Misjudging the Market: AOS VS Star Wars

[Caitsidhe]

I want to talk about something which has to some degree only been hinted at or talked around. One of the chief reasons given for introducing AOS is that it is supposed to help bring new blood into the community. While I could talk for pages and pages about the fact that new blood is better recruited by a thriving, active community of all ages, I will instead focus on why this has to be the greatest mistake in a long litany of mistakes regarding the current and coming market. For whatever reason, Games Workshop has decided that its older fan base are acceptable casualties. It is their clear, stated belief that the money comes from parents taking their kiddies into Games Workshop stores and going crazy. The notion of community, they apparently believe, will mystically take care of itself. The kids will find each other. Or, perhaps they don't care about community at all. Their working model might simply be to get as much as they can from each household at the start and then write them off. It is difficult to read Games Workshop because they rarely do anything based on logic that comes from outside of Games Workshop.

All that being said, there is a glaring problem with their plan. Even if I was to concede that their business model or approach would work under normal conditions (and I don't) the next ten to fifteen years of the young gaming market belongs to Star Wars. Bear in mind I'm not just talking about the games out so far which cater to that genre, but also to the explosion of them to come. AOS doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. We are literally looking at a watershed moment where a significant portion of gaming dollars is about to divert. The piece of the pie left from the youth market is going to be very small indeed and that morsel will be fought for by a much wider field. What this means is that just when Games Workshop is about to lose a significant amount of its youth market to a force beyond its capacity to cope with, they are working hard to alienate and marginalize the core, older fans. Get those old guys out of the shops to make room for the kids! That seems to be the mantra. Games Workshop has about as much chance of getting those kids in the stores with the upcoming deluge of Star Wars mania as they do of licensing any Star Wars games themselves.

Now I know I am going to come across as a hater, but that isn't my intent here. I'm pointing out a simple, pragmatic truth. I'm asking the apologists, the shills, and just the average gamer on the street to please explain to the rest of us how Games Workshop is going to compete with what is coming? Disney has even announced the construction of Star Wars Parks. Lets consider what Star Wars (and games based on it) will have:

1. A fleshed out cosmology and history that every kid to every senior knows, loves, and understands.
2. Constant advertising blitzed out at every level of pop culture.
3. An already existing, growing (thriving even) community of gamers playing in the setting already.
4. Easy options for vehicle games, miniature games, video games, yadda yadda yadda...
5. Games which will be welcomed into every single store from the largest to the smallest providing distribution to parents who don't even know where to find Games Workshop.
6. The setting has a G to PG feel which parents will always see as safe and no baggage of any kind to make them worry about sex or violence or adult themes.
7. The price point will be right.
8. The toys will already be ready to go which is great for kids who rarely have the patience or inclination to learn painting and modeling aspect.
9. Saturation will make access to a community of other kids who play as readily available as Magic the Gathering.
10. The movies will just keeping coming one a year at least.

I'm not exaggerating here. I'm stopping at ten because that always seems more than enough. How exactly is AOS going to draw in the youth? Doesn't it seem like Games Workshop should have been digging in and preparing for this day? Their base and loyalist fans are those that are older and invested. I kind of think you better find ways to get them back inside the shop. Your market is about to become a whole lot smaller.

[Mr Mystery]

Who knows?

But by the accounts of those we might reasonably expect to be informed, it's doing rather well.

[40kGamer]

I've been watching the rebirth of Star Wars with great interest. I completely agree that the Star Wars universe is well put together and has an amazing story that neutralizes the main advantage GW has over the other gaming companies. I will absolutely explode if they release a tabletop game, although the market is so small I don't know if they actually care.

As to GW's community... I think they should be entrenching themselves with their existing fan base regardless of what else looms on the horizon simply because IMO it's good business. A happy, thriving community will bring in new people with little effort from the company as people want others to join into the fun. Alienating your own fans is madness.

[nsc]

I've got a handy summary of my post in the middle and a little closing remark at the end, in bold, a little focal point--feel free to skip to the important bits, as hellboy would.

Warhammer (both 40k and Age of Sigmar) isn't a game, warhammer is a brand, the brand is about the hobby, not the game.

The aspects of the warhammer hobby include: Painting, Modeling, Lore and Gameplay.

Until there is a Starwars miniature game which appeals to painting, modeling and lore then warhammer isn't really competing with these other games. (As an aside I am aware that every form of entertainment competes with every other form of entertainment but please consider the following)

Warhammer, in either space or realms, is about your army, your squad of guys, and I've met many people who name their soldiers and I've even had people "kill off" their characters, for example when this chapter master one player had was stomped by a titan, next year there was a dreadnought sporting the old master's name.

The hobbyists who play with miniatures enjoy individualizing their models, there is no individualization to be found in star wars, no evolving storyline of your guys in battlelore, and this is not a new phenomenon so there is no doom coming, don't fret.

Warhammer from a game aspect, has never held a true monopoly, it grew up among many other war games, and it survived as a little card game named Magic grew to amazing popularity. Chess has always existed, as has Go. There will always be other games, cheaper games, more in depth games. Currently video games dominate all forms of entertainment, with the largest ones rivaling even movies. However miniature war-gaming offers something unique.

In miniature war-games there are shades of roleplaying games, of characters named with personality and reasons for existing. You may look at a force and ask "why do these skaven ally with these beastmen?" and the player has a reason. I know someone who is converting the Stormcast from the starter set to field as chaos units, he has a story detailing their corruption and fall into the ruinous powers. Similarly in 40k I've seen haphazard chaos armies fielded with little regard to point optimization, ork hordes thundering around on ramshackle trukks (even if people rightly point out that they're kill points easily earned).

You're right, Star Wars is a huge and popular ip, but the mainstream appeal of star wars isn't the lore, it isn't the background story, poll people on whether they've read any star wars novels or not if you don't believe me. Star wars represents cowboys in space, with blasters firing off in bars and laser-sword duels on metal walkways precariously overlooking certain death.

Now, you're right that other forms of entertainment dwarf even 40k, so how is GW going to draw in youth? Now, previously, fantasy armies were 2500 points, usually (depending on your club etc etc and bob's your uncle) which were usually well over 100 models which required purchasing, building, painting and transporting, before you could even play. That's a hard thing to sell someone, that you would need to put together a hundred little guys (which, previously, you've never touched), before playing. On top of that you needed the rulebook and the army book. Now for many armies (even in 40k) that's going to run you around 300-700 of your countries money just to get all the models and books.

With age of sigmar they can say "hey just get a box and a hero, and start playing with 11 figures"

Suddenly after an afternoon you've got a skirmish force that you can play with, and when you want to get something to add to them, there's no restrictions, there's no points, there's no thinking! You buy the toy that you think looks cool, or the box of toys you think that Cellestant Steve convinced to join him to fight your friend's orruks or what have you.

GW doesn't make games, because they can't compete with games. If you want to slam rank and file armies against each other why would you pick WHFB 8e or Age of Sigmar over Total War?

Board games, card games and tabletop games are something wonderful, but they're wonderful for different reasons to different people. If you want to fly star wars space ships around you won't buy age of sigmar, but if you want to paint a guy holding a hammer and then have him fight your friends swordsman, well age of sigmar is pretty great for that.

