Warhammer 40K Tabletop XXIII: I Do Not Like Green Tides and 'Hann

[Blackhawk748]

You mean siege cannon, right? Because siege canon is what most of the fans want to do with Matt Ward's stuff.....

Well thats obviously what this list was gonna do

[LCP]

Can we go back to your core assumption here for a moment? You seem to think that games workshop are making sensible rational decisions based on the facts they have available- which is patently not true!

Pretty much the whole of Cheesegear's post is patently not true.

"WFB was dead" - that's a head-in-the-sand position I've seen a lot of people taking. The only true statement along those lines was that WFB sold less than 40K. It was still the second-biggest selling wargame in the world; certainly bigger than warmahordes, which is thriving. The description of it hanging on in "pocket metas" is ludicrous.

"AoS is a good game except for points costs"

• AoS has several ways to win on the first turn without any interaction with your opponent. Literally, first thing after deployment, roll two dice, "I win".
• AoS has summoning rules that frequently impose no cap on the size of the unit summoned.
• AoS allows units to shoot into combat. AoS allows units to shoot out of combat. AoS allows units to shoot out of one combat into another combat.
• AoS' movement rules are so poorly written that pivoting on the spot costs movement - and costs more movement if your model is long and thin, or has an outstretched weapon. If your chariot wants to charge some models to its right the best move is to slide it in sideways.
• AoS' combat rules are so poorly written that some models (particularly ones on tall flying stands) literally can't fight or be fought in combat by most units. Having to pile models on top of each others' bases to get into hitting range happens with notable frequency.
• AoS attempts to balance its points-less jamboree by looking at model count. In an AoS match between two bloodthirsters and three goblins, the bloodthirsters get a bonus for being outnumbered.
• AoS randomises the turn order every game turn, so you can lose the game simply because your opponent got two turns in a row while you sat there watching.

And those are just the unquestionably bad design decisions. If you think AoS is a good game you've either not read AoS or don't know what a good game looks like. AoS is an artist's impression of a rules system, scribbled on the back of a napkin. Playing AoS is mainly an exercise in passive aggression and "not trying too hard to win" - not just in army-building but at every stage of the game. Because winning is trivial.

"WFB's rules were broken" - baseless statement. For a GW offering 8th edition was as balanced as the next thing. It had a strong tournament following and single army books weren't stomping all over the rankings.

Most of all, though, the statement that GW won't change 40K because you think 40K's rules are in a good place... GW have repeatedly, publicly stated that they don't care at all about rules. They think they sell collectible miniatures, and they don't care what their customers think about that - they "tell the market what it wants". AoS is the biggest proof you could possibly ask for that they are really serious about that attitude.

[Killer Angel]

Most of all, though, the statement that GW won't change 40K because you think 40K's rules are in a good place... GW have repeatedly, publicly stated that they don't care at all about rules.

That's even worse than this. They don't care at all about games.

[The Patterner]

I read here that GW claimed that they got 80% of their sales from collectors and not gamers. Is that even remotly possible?

[Cheesegear]

Most of all, though, the statement that GW won't change 40K because you think 40K's rules are in a good place... GW have repeatedly, publicly stated that they don't care at all about rules. They think they sell collectible miniatures, and they don't care what their customers think about that - they "tell the market what it wants". AoS is the biggest proof you could possibly ask for that they are really serious about that attitude.

At this point, I've stopped caring. GW will do what it does and I've seen no indication that I get a choice in the matter. If they do something good, great. If they do something bad. **** 'em. There's always someone else who will take my money. But, until that day actually comes, I'll render no more judgement on the matter. Talking about something that may or may not happen is pointless speculation until it does happen. Negative 'hype' is equally an easy a trap to fall in as the regular kind of hype.
Until 40K '8th Ed.' is literally in my hands, I don't care. I'm done.

...and at Page 50, so is this thread.

[Killer Angel]

...and at Page 50, so is this thread.

But we were only at the beginning of the page!

[LCP]

I read here that GW claimed that they got 80% of their sales from collectors and not gamers. Is that even remotly possible?

I don't know if it's possible but I wouldn't say it's a credible claim - because they also claim to do no market research, so how could they know that?

