KoW Why isnt KOW more popular than 9th age, or AOS?

I definitely agree that in large part AoS owes its success to the fact that GW created it and promotes it. If any other gaming company had produced it, it would not have the market share that it enjoys today.

I understood your meaning in your original post. I was just saying that my experience has been vastly different. While I have seen games where the outcome can be predicted fairly easily early on, I've also seen it go right down to the end where the winner was determined in the final turn. That is one of the things I like about WFB... variation. I don't want a game whose winner can always be determined early on OR a game where the winner is always determined in the final turn.

 

Those are the tournaments so far planed for 2017 in German (T3 is commonly used in Germany to announce tournaments - which makes comparing quite straight forward):

KoW: 2 planed tournaments for 2017 with a total of 28 places
https://www.tabletopturniere.de/overview?gid=93

AoS: 7 planed tournaments for 2017 with a total of 114 places
https://www.tabletopturniere.de/overview?gid=142

T9A: 34 planed tournament for 2017 with a total of 1080 places
https://www.tabletopturniere.de/overview?gid=147

Similar situation can be found in most European contries and also in the US the number for T9A seem to over weight KoW registrations.

Example: AdeptiCon 2017
http://www.cvent.com/events/adepticon-2017/agenda-2d340c75da4a4db9b294e1de9e02b44c.aspx

 

The comment in question was that 'tournament players aren't too thrilled about KoW' so I don't see how the number of tournaments in Germany has much bearing? As has been discussed on this thread the USA is pro-KoW, the EU is pro-9th Age and the UK is a mixed bag but seems to lean towards AoS followed by KoW. But I had read the statement to mean that tournament players had some or other issue with the system? Which was intriguing because of the three systems I hadn't realised it was even in doubt that KoW was the most tournament-ready. It ticks all the boxes needed for tournaments (unambiguous rules, extremely balanced armies, dominant focus on player skill rather than luck) in a way that 9th Age and AoS don't. People can prefer whichever system they like, but I don't know many tournament players (and by that I mean people who focus of tournament play rather than players who attend tournaments) who have given all three games a serious swing of the bat and not preferred KoW.

 

I think the numbers speak a quite clear language how the majority of tournament players perceive the situation. The german T3 system commonly used for all TableTop systems just makes it particular easy to compare.

This statement was surely true a year ago. Looking at the tournament registration numbers by now I am not sure its still true, although its very difficult to get good quality data to evaluate the situation correctly.

I can only report on people I met on T9A events (or heard on Podcastes) and who tried KoW before switching. Many of them report that they found KoW to be "boring" after playing a few games. I personally have no way of varifing their claim, but the situation seem to be that the variety of different list options and games played is considered lacking. I assume this "lack of variety" is particular perceived problematic by those playing a lot of games on a constant level. But again I am just guessing from what I picked up.

 

When i first started KoW i thought it was boring as well. At around game #10 i started to discover the different tactics that exist in KoW that do not exist in warhammer. Ever since then the game has become much more interesting.

 

KoW encourages timed play with chess clocks and the standard is 50 minutes per player for 2000pts, so total game time for this size is max 1 hour 40 minutes. 2000pts WFB can take anywhere between 2 and 4 hours. A lack of entirely separate player turns means chess clocks can't be as easily utilised in the game (and a lack of chess clocks means players can waste lots of time debating over their moves), and in my experience much of a game is spent poring over the rule book.

 

Chess clocks were an absolute revelation when I first used them (I know that seems a little OTT but it's true!). It's not just that you are able to know exactly when a game will end (and therefore whether you have got time for one), it adds a completely different dimension to the game. Without a time limit players are incentivised to spend ages ponderously plodding through their turn, weighing up every possible option before making any action: more time spent thinking means less chance of mistakes / poor choices. Chess clocks suddenly remove this problem, forcing players slightly out of their comfort zone and putting value on the ability to think quickly. Decisions sometimes need to be made from gut instinct, opening up the possibility of errors that an opponent can exploit and making the game much, much more fluid. War & Peace Gaming Club even pushed this a little further, running a tournament called 'Clocks of War' that reduced the time limit in each game, creating incredible pressure on players. I wasn't there but apparently it was wonderfully enjoyable carnage!

 

I may have to introduce the chess clocks into my AOS games! The last time I played a 4 way game I had last initiative, and waited 2.5 hours to roll a dice. Luckily I got to watch my movie uninterrupted!

 

I have had this same experience with a friend of mine who plays Kingdoms of Men. He is something of a strategic genius (and I don't lavish that kind of praise lightly) but it takes him quite a bit of time to process the possibilities and think through his actions. I, on the other hand, am happy to rely more on gut instinct in my decisions and am therefore able to play far quicker. Without clocks, I struggle to even get a draw. With clocks, our games are always in the balance and often end of a knife edge!

I was just writing exactly this! With player turns not being completely distinct, chess clocks don't work properly. As I said in a previous post, KoW is fairly objectively the most tournament-focused game - being able to integrate chess clocks perfectly by having distinct player turns is one element of this.

 

I still think chess clocks could work in @Bowser 's case. Simply tap the clock when it is your opponent's time to make actions and vice versa. It will definitely mean more interaction with the chess clock, but that's what they are for. After a bit of practice, it should work just about as smoothly as turn based usage of the chess clock.

 

Yeah, you do have a point. I wasn't suggesting that it was impossible, hence the 'can't be as easily utilised' comment, but it's probably less of a problem than I was imagining.

 

I agree, it would probably take a little fine tuning and practice before it started running smoothly. But definitely worth a try in my opinion.