[Caitsidhe]

I want to address the organized comments of nsc. I don't think you get my point. I'm talking about youth dollars, i.e. the youth market. It doesn't matter if there ends up being a Star Wars miniature game with all aspects of the hobby. The only thing that matters is that there are only so many youth dollars to go around. AOS is supposedly an attempt to appeal to the youth market and bring new blood into the Games Workshop fold. The problem is that those youth will be otherwise occupied. They are going to be across the street. It doesn't matter what kind of Star Wars games they play only that those dollars (and the kiddies holding them) will not be there to go into Games Workshop coffers. I personally believe there will be a Star Wars game in direct competition within a few years, but that is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that Games Workshop is pushing aside its older consumers in the theory that it will be made up by an influx of the youth market. What I am pointing out is that the youth just won't have the interest or the funds to feed both their interest in Star Wars and Games Workshop products. In that contest Games Workshop can only lose.

[Mr Mystery]

Oh don't talk such utter, utter bollocks.

Youth Dollars my hairy arse. Kids money comes from their parents. And the middle class will throw money at anything their sprog wants, especially if it keeps them quiet and out from under feet.

You've been determined to write off AoS since it was released. If you don't like it, you don't like it. Nothing wrong with that. But spouting pseudo-intellectual nonsense isn't going to validate your opinion anymore than say, shrieking at a whale.

Youth Dollars - prequels put no dent in GW's earnings. At all. Indeed, they continued to grow during it. And those films were big with the youth market - it was sad old tits living in their mother's basements that acted like they'd been personally assaulted by them.

If there was any truth to your assertion, then the unarguable behemoth that is Star Wars would see no movie maker make a family film whilst Star Wars is churning. Harry Potter wouldn't have been printed, because Tolkein still serviced that market quite nicely. Stargate would never have been commissioned because Deep Space Nine and Voyager were dominating the TV sci-if market.

[40kGamer]

Unless someone releases an actual Star Wars tabletop game I don't see the Star Wars universe having much of an impact on GW. Also games can be complementary in that one system brings people in and then they branch out to experience other systems. Still, I think Star Wars could be a serious contender with 40k as people absolutely love the universe.

[grimmas]

I think Stars Wars would ultimately have the same problem as LoTR there's only really 2 sides good and evil, light and dark. Yes you could delve into the lore and try and drag something out but that isn't what it's about. 40K background allows for all sorts of battles between all the forces with very little suspension of belief it's what makes it so engaging.

[Mr Mystery]

And there's more to it.

Many of my friends, perhaps unsurprisingly, are massive Star Wars fans. MASSIVE.

Most play X-Wing, a truly superb game. Some play Armada, a game I'm personally taking a 'wait and see' approach with, but may well take the plunge with at some point.

But hey, they're also all GW players. And not just GW, but Forgeworld. Price is not a concern, and they spend far, far more on GW stuff than on X-Wing. Indeed, I have the largest collection of X-Wing among us - two of every ship, with the odd 'just the one' exception.

For a Star Wars game to get us spending on that instead of GW? Well, it will have to be objectively a better game. And there can't be the supply issues FFG have, where it's months between releases, and even then stuff sells out stupidly quick, only to have replacements delayed.

But most of all? It has to be a game, like X-Wing, where the designers have thought beyond '**** it, it's Star Wars and it will sell'... The company has to be big enough to supply the demand, yet small enough to actually care beyond the cash flow about what a wargame can be.

[40kGamer]

I guess it depends on how they expand the universe. There's a lot of room to develop things and flesh it out. 40k is ultimately a good vs evil story as well using the D&D Chaotic/Lawful/Neutral/Good/Evil spectrum. The current allies and unbound mechanics that lets anybody play with anything requires a tremendous suspension of belief and can easily rip a person right out of the story during a game.

- - - Updated - - -


And there's more to it.

Yes sir, I think any game that brings people into the hobby is good for everyone. Most companies have fed off of GW customers for ages so it's fair play for GW to start feeding off of other companies. I still hope to see more one off games like Dreadfleet or Space Hulk come out of the studio in the future.

[Mr Mystery]

True - there's a lot of unknowns at the moment. So many, we likely don't even know that we don't know we don't know them.

Has anyone announced, beyond FFG, that they have a license for the new films stuff? What scale of game are they going for? A skirmish game for Star Wars could work, except FFG already have Imperial Assault, which has slightly ropey (well, in my opinion) models - ropey enough to put me off the game.

What if, against expectation and what we've seen so far, the films turn out to be terribad? Yes it seems incredibly unlikely given what Disney have done with Marvel, but there's always that chance, especially with something as beloved as Star Wars (though I'm sure there's many a neckbeard getting into a horrible sweaty lather about just which crude comparatives they can use to describe just how much Disney just betrayed their childhood).

[40kGamer]

I don't know that they plan to do anything. Imperial Assault is in the vein of Descent so the minis are ok... I guess. Not spectacular but they do paint up ok. I really enjoy X-Wing and Armada both for what they are but man it would be really cool to have an actual tabletop Star Wars game to kick around.

And sweet lord, let's hope Episode VII doesn't suck!

[Mr Mystery]

There's been attempts before, but nothing stuck around very long. Could make other companies very wary.

FFG have said they'll be doing Episode VII ships, which I'm happy about :) even more happy at the 'Rebels' wave. Very excite for that one!

[40kGamer]

Awesome... 7th edition ships coming is very shiny! FFG tends to stick with what is working for them so I'd be shocked if they took a huge risk on a tabletop game. Somehow I missed the other attempts over the years... although I have a not supposed to exist citadel stormtrooper model from way back when. ;)

[nsc]

I don't think you get my point. I'm talking about youth dollars, i.e. the youth market. In that contest Games Workshop can only lose.

Ok well, I don't see x-wing winning the battle for "youth dollars" either.

I see youths jabbing their fingers at iphones and hanging out in shopping malls, not playing x-wing.

[Mr Mystery]

Speaking of FFG....seems there's been a rapidly shut down leak of Episode VII stuff.

I haven't seen the leak myself - but there's a peculiar post on one of my Facebook feeds about Disney having better lawyers than anyone else, and a short statement about sharing inappropriate images....

For the sake of BoLS, and avoidance of wrist slapping, I kind of hope we don't see them pop up on here!

[Caitsidhe]

Ok well, I don't see x-wing winning the battle for "youth dollars" either.

I see youths jabbing their fingers at iphones and hanging out in shopping malls, not playing x-wing.

This is a fair point. I'm not convinced that the youth dollar is interested in our niche market at all. I'm merely pointing out that the few that are will likely get sucked up by Star Wars purchases rather than AOS. What you bring up is an entirely different problem which faces AOS, i.e. that our niche market really isn't made up of children. In the United States there is no youth market, period. The people who play tabletop war games are young adult to seniors. Every now and then some guy will bring his kid to try and make the next generation part of it, but I have yet to see those kids stick. I'm told in Europe that the culture is very different. It is implied that there is this huge market of kids playing the game. I am willing to accept it with a grain of salt as a cultural difference. Over here, that simply does not exist. AOS isn't going to change that in the States.

