If I'm being condescending it's because people are showing their bias. You've been alienated; I get that, and I sympathize. But the GW of the past two years is not the same GW of the past decade. Things have been changing for the better as of late.

23 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

If I'm being condescending it's because people are showing their bias. You've been alienated; I get that, and I sympathize. But the GW of the past two years is not the same GW of the past decade. Things have been changing for the better as of late.

No positive change if you are one of the fans that bought into a rank and file system and you don't want to play a skirmish game.

Showing bias is not something to be condescended down to. My bias is based on real experiences of being utterly shafted by a game company. It's the same name on the company. My bias is simply a warning to not buy from a company that can easily do the same thing again. Why should someone spend huge sums of money on a game system that might just get discontinued on a whim down the road? You can say the same for any company, but here is one that actually did it.

"It's not what I wanted" =/= AoS is bad.

I think I've made my point.

13 hours ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

If I'm being condescending it's because people are showing their bias. You've been alienated; I get that, and I sympathize. But the GW of the past two years is not the same GW of the past decade. Things have been changing for the better as of late.

Too little too late, I fear. They've lost the trust of a huge part of the audience. And they're still stupidly expensive.

I wouldn't trust them with my money buying into a game system of theirs. And I'd buy their paints but they're insanely expensive and still in crappy flip top pots instead of dropper bottles.

And as regards rank & file games, don't forget, FFG's very own RuneWars drops soon, and that looks like it's going to be p. great.

(I probably won't get it though because I already don't have enough room for my X Wing stuff on my painting table

13 hours ago, heychadwick said:

No positive change if you are one of the fans that bought into a rank and file system and you don't want to play a skirmish game.

Showing bias is not something to be condescended down to. My bias is based on real experiences of being utterly shafted by a game company. It's the same name on the company. My bias is simply a warning to not buy from a company that can easily do the same thing again. Why should someone spend huge sums of money on a game system that might just get discontinued on a whim down the road? You can say the same for any company, but here is one that actually did it.

It is discontinued but your minis are not trash like in many other disconntinued games. You still can use them in sigmar. As well they may have released 9th edition officially with the same massive overhaul of rules...

my 0.5$: Im long time 40k vet and i did some classic WFB in my days, then had a long, over 7 years break from any miniatures or battle games, sold all my stuff. Recently i wanted to came back to some fantasy GW stuff (as i heard 40k is a mess these days). Would i come back to WFB? Maybe, maybe not. Did i came back for sigmar? Instantly. Already two armies ~1k each assembled. Why is that?

-as a vet i found new rules trivial to learn. Of course they lost some depth, sure (like lack of WS comparison), but the game now is biased towards other things, like keeping your general alive to buff your guys.

-entry level is so low now that communities gonna grow with new people. I mean both rules and $$: for 50$ you buy start collecting and bam, you have an army. Ruleswise if my wife expressed some interest in learning after she heard whole rulebook is 4 pages, trust me it means something.

-but the final thing that convinced me are the new alliances- fact you can now reasonably mix your armies as you like? Epic stuff! Finally i can really make Aelves (as they are called in AoS) army consisting of all 3 Elves factions from Old World.

-narrative and casual focus. Yes, competetive is still just creating and polishing itself for now - but casual narrative "evening beer" campaings? Man bread and butter. I guess thats why hardcore WFB players are so tilted. Cause they were used to their porno lists that were designed only to roll milion modified dice to kill in the first turn and win. And now that they are supposed to PLAY now just win...they are tilted.

2 hours ago, Vitalis said:

narrative and casual focus. Yes, competetive is still just creating and polishing itself for now - but casual narrative "evening beer" campaings? Man bread and butter. I guess thats why hardcore WFB players are so tilted. Cause they were used to their porno lists that were designed only to roll milion modified dice to kill in the first turn and win. And now that they are supposed to PLAY now just win...they are tilted.

I really doubt that, first I think both WHF and 40k have a big casual crowd perhaps even bigger than the competitive crowd but in forums the competitive crowd can seem louder because they are the ones mostly doing tactics/strength/list discussions but that seems something many games have. Nevertheless you would find many players playing casual and even campaigns they made themselves and you also could find tournaments that were quite different from your normal competitive tournament and GW themselves didn't push narrative gaming back then like they do now.

