comp/balance packs have been discussed and created (some on this very forum) should strike you as indicator that AoS is missing something. I follow several YouTube wargaming channels, and even amongst those individuals that are completely on board (and genuinely excited) about AoS, the need for a comp is constantly stated.

As you have stated yourself, AoS is not targeted at us, the "old guard". It is targeted at young kids and early teens. AoS is a kids game and without some sort of balancing system you're pretty much bound to exactly what a stated: a game stuck at a child-like level. Furthermore, to adequately target this younger demographic, they have stripped away most of the complexity and depth.

However, if you like the game, then go ahead and enjoy it. But please don't make it out to be something that it isn't. Let's call a spade a spade.

 

This is precisely correct. AoS is a watered down version of Warhammer Fantasy. In fact, at this point I'd say that it is pretty much a watered down version of 40k. Most of the complexity, depth, customization and tactical requirements have been stripped down in order to promote simplicity, ease of entry and fluidity. From a business stand point this might prove to be fruitful, but it is definitely not the rich and complex game that I personally desire. I think it is an entry level game in all regards. It might make for a good introduction into the hobby for someone with no prior experience but for many of us with more experience it simply won't cut it.

 

=>No need to as my premise is not that it will benefit them, but that GW canning a dying, draining system and launching something totally new has a chance to benefit them.

Simply: Old thing dead. Try new thing.

=>And yet it doesn't. What it tells me is the tiny slice of consumers that The Community represents is just further behind on the Stages of Grief than I am. People in The Community wanted 9th edition. They expected 9th edition. After all, there were 7 other edition changes before it that made changes, but always as an evolution and never as a a do-over. Then Warhammer got cancelled while at the same time Age of SIgmar got released.

People just plain don't want to believe this is possible, so rather than accept it, they deny it. They were so focused in on a 9th edtion that they are blind to the fact that the game we all (me included!) loved for decades is gone that they are willing to see gaps that are not present, flaws that don't exist, and opportunities to spill their rage into a system that is not to blame for not being something it is not.

For those who don't know, the 5 Stages of Grief model includes, in order: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance.

Look at the comp packs. Look at the rage. Look at the TO's trying for force AoS to be something it should not be. Tell me these are not clear manifestations of Denial, Anger, and Bargaining.

Look at the people who have left the hobby. That's Depression.

On the other hand, look at those who, like me, have moved on and are enjoying this new thing for what it is instead of what we desperately wished it had been. That's Acceptance.

Yes, I really feel this way. I really think that The Community just needs some emotional maturity.

 

But that is a key part of the official GW business strategy...

1. Raise the price of models
2. Close off all channels of communication with customer base
3. Raise the price of models
4. Conduct little to no market research
5. Raise the price of models
   
6. If in doubt, give it Space Marine shoulder pads
7. Raise the price of models
8. Do little in terms of FAQs, Erratas and product support
9. Raise the price of models

 

Million dollar question: would you invest your money in GW?

 

...
...
...

You made no mention of "has a chance".

 

The thing that just has me perplexed about AoS is that in shunning the "old guard" they are straight up cock-blocking (sorry, but it is the most appropriate term in this case, as crass as it is) their main means of attracting new players, word of mouth. I don't know a single person that did not pick up the game through someone who already played, and in my experience across most war games, you tend to pick up what your mates are playing, there is a reason my girlfriend collects Circle Orboros and not a GW line.

In regards to creating a simpler skirmisher, it still makes little sense. A great model to draw in new customers, maybe, but it would necessitate some form of advertising to get it out there. GW is already putting out some of the most expensive models for war gaming right now, and the entry cost is incredibly high because of it. Even for a simple skirmisher like AoS, you can reasonably start for a few hundred if you spend wisely, or you can put half towards a competitor right now. I think the complexity of WHFB worked against it and is an important reason why 40k has ultimately crushed it in sales (and for some in spirit with AoS). However they could have kept the existing framework and made either a supplementary rule set or system (and it still could have been AoS) that supports smaller, skirmishing games to act as a gateway for the interested into the more expensive and complicated full fantasy battles game. Would it have worked? maybe, maybe not. Will AoS work? maybe, maybe not. But given their current advertising structure and product range, I think a simple stepping stone product may have done more to get both the new audience they seek and perhaps even some 40k players more interested in fantasy.