All that aside, I can see from other posts here that people still are talking about the upcoming release of Star Wars as not being a problem as long as there isn't a game of the same nature released. Again, I want to stress that there doesn't have to be a tabletop war game released to steal youth dollars. The issue is that Games Workshop doesn't have an inexpensive game. AOS is not inexpensive. The only difference is that you can play it with fewer models. I say that you can in theory because the design of the mechanics give all the edge the the person with the most models. Regardless, it isn't an low cost venture. This means that it isn't a hobby that kids (or their parents who pay for it) are going to be able to maintain at the same time as they maintain a Star Wars fetish. If little Timmy is collecting Star Wars junk (and it doesn't have to be a game) he isn't going to get to collect AOS too. That is the long and the short of it. There just aren't enough rich people. :D

What I'm pointing out is that it is truly insane to be working hard to marginalize and alienate your older consumers at a time when you are facing the oncoming Empire (Disney) which is about to dominate the market. I think you should want those older people in the shops, excited, and playing the game. It seems to me that it makes more sense to find ways to keep them happy and get them buying. Of course, this doesn't have to be a theoretical argument. Star Wars is almost here. We are going to see and feel these effects shortly. What is more, this isn't just another set of movies coming out one every couple of years. Disney didn't drop all that money to make a movie or a trilogy. We are looking at a movie a year for the next ten to fifteen years, billions of franchise dollars, toys, games, clothing, etc. that could drive the economies of entire countries, television excursions, and so on. This is Disney we are talking about.

[nsc]

Yeah but you're still looking at it from a game perspective.

No tabletop game is as inexpensive as video games. For $60-90 you get the latest Call of Duty which you play for a year. It can consume all your free time.
Price per hour that's damn cheap, and it feeds you exciting gameplay immediately, you just pop in the disc and away you go.

What age of sigmar does do however, is provide a possible entry for the youth market, there is a child who frequents the store near me, and he plays games with his father, and he buys and assembles maybe one box every two months, and slowly expands his collection of dudes very slowly.

Previous versions of the warhammer brand never really supported a slow expansion of cool dudes, in fantasy and 40k you needed your hq and two troop choices, and good luck finding a game against someone with just that. However in age of sigmar you can just buy your cool box of 10 guys, and maybe you can find a game, maybe you can't. Maybe you can find a team game, who knows, but those ten guys are a force which can be fielded in age of sigmar.

Necromunda, Kill-teams, Mordheim, these aren't officially supported anymore (lovely games though) so finding a small and inexpensive GW game is dependent on your location. If you knew what necromunda was you could get a box of cultists and be ready and playing games.

Age of Sigmar wraps up these skirmish type games and encompasses it in a shell which runs very well for small games and runs very well for larger games. It lets you scale your force and watch it grow. A lot of people who have tons and tons and tons of fantasy models won't get that. They'll play forces from one army book and they won't really branch out.

I love it though, I can get a box of anything, and swap out any unit, and suddenly I've got 10 brand new models that I've painted and I'm playing with. No longer do I assemble 100+ models just to try out a new army.

So while you're right that Age of Sigmar doesn't fight for the youth dollar, I would argue that it allows the youths to spend their dollars, if they're interested. I remember in highschool I got into D&D because I heard someone mention it--I had never played D&D, but I knew enough of what it was culturally to know that it interested me, so I talked to him about it.

Warhammer as a brand is a cultural identity, popularized by the black library and relic entertainment (yeah I know, like everyone and their dog makes 'warhammer' video games these days, but dawn of war is what get a lot of people interested I find). People will find warhammer, and then when they hear about little model soldier they can paint and play with, well some of them will come looking and they will find the hobby.

After all, how did you find the hobby?

[Erik Setzer]

Previous editions of 40K *did* support smaller matches. That's what 2nd edition was all about. But people wanted to expand and expand and expand, to where even the stuff for Apoc matches is now in the core rules and there's not even a need for an Apoc expansion really. At one point 40K was all about 20-50 models on each side going at it, maybe a tank or two. Now super-heavy stuff is in every other army on the battlefield, and you see dozens of models minimum. People wanted more, GW wanted to sell more, and then we see Kill Team and Combat Patrol stripped from the rulebook to remove the optional ways of playing smaller battles, which were fun and *were* ways people played smaller matches. Similarly, WFB had Skirmish in 6th edition, and introduced Warbands through White Dwarf... but both were kicked to the side to promote "MOAR MODELZ!!1!" Add in the insane book prices, and it was a nightmare.

And if you pointed out those problems, the "GW is perfect!" brigade showed up to rip you a new one. Glad they were around to tell us everything is awesome, I mean, it'd be a shame if we lost a 30-year-old game because there were problems that could be easily fixed.

Oh, right, that just happened.

Sure, AoS "can" be played with smaller forces. I've only seen one match like that so far, each side had one or two characters, some infantry, and a large monster. Otherwise, practically every game I see seems to have more models on the table than WFB matches did. And when you look at an Eternals army on the table and recognize it's got to be around $700 to $800, that's not helping sell AoS as a cheaper alternative. "Oh, but you can play smaller games!" Sure, but there's no incentive to (quite the opposite), and you could have done that in WFB, especially before they stripped the rules to make such games work better.

As for kids... Yeah, they'll go Star Wars easy. It's not just the franchise. You've got a strong franchise that kids like, yes. But then you also have models that are quite affordable even before you start looking at retailer discounts. (I got enough models to do two S&V squadrons and still have leftovers for $100.) The models are already assembled and painted. You can literally go download the rules, grab four or five fighters, and be playing in minutes for just $60-$80. It's easy to find $15 here or there to toss at a new fighter, which you can open in the store and use immediately.

Contrast that with $33 characters who are just as posable as an X-Wing model (that is, not at all), have to be clipped, cleaned, assembled, and painted. Add in a couple units and you're at $133 for the models to play, though you still need to do all the assembly and painting stuff.

GW prices are designed for collectors. Not kids, not even average gamers. While they lament the lack of new customers, they also make plans to paint themselves into even more of a niche, a contradiction that hurts to think about.

But hey, let's see how the new GW AoS lineup does against the new Star Wars lineup. I'm not sure the most diehard "GW is so perfect, everything is sunshine and rainbows and looking up up UP!" person can claim AoS will win that fight in its current sales format.

[Caitsidhe]

After all, how did you find the hobby?

Old guys. I was recruited, like the vast majority of those in the U.S. by seeing older guys playing in my local gaming store. I watched them play, checked out the models, and wanted (like most competitive young guys) to be a part of that. There was a community of older players always around and thus there were people to teach the game, lend armies, and bring us up. Of course, I should point out that I wasn't a child. I was a young adult. Children have other things that catch their interest. I know I harp on the cultural difference thing, but it needs to be said again and again. Games Workshop seems unwilling to accept the fact that the people who play the game in the U.S. are different and require a different business model. We are recruited in a different manner. We enjoy competitive games (and that doesn't make us all power gamers) because that is the way we were raised. For better or for worst, Americans can play competitive games for the love the the sport. It doesn't mean we don't get the hobby aspect. It doesn't mean we don't enjoy scenarios. It simply means that there is another equal aspect for us. Americans don't see competitive games as a bad thing. In fact, they are kind of part of our zeitgeist. Attempting to eliminate the competitive aspect more or less cedes the American market. If Games Workshop can take that hit, power to them. I don't know why they would want to do that, but it is their call. It seems silly to me because there is no reason a balanced game can't service all types of players.