At this point, I've stopped caring. GW will do what it does and I've seen no indication that I get a choice in the matter. If they do something good, great. If they do something bad. **** 'em. There's always someone else who will take my money. But, until that day actually comes, I'll render no more judgement on the matter. Talking about something that may or may not happen is pointless speculation until it does happen. Negative 'hype' is equally an easy a trap to fall in as the regular kind of hype.
Until 40K '8th Ed.' is literally in my hands, I don't care. I'm done.

Just before this discussion kicked off people were talking a fair bit about whether they should expand their collections, and the problem of models and formations going out of style due to rules changes after you've bought them. I don't think it's pointless to talk about how the value of something as expensive and time-consuming as a 40K army might change in the near future when people are considering how to spend their money.

(the answer is, not on GW)

[Cheesegear]

Just before this discussion kicked off people were talking a fair bit about whether they should expand their collections, and the problem of models and formations going out of style due to rules changes after you've bought them. I don't think it's pointless to talk about how the value of something as expensive and time-consuming as a 40K army might change in the near future when people are considering how to spend their money.

Hope for the best. Expect the worst.

[Tehnar]

I think when GW says that Fantasy was not selling well is different from what people mean when they say something doesn't sell.

WHFB was selling at a constant rate. Its growth was limited, but so was its losses. Normally you would be pretty happy to have a product that you know you can depend on year in and year out. However investors want GROWTH and with their current management of WHFB GW could not deliver that. However AoS is a colossal blunder. None of the complaints people had about WHFB was addressed with AoS and plenty of new ones were created.

And with such stupid timing. Warhammer Total War is coming out. Big video game hits drive miniature purchases and new players getting into the hobby. If we had access to GW data I bet you would see spikes when Dark Omen, Mark of Chaos and on 40K side Space Marine and Dawn of War games came out.

Look at what happened to DnD. Slightly before 3e came out Baldurs gate came out. During 3rd edition of DnD, great DnD based games kept coming out. Later editions of DnD didn't have great videogame support. 3rd edition sold 10 times as many books as 4th did. Coincidence? I don't think so.

[Eldan]

Is it a blunder? I tried googling AoS sales, but all I can seem to find are anecdotes, hearsay and rethoric.

[Tehnar]

For confirmation or rebutal I think we have to wait for the GW financial report and try to infer something from it. A large fall in revenue would indicate that AoS is failing, though even if that happens I doubt we will see it in the first 6 month report. GW published Eldar and the new space marines in that time period for a reason.

[LCP]

Yeah, they don't separate their sales for different game systems either so even when the report comes out it'll be hard to disentangle the figures from 40K sales.

That being said, the anecdotal impression everywhere is the same: a bunch of people gave it a shot during demos etc. when it came out, very few of them came back. The starter boxes are sitting where they were stacked, and independent retailers are now offering them with deep discounts to try to shift the stock. None of the limited edition AoS books on the GW website have sold out despite being available for months (although some have been quietly removed). WFB limited editions always did - the End Times ones sold out in minutes.

I went into a GW recently to buy some paints; it was pretty empty and all the tables were set up for 40K, barring the untouched AoS demo board. When he learned I was painting fantasy minis, the manager, unprompted, told me that he still allowed 8th edition to be played in his shop.

[LeSwordfish]

From my own anecdotal evidence, I've seen one game of AOS in the ten or so days I've spent in-store since release.

As for the "8th ed is still allowed here!" - lol

[Requizen]

Look at what happened to DnD. Slightly before 3e came out Baldurs gate came out. During 3rd edition of DnD, great DnD based games kept coming out. Later editions of DnD didn't have great videogame support. 3rd edition sold 10 times as many books as 4th did. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Not to say your other points aren't correct, but this is a pretty bad comparison. 4th sold less for a lot of reasons. More people began pirating at the time. Lots of people were still playing 3 or 3.5 because of the depth and all of the splatbooks. And also, 4e was just bad.

Sure, you could attribute a small amount of the difference to video games, but not a majority or close.

[Janwin]

Pretty much the whole of Cheesegear's post is patently not true.

...

All of what was said here is exactly dead on about AoS. It is a horrible game. I've played it, and it was atrocious.