 

Fair enough. My mistake.

 

No worries.

What happened to your Steelers avatar picture?

 

Michael Vick. After almost 40 years as a Steelers fan, and not missing a game in 20 years, I packed away all my steelers stuff tonight and won't support them until he's gone. Maybe not even after.

 

I feel your pain. My wife is in the same boat. Lifelong Steelers fan, can't stand Vick.

 

For someone who has played enough AoS, the eye ball test is probably a better balance system than the points system in 8th. How many times did you look across the table at two cannons, an Iron guts death star, or some other monstrosity with dual purple sun wielding death mages? Then try and plea with your opponent for a more balanced game, only to hear back "it's 2400 points, that's fair". In any version you are at the mercy of your opponent to not bring something they know is going to blow your army off the table. At least in AoS such objections are up for discussion. The balance of a unit is variable depending on what is across from it. Would you say an 8th edition salamander was just as valuable vs chaos daemons as it was against skaven? Assigning it a number is, as stated earlier, an "illusion". We can all make two different 2500 point Lizardmen armies and know one is far better than the other. 2500 isn't equal to another 2500 point army. Don't get me wrong AoS falls short across the board, but I don't think the balance system is anywhere near as big of a deal as everyone is carrying on about. For almost every game, balance is a constant struggle and perfect balance is never even completely achieved. Do you really want the creators of AoS doing the hardest part of game design? Was 8th really made all that well?

I think the focus should be on it's other short comings. Like, despite it being designed to draw in new players, without direction, two new players would have a terrible time attempting to play an enjoyable game. That's where me and my friend found ourselves. If it was my first game of WHFB, it would have been my last. Our game was decided by the roll of one D6. The roll for the dreaded turn 2. Speaking of, how about it's gimmicky game mechanics players tie AoS's strategy into. Like planning on loosing the roll for turn two so your army doesn't get blown off the table, or the tactic to only charge with one glass cannon so you get initiative in the only combat. Me, I like to roll play such things. "Everyone! Halt the charge! Full stop! I want those rippers to blow those Stormvermin off the table with no repercussions before they use them to do the same thing to our saurus!" Now that feels like a war game. General: "They're in our flank! Hold the line!" Men: "What's a flank?" How about that people tell me it's a viable strategy to stretch unit formations into strange elongated shapes and lines to make use of their invisible 3" force field to protect and redirect. That's a good war game mechanic, no? How about trying to march/run your line forward. That's a fun game of chance. My troops need to go back to boot camp. They're formations are sloppy. Never doing that again. Hey, at least they can fend off attackers and manage to shoot at the unit next to them at the same time. That's got to take a LOT of practice. "For the Lady!"

8th isn't great. It didn't work. AoS doesn't really pass for a war game. The way I see it, the best we got is to look toward the future, put our faith in GW, and pray they end up with a playable version of AoS with loads of new players they wont so easily throw aside. Hopefully this includes their 40k players. They like them. I bought two storm eternal space marine starters for $35 each. I'm gunna paint them up and sell them on ebay. I want their 40k players to play. If WHFB burns, I want it to take their 40k player base with it.

 

I would never ask my opponent to change what they are using, but your point stands, and I can add to it.

AoS doesn't require that I ask my opponent to change. Because you do not use army lists, and your force evolves as you deploy it, if your foe plops down the things you mentioned, you can counter him right there on the spot with something from your collection that can handle what he's trying to do.

Now then, I realize this does not help with all those tournaments and their klunky forced attempts to make the game something it isn't (say, something you build a specific army list for), but that's not the system's fault since it was not made to work that way.

You mean like how in Warhammer 8th you had to get close enough to charge next turn but it would put you in the enemy's potential charge range so you had to "plan" on your opponent failing a charge roll?

 

Highly disagree. A quantitative system is far superior to a qualitative one.

I see no problem with that at all. That just means you have a highly competitive environment. In such situations I don't plea with my opponents... I fight fire with fire. I have no problem at all with a fluff game or a highly competitive one. Cannons, death magic, Gutstar... no problem, I counter with WoC unkillable lord, throgg, etc.

Of course not, nor should it. This just forces people to carefully create balanced lists that can take on multiple threats. I think that mirrors real life really well.