I don't want to digress too far from the topic here though. Game design is another ball of wax entirely. The issue here is at whom is AOS really being aimed? What is the age group they think are waiting in line to buy this stuff? Have they ever set foot in an American store? At some point, I'm going to have to hop across the pond and check out these British GW stores just to see what they look like and who shops there. By all the chatter here, I kind of imagine it like that scene from Willie Wonka where all the little kids are pouring into the candy store dying to give their money up to the singing candy man. I need to see this. I can intellectually accept your word for it but emotionally I just don't believe it. It isn't part of the American reality. Thus, it is hard for me to believe that AOS really has a market among children. If it is directed at adults, the mechanics are simply not there. I have a hard time seeing how it is going to compete with all the other interesting toys, games, and sundries that the youth market buys, much less the oncoming storm of Star Wars.

[nsc]

But what is competing with age of sigmar?

What other game lets me paint dwarfs with hammers and name them and read books about heroes and great battles.

What other hobby hands me elves and magic and tells me to paint my own magical effects?

Star wars x-wing competes with games, GW doesn't.
I play board games, of all types, I play video games (much less these days than when I was younger), I read books, watch movies, follow a few tv shows.

All of these forms of entertainment compete for my time, but none of them satisfy my urge to model and paint 50 satyrs and watch them charge into a line of swordsmen.


So yes, there are other games, x-wing is another game, but GW is trying to cut out competition, they're not a games company, they're a hobby company. They're warhammer. Age of Sigmar isn't marketed at gamers, because better games have existed and will always exist. For competition you can't get better than Magic, with a worldwide tournament network that's supported in almost every single country. Furthermore, changing your competitive angle in Magic is leagues easier than even x-wing, and transportation to farther competitions is dead simple. You put your deck of cards in your pocket and go.

If adults want a super technical competitive game there is chess, go, poker. There are amateur sporting events for competition, there are countless ways to compete.

There is only one way to dream up a fantasy army and play with toy elves.

Age of Sigmar is targeted at the person who sees a box of dwarves and thinks "boy I really want to paint that"
Then they look over at their friend who bought a box of elves and thinks "boy I want to see my guys fight his guys"

Warmachine and hordes has a tight game, and organized play. Almost nobody I know plays it. They love the imperium in 40k, the tales of space marines and the (sometimes) tragic brothers who fell to chaos. It's about the struggles of humanity in the face of an overwhelmingly hostile universe.

Age of sigmar is very similar to that, they've given you entire realms to carve out your made up empire, lead by your made up leader, be he a king, she a queen, an emperor, a pope, a priest, whatever you desire there is space for your story in this world. For the squads you paint to exist, to breathe and march against the forces of your friends who have their own story for existing.

Finally I would challenge your idea that Americans require competition. Why is it routinely written about by Mark Rosewater and other executives at Wizards of the Coast that the casual players make up the majority of magic the gathering card sales? The tourney players hound forums, finding optimal lists, rarely buying booster packs they instead prefer to buy from secondary markets to minimize the cost of buying randomized booster packs. Why is it in this hyper competitive game, with a huge international competitive scene, why are the casual players still more profitable? More desirable to the businessmen, the CEOs, the stockholders?

If, as you claim, america is so culturally competitive, why is the casual scene of magic the gathering still far larger and more profitable than the competitive circuit?

[40kGamer]

If, as you claim, america is so culturally competitive, why is the casual scene of magic the gathering still far larger and more profitable than the competitive circuit?

My group considers ourselves casual but by the standards I see on forums we are apparently competitive simply because we want points values and some form of reasonable game balance. We aren't looking for balanced perfection and we also aren't fielding 4-5 Wraith Knights just because the designers screwed the rules for the model up really bad. But at the end of the day we do want some 'system' for selecting our armies, and we want it to be reasonable. As GW moves away from any semblance of balancing factors we've moved away from them. There are simply too many other ways to spend those valuable gaming hours at the present.

[Erik Setzer]

Um... Basically, your selling point for AoS is the same selling point as John Doe writing a very, VERY generic set of rules and fluff and posting them on the Internet. Being "wide open" is only because nothing's really defined yet (despite what BoLS will tell you about all the fluff being completely defined so much better than the first few years of 40K's life).

What other games let you paint fantasy heroes and name them things and all that? Let's see... Kings of War, Warthrone, Malifaux, Hordes, Frostgrave, probably lots of others I haven't thought of. In other words, EVERY FANTASY MINIATURES GAME OUT THERE.

Age of Sigmar is aimed at collectors, not gamers. It's something to do with the models they assume you buy just because you like models, rather than the models you buy to support a game you like to play. It's something to do with the kits that normally are supposed to sit on a shelf at home and look pretty. The models come first; the game is an afterthought.

Is that a bad idea? Heck yeah! And I'm frankly shocked they went that far, since they used to quietly admit that's wrong (and then go back a bit further and they straight up admitted the games were important to sell the models). But that *is* the core idea now.

Personally, the games come first, and I'll pick the toys I use to play a game with based on which game I'm playing.

And yes, people, Games Workshop miniatures are still toys. When you get super-serial about it and rage and whatever or try to talk up your figure collection, you need to remember they're still toys. That's not a bad thing, I have toys on my desk at work to show off my fandom, but it helps keep perspective on what we're talking about here.

- - - Updated - - -


Star wars x-wing competes with games, GW doesn't.

This is, by far, the most incorrect comment yet.

Games Workshop makes games, and they make toy soldiers to play those games with. You might buy the toy soldiers for other reasons. The reality is that if you get rid of Warhammer 40,000 and Age of Sigmar tomorrow, GW sales of models would plummet. The company would take heavy losses. Why? Because people buy their toy soldiers to play games.

Which means they are competing with other games.

[Lexington]

This is, by far, the most incorrect comment yet.
Maybe. I think this is the experiment GW is running with AoS - can they actually do the things nsc is talking about? Can they make themselves a "hobby" company, with games created as an afterthought? From a business perspective, the "game" part of the business is almost all limitation. Points limit sales, army lists limit sales, comp limits sales, etc. Much better, from a pure business perspective, to say "buy all you like!" especially since their more traditional model is failing for them.

At the end of the day, I doubt they can do it, or at least I doubt they can with AoS. "Hobby" markets like this require a strong IP to draw customers, and AoS just ain't it. GW lacks the internal resources and structure to create intriguing worlds anymore. All the best creatives left the building a long time ago. The fairly low interest that the game seems to be generating is a result of this.

[Erik Setzer]

GW might well be trying to not compete with other games... but that doesn't matter. AoS *does* compete with other games. It's a game. And if you take away the game, the model sales will plummet.

The current board has tried an approach that's just bound for failure. They want to sell just models and ignore games, but without games, there's no reason for most people to buy the models, especially specifically GW models. The games are what let them control their IP and try to hold onto people. If they tried to become a serious miniatures-first company, without games, then they'd have to directly compete against a lot of other miniature companies out there, and why get GW's Undead when some other company makes serviceable (or even better) Undead models at a much lower price? What use are Stormcast models to most people? You can't repurpose them for many games. You can just go down the line like that. Companies like Reaper are able to make it work because they aren't trying to create a monopoly, they just make nice figures and put them out at a good price. The same goes with other companies. Take away the game Infinity, and most of those miniatures won't sell nearly as well as they do right now, despite being great miniatures. In order to make much money as a miniature manufacturer, you have to be relatively generic with your stuff, an approach that doesn't fit GW's need to control its IP so badly they tried to rename a bunch of fantasy tropes.