Second you will also find competitive/power gaming in AoS and there are also tournaments where again only the strong lists are played. I remember when AoS was new there was much thinking how to do tournaments so yes it was there from the beginning and a good tournament scene is a healthy thing for a game, it helps spread the word and if the scene is big enough you might find very diverse tournaments, some that are more casual, some more competitive some more narrative so there's something for everyone.

So yes AoS is more narrative focused but that has more to do with it's beginning where "fair" competitive play was hard to make and the way GW markets the system which is the narrative way something they haven't done before but you still find your competitive crowd.

17 hours ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

"It's not what I wanted" =/= AoS is bad.

Sure it does. Since bad is a fairly relative term and what makes a game bad is highly subjective and based on what someone wants.

AoS could have solid rules and great looking models, and still be a bad game to someone who wants to play a R&F type game, because it doesn't offer them the one key thing they want. If we rate a game on a scale and anything below a 4 is bad, and someone weights R&F as being a key and vital element they want, then the lack of that feature is going to make the game score very low to them.

The only way what I quoted is true, is if you feel you have the authority to decide what someone else's opinion should be. That or you can point to some sort of objective standard of what makes a game good or bad.

Edit: Myself I never played WFB, but if I can completely see why people who enjoyed the game consider AoS bad since it is nothing even remotely like what they want. Which is at least on a personal level exactly what bad means.

ALL THAT SAID...

...GW must be doing something right, as their share price has more than doubled in the last year and they're paying out approx 20% dividends. Their target share price has just been raised again and their investors are loving it.

Maybe we should rename the game "Age of $igmar".

2 minutes ago, FTS Gecko said:

ALL THAT SAID...

...GW must be doing something right, as their share price has more than doubled in the last year and they're paying out approx 20% dividends. Their target share price has just been raised again and their investors are loving it.

Maybe we should rename the game "Age of $igmar".

That's because young people are actually buying it again instead of 30-something grognards occasionally buying a pack of bloodgobbler spikemonsters to bring their army into line with the latest codex.

Good on them. They had the courage to drag WHFB and put a bullet in its head and in so doing created a new pathway for our addiction - I mean, hobby.

3 minutes ago, FTS Gecko said:

GW must be doing something right,

1) They stopped selling less miniatures for more cash instead created start collecting series that gives insane value. (They are still making this sin in 40k and guess what? 40k is on downfall now....)

2) Game is very noob friendly.

3) Rules are for free (points are not but hey those are just XXX points for X guys - all equipment is free. (GW AND FREE STUFF??? OH MY GUT GOT!)

4) They are almost machine gunning new armies and releases.

5) From what i heard team that buisness planned them got sacked and someone who actually thinks is now in charge of that.

18 hours ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

"It's not what I wanted" =/= AoS is bad.

I think I've made my point.

I don't think you have. If this was some new game that came out of nowhere, then you would have a point. "I thought it would be different, but it's not" would get a shrug from most people. Having a game system that had been around for 25 years and suddenly changing the core concept of the game to everyone is a big difference. That is quite different. Maybe if they kept the old game and focused on a new skirmish game called Age of Sigmar, it would be better, but suddenly changing the game would be a huge turn off.

The equivalent for X-wing would probably be removing movement dials and just giving all ships so many inches they can move around in any way they want every round. Then, just shrugging when people aren't happy with the new game.

40k is very anti-noob, both in price and play. AoS is insanely lightweight compared to 40k, and GW seems to have finally stopped selling less models for more cash (though theyre still stupid expensive).

You need to invest quite heavily to play 40k at all, let alone have options or replace units you thought were awesome and ended up being total trash.

19 hours ago, heychadwick said:

Why should someone spend huge sums of money on a game system that might just get discontinued on a whim down the road? You can say the same for any company, but here is one that actually did it.

The list of games that haven't been discontinued is much shorter than the list of games that have. Like, microscopically small by comparison.

40 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

The list of games that haven't been discontinued is much shorter than the list of games that have.