That's the fun of list building, which was one of my favorite components of 8th edition. Knowing that you have only so many points to work with, and creating an optimized list for your play-style/situation.

YES. It was not perfect, but it was definitely well made. The same can't be said for AoS.

Famous last words.

 

This is something that will really harm AoS though , because even with that argument for balancing it requires a larger collection to have the on the spot flexibility. That increases player costs and the high cost of GW has always deterred some and having significantly cheaper competition (which wasn't really a thing two decades ago) will draw prospective new players away. Sure, us old guard have the collections to play aainst those kinds of players, but newbies wont. That is bad news for a product trying to draw a new crowd and keep the old by just letting them use their old stuff in a point-less system. I never felt like I lost in WHFB or 40k because I didn't pay to win, even when starting. Luck sometimes, sure. But this system will feel very much more like a pay to win model for people, and that is a large problem before considering the higher prices of GW models compared to their up-and-coming competition.

 

I didn't want to compare the game to 8th like that. But since I wasn't the one to open that box, I will. I do want to say, as I said earlier, 8th wasn't made well imo. And as you described, I agree, this is not the way the game should work. That said, 8th handles it far better as loosing such a stand off only matters in a hand full of cases. And does so to vary the game play and usually makes sense in fluff. But in most cases loosing a standoff like this only results in -1 combat resolution. In fact I usually planned on accepting the charges to keep my lines in tact and eliminate the risk of failing a charge myself. Which is in fact the main reason to use this tactic. To make your opponent fail to gain a positioning advantage and single out units. It is in no way fundamental to the game. Further to the point, you have the option to accept the charge, flee, or stand and shoot. Of course there are corner cases, but rarely does it have the impact that it has in AoS. There is no flee option, If the mistake is made, the game is lost. It effects all games not just corner cases and is fundamental to the way the game is played. Further, half the time it rewards such mistakes by giving the player two turns in a row. Which makes it a game mechanic that rewards bad game play. Very bad for new players, which is the focus of AoS as far as I know. This is most disappointing because this doesn't need to be so impactful or abusive. The only reason it is, is because of the alpha strike mechanics included in AoS. Such mechanics are historically game breaking and frowned on among turn based strategy games. Lets ignore all examples common in the videogame genre and only consider the most relevant one, 7th edition high elves. Didn't GW learn from this? It seemed that they had in 8th. That is why we pull casualties from the back rather than the front even in AoS. So units don't loose their combat effectiveness before being able to strike back in combat.

Just for fun lets now include the gamey mechanic that uses the same idea to encourage players to jump from combat to combat to try and take away unit's combat effectiveness before attacking. Bad war game mechanic. It stands to reason that a unit of 5 temple guard would beat a unit of 5 saurus warriors almost every time(unless the TG preform badly or the Saurus amazing, expressed via rolling). Not the case in AoS. The winner is determined depending on which general activates their unit first triggering it to attack. This game is about as close and as accurate to a fantasy war game as chess.

The problem with it is, if you see such things and tailor your list to stay competitive with them as you see them, you are playing AoS rules already. It's more or less the same thing. If you bring a list, look across the table and see something that is either going to crush you or you are going to steam roll, you should tailor your list for a better game.
Or.
I would bring a list rated equally between casual and highly competitive then ask players in my hobby shop for a game. Would you be the one setting up a super competitive list that I would have to plea with? Or would you tailor your list and attempt to make it equal mine? Would you naturally play a middle ground list? In that case what if I instead had a poor list because I was a newer player? I hope the answer is your would try and make the game as fair as possible and tailor you list to equal mine. At that point, points are just a limiting factor. All these lists above are assumed to be equal points values. It's just an illusion.

I disagree. I have experienced too many terrible situations that are easily avoidable as a result of 8th editions half assed or thoughtless rules. I do have to sleep, and have no time to write up all of these situations and how easy it would be for GW to prevent them, but I will leave you with one. Don't you have another thread about pred fighter where discussion has been banned due to many people attacking each other personally? How easy would it have been to include or at least errata this nightmare away. That is poorly written rules. Which is not a well made game.

 

Hasn't that been GW's favourite game all along?

AoS may have a lower entry point than 8th, but I think it eventually overtakes 8th edition in terms of cost to the consumer.... especially with all the expensive campaign books that look to be a staple of AoS.