This middle ground isn't working. They can't convert to a miniatures-only company, especially given that they refuse to be generic. So they need the games to sell their miniatures. And while they have games, they're competing with other games. If someone's not playing AoS, they're likely not going to buy GW fantasy miniatures. (Note I said "likely," as there's always exceptions.)

Yeah, AoS doesn't have any real way to determine an actual winner and loser, which makes it iffy as a game, but it's still considered a game and, as such, competes with other games.

[Mr Mystery]

Gonna have to disagree on the IP background stuff.

I'm currently up to date on all the books and novellas etc, and so far it's all solid.

In particular, Chaos are explored beyond 'kill you for my gurd'. The Nurgle stuff in particular is superb. Yes it currently remains Stormcast heavy, but that's where the narrative is for now - and yes I'm assuming it will move on in due course.

But consider Warmachine. When I first got into it, I found the background....either achingly generic, or non-existent. However that is going all the way back to the book after Prime, when the game was in its infancy. Now I've not been interested enough since then to give it further attention myself, but I understand it's background has expanded and improved somewhat - so like all things, it takes time to develop.

To say it's a weak IP one month into launch is rather premature, no?

[Erik Setzer]

To say it's a weak IP one month into launch is rather premature, no?

No, it's honest.

I'm not saying it will remain ill-defined. But the point made was, in a nutshell, that the lack of any real defining fluff presents a blank canvas to work on. Well, if a blank canvas is what's wanted, there's plenty of those around. If the background becomes fully defined, there's less leeway. You can always find a corner of the background to work in your army's fluff, but, again, you can do that with any game, so it's not unique to AoS alone.

For the moment, though, it's honest to note that there are just two "fleshed out" factions, and some are outright missing or barely mentioned so far. They'll be there in the future (presumably), but we're not talking about some theoretical future when the canvas will be less blank.

I'd disagree on it being "all solid," but that's the difference between my seeing some flaws in GW and you being a person who fires up the cash cannon whenever they release something new. We could debate that all day, and it'll result in nothing more than some troll coming along to declare me as an anti-GW hater because I don't go with the viewpoint that everything GW is the best thing ever. (It's also not really relevant to this topic.)

[Mr Mystery]

Elves have been mentioned, as have Dwarfs - there's snippets about them in Quest for Ghal Maraz.

As for my opinion - I don't find any mileage in discussing stuff I'm not enthused about, or stuff I utterly loathe. That's not the same as being mindlessly happy with any and all offerings. I'm not massively enthused about Armada - but I don't go on and on about it. I'm disappointed at what happened with Warhammer Forge - but I don't go on and on and on about it like a broken record. There's plenty at work that pisses me right off on a daily basis - and I'm only vocal about that to my team's manager, and I try to be as constructive and evidence based as I can be.

The rest is....odd. You've initially disagreed with my premise, then gone on to explain how you actually do agree with it.

As with any game, AoS isn't for everyone. Opinions on the background will of course vary, as they do in all forms of literature. That some like to denigrate it on a regular basis is truly baffling to me. I don't get the motivation behind it. It's not going to change anyone else's mind, and nobody really cares all that much if you don't enjoy something they do, because your lack of enjoyment has no relation to their enjoyment. This isn't something like smoking. You're not in danger of passive-enjoyment of something you're not terribly fussed for.

But I'm guessing you or others may be tempted to challenge me to name stuff I'm not fussed or fond of that GW has done. Well, for one time only (because as I said, I see no mileage discussing such things)...

1. Death/hiatus of Specialist Games. Specifically BFG and Epic. I'd prefer for them to still be available.
2. Until Mechanicus came out, I was very 'meh' about 40k. I'd seen it all before, and played it all before.
3. Black Library novels (Gotrek and Felix in particular) not being quite canon. Example - Gotrek jobbed Throgg. Throgg then shows up in Middenheim where he kills Sigvald
4. End Times glossing over anyone not Empire or Elf for the most part. Ogres, being my favourite army barely got a look in, and when they did, suddenly in the thrall of Orcs. Big old 'meh' to that.

But you wouldn't know it - because complaining online is, to me, a completely pointless exercise. It is what it is, and no amount of online complaining is gonna change that. To my mind, one might as well complain that water is too wet, or ice is too cold.

[Auticus]

I don't get the motivation behind it. It's not going to change anyone else's mind

Several motivator points actually to consistently bashing a product:

1) to hurt the company by driving away potentially interested customers. makes the person feel that they are avenging (for lack of better word) their emotional attachment.

2) to attempt to change peoples' minds to side with their stance (see #1) to also better help with #3

3) to motivate the company to bring back the product that they have emotional attachment to. By themselves not likely but if they have crusaded enough to sway enough people, the thought is the more people raging, the louder they are raging, the higher the chance that the company will respond positively to what they want

4) to recruit or "push" people to a different system that the person dropping consistent negative comments actually likes, because gamers like to play systems with a large community... the larger and more vocally happy the community the more perceived as being "#1" and more validating.

Some people will complain, and I think thats fine. Typically if a person is just angry and doesn't really have an agenda, they will complain for a short while and go away. The ones that chronically complain are either super critical of everything and just complain about many things, or they are pushing an agenda.

Plenty of motivation to repeatedly go to fan sites to drop bombs because it works. Not 100%, but there are enough examples where repeated and chronic complaining gave people their way to be for many a legit tactic in getting what they want.

[Mr Mystery]

I don't think it does work.

Want someone to try a game you enjoy? Enthuse about that game. Having repeated pops at a different game just makes me think you're a bit of a phallus, and maybe have too much time on your hands.

Take the demise of 8th Ed. Still got all my books, and because bases don't matter in AoS, I'll procure square bases for any future purchases, meaning I can field a given force in either system.

I don't get people taking personal offence at the actions of GW. Nor do I understand how someone can claim to know better how to run it when their own experience of running a similar company is non-existent. Truly baffling is confusing hindsight with foresight. The worst examples are to be found on dakkadakka. Their complaint points are entirely mercurial. Demand GW does A. GW does A. WHAT DID THEY DO THAT FOR, EVERYONE KNOWS EVERYONE WANTED B.

Seriously. What's the point? If you're that ****ing full of commercial wisdom, go use your clearly genius level intellect with your prophetic blessings, play the stock exchange, make a stack of cash and buy the ****ing company out.

[Auticus]

Because of things like the 6th ed dark elves getting re-written or Battletech being brought back due to customer raging. It gives people hope that if they complain loud enough for long enough that there is a chance.

Otherwise - simply out of spite to get a rise out of people.

[Mr Mystery]

6th Ed Dark Elves?

I think that was more just 'lets do Dark Elves again. I've got a cracking idea'.

But whining anonymously online? The hell does that achieve? Write to the company. Get constructive.

[Houghten]

even more happy at the 'Rebels' wave. Very excite for that one!

I got so excited I couldn't wait for FFG to release their Gozanti cruiser and bought the Lego one.

[Auticus]

6th Ed Dark Elves?

I think that was more just 'lets do Dark Elves again. I've got a cracking idea'.

But whining anonymously online? The hell does that achieve? Write to the company. Get constructive.