Doesn't matter how many games weren't when it's your game that was and was replaced by something else.

That doesn't mean you should expect every game to be discontinued/replaced but it does mean it has happened and may happen again. Which given the wealth of other games out there, means you don't need to take a chance on a company that has proven they're willing to do it.

1 minute ago, VanorDM said:

Doesn't matter how many games weren't when it's your game that was and was replaced by something else.

That doesn't mean you should expect every game to be discontinued/replaced but it does mean it has happened and may happen again. Which given the wealth of other games out there, means you don't need to take a chance on a company that has proven they're willing to do it.

I think it means players should understand that any game you invest in is done so at your own risk, because EVERY company has proven they're willing to do it.

8 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

I think it means players should understand that any game you invest in is done so at your own risk.

Sure any game you buy, just about anything you buy at all may be discontinued tomorrow...

But that doesn't actually invalidate the opinion people had about why AoS was worse than WFB, or make their being upset any less valid about how their game was discontinued.

It certainly didn't do anything to improve people's opinion of GW's fairly earned reputation.

4 hours ago, Stay On The Leader said:

The list of games that haven't been discontinued is much shorter than the list of games that have. Like, microscopically small by comparison.

If you look at GW they have offed all their Specialists Games and WHF for example so i would say in GW's case they discontinued more games than they have at the moment.

It would be interesting to look at all board/card/mini games to see how the numbers look.

But yes that posibility shouldn't stop you from buying because most games normaly run for quite some time before they are discontinued, WHf was around for about 30 years.

40 minutes ago, Iceeagle85 said:

If you look at GW they have offed all their Specialists Games and WHF for example so i would say in GW's case they discontinued more games than they have at the moment.

It would be interesting to look at all board/card/mini games to see how the numbers look.

Most of GW games are spin offs of their two main games: 40k and WHFB. I get that lots of those died off or were cancelled. What I find shocking is killing off one of the main games.

AoS is garbage even after the generals hand book came out there's no balance to be had, most of the models are terrible and extremely over priced.

What's keeping them afloat is videogame licence fees and 30k.

op if you want a fantasy game look at 9th age or kings of war, if you want a skirmish game try frostgrave just avoid AoS.

So many objective opinions here from GW haters and FFG apologists...

Best Example

I am one of a group of 6 43-46 years old wargaming geeks who started playing quite young.

We all played W40k and WHFB. My WHFB Imperial Army was enought to field aprox 12.000 pts. Imperial Guard aprox 8.000 pts plus 6000 pts of Dark Angels.

AoS is not WHFB. Simple. Old Warhammer was killed and buried. You can play forever with your favourite rulebook but Case Closed. I sold 90% of my minis because as we grow older we stopped playing this games.

No Steam when we were kids...

4 hours ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

So many objective opinions here from GW haters and FFG apologists...

So your saying not one of us has a legitimate reason to dislike the game.

All complaints are solely due to unreasonable hate.

But we're the apologist's...

Disliking the game is fine. Disliking the game simply because it isn't WHFB doesn't contribute anything meaningful. There are certainly reasons why someone might not like AoS, legitimate reasons: measuring model to model, the mortal wounds vs horde army dynamic, summoning / reserve points, an entire quarter of the game is practically non-existant (I'm looking at you, Death), more than half the game's models range from outdated to severely outdated, point costs rarely account for anything more than a model's hit points, etc. People here are so blinded by their hate that I doubt they gave the game enough of a look to even be aware of its true faults.

Instead of bringing up the issues I listed above, it's mostly just been 'boo hoo I can't use the big bad army I collected 10 years ago.' I sympathize, and while that might be a mark against GW, it has absolutely nothing to do with AoS . Do you know how many other games won't let you play those armies? All of them. Might as well start complaining about how X-Wing has no Bretonnians while you're at it, for all the relevance your collections have.

So this is probably not an apples to apples comparison...But if I wanted to get into fantasy type setting stuff on a table....I'm wondering if I should try sigmar or rune-wing.

I don't have a particular urge to get into either of them now but...I can see down the line being interested in trying one out.