Combat devolves into "everyone pile into the middle and see who rolls better/gets two turns in a row". There are no tactics at all in the game, and there are so many ways to break it that there's really no point in playing.

I played my Dwarfs against some new Sigmarines. We didn't use the model count "balancing" method because we realized it was stupid, and instead tried wounds. I actually had more wounds on the table than he did. However, I might as well not have showed up to the game, since I was trounced so badly. Between attacks that, on hit, deal multiple wounds (note, after you fail an armor save, so your 3+ save Ironbreakers, only one has to fail his armor, and more will go down with him without even getting their armor), attacks that automatically wound and deny saves, etc, there was just no fighting the new army with an old army. They're in no way balanced, and it's simply a move by GW to say "buy the new stuff, give us money, and we'll let you win".

It was simply a ploy to sell minis, which, fine, it's GW. But the game is atrocious.

[Killer Angel]

All of what was said here is exactly dead on about AoS. It is a horrible game. I've played it, and it was atrocious.

Combat devolves into "everyone pile into the middle and see who rolls better/gets two turns in a row". There are no tactics at all in the game, and there are so many ways to break it that there's really no point in playing.

I played my Dwarfs against some new Sigmarines. We didn't use the model count "balancing" method because we realized it was stupid, and instead tried wounds. I actually had more wounds on the table than he did. However, I might as well not have showed up to the game, since I was trounced so badly. Between attacks that, on hit, deal multiple wounds (note, after you fail an armor save, so your 3+ save Ironbreakers, only one has to fail his armor, and more will go down with him without even getting their armor), attacks that automatically wound and deny saves, etc, there was just no fighting the new army with an old army. They're in no way balanced, and it's simply a move by GW to say "buy the new stuff, give us money, and we'll let you win".

It was simply a ploy to sell minis, which, fine, it's GW. But the game is atrocious.

Given that the new WH40K thread is open, I don't think this count as derailment, so...

The game is atrocious, but if we look at "new army Vs old army", all I can say is that my Seraphon Lizardmen literally curbstomped every single army they faced (Ogres, Skaven, Sigmarines and 3 different demons - old, news and mixed)
And when i tried some dwarfs... the Ogres were wiped away, and bad luck to those Sigmar's forces, because after a nice barrage of my artillery and 40 shots / round of crossbows at 36', when their remnants finally charged (destroying my screen of 5 irondrakes), they took to the face 10 slayers... and their 40 attacks.

[Erloas]

Well I hate typing on my phone but I'm in the hospital for a while with nothing else to do so...
I think it is easy for most armies to break AoS if they try, not just the new armies. Of course any type of comp system might give some armies more than others.
In Warhammer world last week they had a campaign and they had 32 people show up. Anecdotal numbers say they usually see 100+.

As for a space marine box selling more than all of fantasy I heard that years ago, back when most chapters used the same box and it was a new release with a new generic marines codex release, so that wouldn't surprise me but also doesn't actually say anything on it's own.
GW would also never release any information like that so it is hard to even put much weight to it.

What seemed to stagnate fantasy was GW neglect. The brettonian army book was released in 1998. It was 17 years old. Remember when dark Eldar were 10 years old and no one played them and told anyone interested that they shouldn't bother? Then they released a new codex and they were suddenly FOTM?
They did a lot of fantasy army books with very few if any new models.
They also clearly didn't put much effort into balancing the army books to each other and released poorly worded rules without any attempt to clarify them later.

GW's neglect of the system and ignoring their players is what led to fantasy's decline.
And while they aren't neglecting 40k they are still proudly ignoring the player base. After all the players are a small part of their customer base and they know what everyone wants without having to actually ask them.

As for tau being released recently, well we already know GW will release something in the short term if they think it will make them money even if it will change soon.

[LCP]

The funny things is that some of the "joke" rules they wrote in to make people feel embarrassed about using the old armies actually break the game harder than all the "easy mode" rules they're lavishing on the Stormcast Nounverbers.

The best one being the Screaming Bell instawin, which you can achieve by adding Fateweaver to your list... or winning your previous game and rolling the right number on a table. Set up, ring bell, pack up.

I suppose the claim that it plays faster than WFB is at least true.

[Artanis]

New thread is up, BTW.

[Renegade Paladin]

New thread is up, BTW.

Indeed.