The white dwarf article that amended the 6th ed dark elves came verbatim from the druchii.net community.

[Mr Mystery]

Ahh, gotcha. Though you meant the army book that came out after.

Had forgotten about that errata thing. About the only change that sticks in my mind was giving Executioners Heavy Armour, on account the models were clearly in full clank!

[Erik Setzer]

Well, since I actually explain my criticisms, they don't count as "whining," nor do I do it anonymously. I have no need to hide behind any screen name. My words are my own, I'll accept judgment on them.

Why do I criticize things? It's just part of who I am. I'll also say what I like, but I see no problem in pointing out issues. Honest criticism is key to any discussion. I wouldn't think it's a good idea to do so in any topic titled, for example, "What do you like about this thing?" In that case, saying what you dislike is contrary to the topic. The reverse is also true, of course. Outside of those limitations on the range of discussion, it's fair game.

I'd try to explain further why I'm so willing to speak critically, but I'm not sure I can understand it in a satisfactory way. That's not to suggest anyone is "stupid" or lacking in intelligence or I'm some kind of higher being or anything. It's just that different minds work different ways, and if you're already opposed to the concept of speaking critically, then I'm not sure it achieves anything to spend the next five paragraphs trying to explain the critical speaking. (After which, someone will be personally critical of my decision to not post in quick soundbites, which, strangely, seems to be acceptable even while being critical of a game or a company is not.)

I would comment directly to Games Workshop, but it's become a moot point, and that's the source of one of my biggest criticisms. They don't listen to customers, actively ignore them, and act like they know better, even while displaying an uncanny level of ignorance about the market they're in.

I will try to explain my reasoning for being so critical here, and hope I make it understandable... Simply put, I like 40K, liked WFB, and loved a lot of now-dead games. I've watched every game I love from Games Workshop killed so far and I fear the same will have to happen to 40K to try to salvage something of it soon. I criticize AoS because the sloppy job they did with it means it can't gain the foothold WFB had and the fantasy miniatures market is now more fragmented (though I suppose that's not so bad since I now have an excuse to try other games, but that such an action is necessary due to the people leaving behind GW's fantasy game is not a pleasant thought). I was, and I suppose still am, a big fan of GW and their games, and that's why I hate the missteps that I see happening, and speak about them. Anyone who's been in my apartment knows all the stuff I have from GW (and it'd be so much more if not for that bloody fire). I don't want to see it disappear. I don't cheer when it does poorly, I get angry because I know they could be doing better, but their current direction is to minimize the company as much as possible.

AoS could have been a solid enough game, if they'd just expanded the rules a few more pages to make them less ambiguous, and included point values, and even could have said, "We suggest you try playing games without points values, see how it goes!" The game can still be fun with people you explicitly trust, but for pickup games it becomes a test of who has the bigger wallet to buy the proper counters or the latest hot units and models. While that might seem like a good plan for bean counters, it will turn people off in the long run, and, aside from the damage that'll do to GW, it'll mean fewer people to game against (well, with those games... those folks might just migrate to other games).

I wish GW would pay attention to the market. Even if they'd still chosen to replace WFB rather than fix it, we'd have a less messy game with AoS.

As for the background of AoS... There's some good, some bad, some ugly. Unfortunately the worse parts tend to stick out more at times, like Sigmar losing his hammer because he's a fool *and* afraid of fighting a guy who's beneath him. Or that guy he's afraid of even existing, or some parts of it feeling like they're retreading the same stories from End Times. There's potential in the story, but it feels like they're trying to rush books out to grab dollars while people are excited, and that's causing some of the story to be redundant. But the biggest problem for me was that they started the game off with zero stakes. Unless they retcon it, the story is never going to be as interesting as it could have been. Right from the start we know Chaos can't ever win in this setting (despite winning with a lot less time to do it in during the End Times), and from here it's just Sigmar winning over and over until they try to "up the stakes" with Chaos regaining some ground, but then we go back to the problem where they told us Chaos can't win. Even if they temporarily "win," they don't destroy everything. There's other quibbles that are relatively minor (i.e. if it's been thousands, or even just hundreds, of years, why is Slaanesh still digesting the Elves, and when did Tyrion and no-longer-Malekith start looking for him? Bonus, if Tyrion needs Teclis to see, where's Teclis on that journey?).

GW screwed up. They can still fix it, but they won't if they surf the web and just see people saying "We love this game, it's perfect, nothing is wrong with it!" Bad enough that the BoLS main site reads like an over-eager paid advertisement (i.e. the claim AoS already has more background than the first few years of 40K), but when anyone who comments with a criticism is battered relentlessly, it sends the message that everything is fine and anyone critical isn't worth listening to.

And then we get games dying after 30 years. Because "nothing is wrong and nobody can say there is or they're a GW-hating troll!"

[Lexington]

To say it's a weak IP one month into launch is rather premature, no?
Not really, no; it's not the original Warhammer or 40K, able to flesh itself out over the years due to a lack of competition. It's 2015, the fantasy/sci-fi gaming space is well-explored and culturally hot right now. If you want to compete, you have to come to market with something that's immediately exciting and eye-grabbing and interesting.

Prime-era Warmachine is actually a solid example of how to do this right - it was released with a ton of visual pizazz, close associations to existing fantasy concepts that were tied together in an original way. It immediately drew audiences in, and the game took off like a shot.

AoS just...ain't that. The concepts don't communicate much, and have little underneath them to sustain interest. It's a pretty clear-cut scenario of an IP designed by committee, with far too much of it obviously existing only to satisfy a range of business objectives. Without GW and the Warhammer brand behind it, it's the kind of game universe that would be lucky to get the kind of interest Wild West Exodus is kicking up.

It's a weak IP, and the game's reception has reflected this.

[Mr Mystery]

Going to have to agree to disagree on that one.

Though out of interest, have you had a chance to read any of the short stories?

[Auticus]

Well to be fair, WM also came out at a time when GW's tournament presence was dropped and tournament players were livid. PP came along and said "yo tournament guys we built this professional sports-level wargame thats designed primarily for competition. Seeings how GW dropped official tournament play, and a lot of you translate that as GW does't want your business anymore, wanna play?"

If Age of Sigmar had been released as a competitive tournament game and marketed at tournament players (with points and all), the IP and story could have been about walking logs of pooh talking to each other set on worlds made of gumdrops and toilet paper and it still would have been flocked to, because gameplay and tournament quality is what many (most that I know) players judge a game off of - whereas narrative is sometimes considered but not a breaking thing.

For someone angry at AoS, the literature could be written by Tolkien and be a masterpiece and they'd still slam it as being horrible because they want it to be horrible because the game itself is not catering to what they want out of games.

Having read all of the fiction now, it isn't worse or better than a lot of the space marine novels they put out that people eat up. In fact - to me it reads heavily like a space marine novel except sigmarites instead of space marines. They even call themselves "brother".

[Mr Mystery]

I just found it to be bland and generic. It was a period when any U.S. created game always had Soviets or otherwise Commies as the baddies. But hey, that's different cultures around the world for you.

Sadly I've not taken to their aesthetic after that, so I can't comment beyond that experience.

[Auticus]

I don't dig WM for a few reasons:

1) the aesthetic bothers me
2) I don't like steam punk at all
3) the nature of players that it had attracted when I played were very painful to play against, and waved the Page 5 banner whenever they had the chance.
3b) related to 3 - i could never get any campaigns going with it, because the playerbase was 99.99% tournament driven and i play these games for campaigns
4) kill the king mechanics are fun for a scenario or two but the whole game is driven by it
5) games that center around popping combos as a primary strategy have never interested me

[Erik Setzer]

I'm going to check out the stories soon as I just got them, but right now, it feels disjointed. It's like the new Secret Wars setting, which is mercifully just a temporary thing. For a short-term story, you can do that. Long-term, it'll just causing more issues. The realms are an even weirder idea than any of the "Bubblehammer" ideas or anything like that. It's like having multiple versions of Outland, but with each one themed, like an MMO zone that doesn't care about the one beside it being completely different. There are concepts, but that's about it.

It might get better with time, but it also has potential to get worse. It's a framework, so it's hard to judge what the end result will be. For now, though, it *is* fair to note it's lacking. That's not saying it will always lack, just that it is right now.

But the issues in the story that we currently have are what bug me. That big issue with the lack of stakes is what's hurting most. There's no people to care about, and we already known Chaos can't win.

[Erik Setzer]

I don't dig WM for a few reasons:

1) the aesthetic bothers me
2) I don't like steam punk at all
3) the nature of players that it had attracted when I played were very painful to play against, and waved the Page 5 banner whenever they had the chance.
3b) related to 3 - i could never get any campaigns going with it, because the playerbase was 99.99% tournament driven and i play these games for campaigns
4) kill the king mechanics are fun for a scenario or two but the whole game is driven by it
5) games that center around popping combos as a primary strategy have never interested me

Well, 1 and 2 are good reasons you should leave it alone. You don't like the look or theme? Okay, 'nuff said.

#3... You're not accurate on the entire playerbase, even at that time. Might have been half, but probably not that many. Heck, the local WM players were less about beating someone's face in and tournament gaming than the GW players. Page 5 has also been written in the latest rules at least to specifically say that "play to your best" doesn't mean to be a jerk, and doesn't mean you should feel horrible if you lose (but seriously, don't just accept loss and not try to get better).

#4... Not as bad as you'd think. But it is a mechanic that makes it different from other games. Nice to see someone at least trying to be different. If you don't like it being an option in the game, though, probably not a game for you, yeah.

#5... So you're not playing Age of Sigmar? Currently it's filled with combos, even more so than current 40K.

I think the last point is rather important... You're finding reasons to dislike another game, but you like (I'm assuming you actually like AoS?) a game that also does one of the things you claim to dislike.

But it is distressing to see someone once again just throwing an entire group of people under the bus because of personal dislike for a game system. Trying to judge by your personal experiences isn't a good idea, because if I went with my personal experiences of the majority of local AoS players, it'd be that AoS players use the loose rules as an excuse to throw together hideous combos that are meant to crush the opposing army completely.

[Auticus]

As for #3 - I'm speaking of the playerbase that was around me. The playerbase around me drove me away from WM.

#4 - as I said - is ok to do once in a while but every game of WM that I played without exception ended when the caster was killed.

#5 - Perhaps I just cannot express more clearly but WM was all about managing caster combos and popping off the daily at the right time. AoS doesn't have this. If AoS was all about managing caster combos and popping their daily at the right time, I wouldn't be playing AoS either. Incidently I despised D&D 4th ed for the same reason. Age of Sigmar has a level of combos yes, but so did WHFB and so does 40k. WM seems to me to center around that concept though. That's just my perception.

Judging by my personal experience is the only way that I can judge something. If the playerbase around me repels me to a game, it doesn't matter that your playerbase wouldn't repel me because I will never get to play against your playerbase. My player base for WM were entirely tournament oriented tournament-only players and I don't like that *shrug*.

Other areas being different cannot change that because I do not play in other areas, I play in my area.

[Mr Mystery]

Story wise, I can recommend Under the Black Thumb.

That's my favourite so far.

[Erik Setzer]

Judging by my personal experience is the only way that I can judge something. If the playerbase around me repels me to a game, it doesn't matter that your playerbase wouldn't repel me because I will never get to play against your playerbase. My player base for WM were entirely tournament oriented tournament-only players and I don't like that *shrug*.

Well, that's one of the things tainting my enjoyment of AoS so far. There's a small number of people I'd play it with among the people who do play it. A lot of fantasy players are moving on to Kings of War or Frostgrave or other stuff, leaving not many playing AoS, most of them newer players who play at the GW store, and they tend to do cheeky stuff with their armies. One of them is bad about trying to find ways to push the rules to their limits (made worse by the fact he's constantly misinterpreting them). If you read Knights of the Dinner Table, imagine Brian as an AoS player, with an apparently unlimited budget (he's put four Bloodthirsters on the table at once). That's what I have to work with. To be fair to AoS, I tend to avoid some of those guys playing other games, but it seems like AoS brings out an even worse side of them, because there's no restraints (though if I were to recommend restraints, they'd be leather straps before rules changes).

- - - Updated - - -


Story wise, I can recommend Under the Black Thumb.

That's my favourite so far.

Got that one, Eye of the Storm, Gates of Azyr, War Storm, and Assault on the Mandrake Bastion.

Is there a particular chronological order to them? I'd guess GoA, WS/AotMB, BtBT, and then EotS, but I might be a bit off there. GoA is a tie-in to the boxed set (will get that from Amazon when I can), The Realmgate Wars is the name of the series of books Ghal Maraz is #1 in so those stories are likely after the initial story. It's the other two that I'm not 100% sure of.

[Mr Mystery]

Gates of Azyr, then Warstorm are the only ones to have a set chronology.

Assault on Mandrake Bastion appears to be toward the beginning of Sigmar's push. Call of Archaon likewise, as Eternals do feature. But the two series don't appear to pre or post date the other.

Found War Storm an interesting read. Third story is the strongest, though I am a Nurgle man, and I'm finding the Aqshy stuff a bit 'Get on with it!'

[Lexington]

Going to have to agree to disagree on that one.

Though out of interest, have you had a chance to read any of the short stories?
Just the free excerpts on the BL site; they're, well, awful, but unsurprisingly so? Like, if you made a computer program set to churn out something that hit all of the standard Bad BL Writing checkpoints, they're exactly what you'd expect to come out.


It was a period when any U.S. created game always had Soviets or otherwise Commies as the baddies. But hey, that's different cultures around the world for you.
Examples? I can't think of anything else that came out in the 2003-ish era with a Soviet-style faction. If it's not your thing, it's not your thing, but I'm genuinely confused as to where this idea would come from.

[Mr Mystery]

I'll dig up some examples, but that was the impression I had at the time.

[Erik Setzer]

I'll dig up some examples, but that was the impression I had at the time.

You're likely thinking of the computer games, especially Call of Duty, which seemed to be really into US-vs-Russia. Things have shifted to more of a US-vs-Middle-East. Basically, people like to fight on-screen the guys the media tells them are bad.

[Denzark]

What I'm pointing out is that it is truly insane to be working hard to marginalize and alienate your older consumers at a time when you are facing the oncoming Empire (Disney) which is about to dominate the market.

2 things here. Firstly - I don't think they are working hard to marginalize and alienate older consumers. They may not be doing anything to NOT marginalize and alienate them, but it is a sin of omission not commission.

I think they are very laissez fair about veterans. They'll either get their money or not. Bear in mind a veteran knows all the tricks- where the discounters are, what alternative company modelling goods measure up, etc. After all, buying a new army book and adding 2 units to a 20 year piece of work to keep it up to spec, is not that valuable to them.

I'm not saying its the best approach. But as with everything, it has the benefit of being a lesser risk approach.

Secondly, I am in no way convinced the star wars IP will attract a tranche of new gamers. Based on what? Did AD&D or WFRP quail because of the West End Games Star Wars Role play? Did Universal balk at giving FFG Star Trek - Attack Wing because X-wing is sucking the market dry?

Um, no. Not that I am aware of.

The parents who are funding these little timmys may want something more than pre-paints - especially dads who remember the fun of sticking airfix kits together. A fully terrained painted table top is an awesome thing compared to a random black 2-D space board with repeated prepainted stuff all over it.

I don't think the Star Wars IP will become more of a problem to any other wargame than it is now proportionately. Any more than I believed GW that LotR would be a huge entry level drug.

Actually if X-wing or any other star wars game is as simple, it may actually drum up custom for other systems if it is the first game people play - because people want to paint, model, convert, have a 3D battlefield - and unlike 40K, you know in X-wing, the good guys win at the end. At grimdark 2 minutes to midnight you know no such thing.

[Arkhan Land]

Secondly, I am in no way convinced the star wars IP will attract a tranche of new gamers. Based on what? Did AD&D or WFRP quail because of the West End Games Star Wars Role play? Did Universal balk at giving FFG Star Trek - Attack Wing because X-wing is sucking the market dry?

I think it kind of depends on how far and wide theyre willing to distribute, as dumb as this sounds, I know of at least a half dozen people who've gotten into current edition DnD because its starter kit and basic books are available from walmart. to be kind of blunt, these arent the sort of people who I think would be caught dead at a local store because perhaps they think are just "nerdy" and not a "nerd"



to the main topic:

I dont know that im worried about AoS getting killed by Star Wars/Trek/Etc if nothing else I think that GW is at a moment where they can more clearly than ever see the birth and sale of this game in real numbers in near realtime thanks to this wonder age of we live in, Warhammer was a game started in the near information dark, spreading out through a system of paperwork bridging distributors to stores then even sometimes shipped to customers with stock on some items pilling up perhaps without any sort of real notice or warning through a myriad of circles of players using different editions of armies and editions of books, etc.
AoS is going to happen in a totally different era and climate, I would hope that they are aware of enough of what is happening from a numbers perspective to not blow themselves up via over-production/versus sales/throwaaway army entries/other logistical misteps, that let them continually roll out this new product kit by kit where they cant keep making a buck while doing it. If anything perhaps this is their longterm plan to keep people rolling in while they get this puppy growing. Then again maybe its a Nobody's Driving kind of situation...

But this might all be sort of secondary to a thought to a general observation: is fantasy as a genre setting kind of failing compared to Sci-Fi in the media/marketplace in general? Growing up through the 80s/90s I remember the extravagance of the era, tons of crazy Medieval crazy *** movies, Tor's "Tor Fantasy" label (now Tor/Forge trying to focus on American Westerns and Mysteries sadly), in the modern Era our champions of the era are around but fewer and farther between LOTR, Thrones, Elder Scrolls and Zelda are about all that have really struck a chord through most of the population. Last convention I went to I saw a small handful of Zelda Cosplayers, maybe three Legolases (is it legolasi? plural) a Gandalf, A few of the "Skyrim Dude"s and maybe a half dozen members of various Thrones "houses". Then there were easily more people dressed up as master chief from Halo than from every Fantasy setting (including a few Animes) combined
Is the Renaissance fair over?

[Gamgee]

I guess it depends on how they expand the universe. There's a lot of room to develop things and flesh it out. 40k is ultimately a good vs evil story as well using the D&D Chaotic/Lawful/Neutral/Good/Evil spectrum. The current allies and unbound mechanics that lets anybody play with anything requires a tremendous suspension of belief and can easily rip a person right out of the story during a game.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes sir, I think any game that brings people into the hobby is good for everyone. Most companies have fed off of GW customers for ages so it's fair play for GW to start feeding off of other companies. I still hope to see more one off games like Dreadfleet or Space Hulk come out of the studio in the future.

+100000

Remember the 40k RPG line? It was FFG's crown jewel of RPG line when they bought it up from the defunct company that made it. Launching them to new heights of success. They launched books ALL the time. Like every few months for multiple game lines. Then they got the Star Wars rights. Now all their lines are basically dead with the very rare book trickling down the line for one of their 40k lines per year. Probably going to stop all together. Meanwhile every few months the Star Wars RPG players are getting things.

Now that huge smart FFG has the rights to Star Wars miniatures and RPG's. Backed by the behemoth that is Disney.

Many people might laugh now, but someday soon FFG with the success SW has brought it and its merger to another company will be in a position to buy up GW completely. All it will take is a few strategically placed game lines and gigantic success which will suck up GW's followers. Then the old giant will be dead, and we'll be in unknown territory then with FFG in charge.

FFG, Star Wars, and Disney's marketing are coming for you.

As big as GW is they are a tiny pebble in a vast ocean. Disney being like the Roman Empire at its peak of toys and FFG a client state to them. GW is like Macedonia/Greeks. A shadow of its former glory. Now kind of backwards.

Quite ironic then that what lifted FFG to its heights will come back to destroy GW.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bzWSJG93P8

Everything is planning as I have foreseen. I told my friends about this years ago when FFG got the SW rights. They didn't believe me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9mEqFE2P7Y


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CP9dg38cAI

[Caitsidhe]

2 things here. Firstly - I don't think they are working hard to marginalize and alienate older consumers. They may not be doing anything to NOT marginalize and alienate them, but it is a sin of omission not commission.

You must have missed the posts by some other people hereabouts who state they work (or worked) at a GW store and the standing policy was to drive the veterans out. They described it with great glee and satisfaction. They could have been lying I suppose, but as they are some of the chief GW White Knights (sounds better than apologists and shills) hereabouts, I find that unlikely. I've heard that policy described to me by other Games Workshop managers (some that approved and some that didn't).



I think they are very laissez fair about veterans. They'll either get their money or not. Bear in mind a veteran knows all the tricks- where the discounters are, what alternative company modelling goods measure up, etc. After all, buying a new army book and adding 2 units to a 20 year piece of work to keep it up to spec, is not that valuable to them.

It is unfortunate but true that veterans, by their very nature, have more of the product. However, you keep them buying and invested by supporting the community at large and the sport/competition side of things. Veterans recruit more new blood than any other method. Competition drives sales. Events drive exposure.


I'm not saying its the best approach. But as with everything, it has the benefit of being a lesser risk approach.

It is a slow decline approach. I agree with you there, but declining sales report after report adds up.


Secondly, I am in no way convinced the star wars IP will attract a tranche of new gamers. Based on what? Did AD&D or WFRP quail because of the West End Games Star Wars Role play? Did Universal balk at giving FFG Star Trek - Attack Wing because X-wing is sucking the market dry?

Um, no. Not that I am aware of.

No but that was a very different time. We are talking about Disney here and an oncoming storm of movies one right after another for 10-15 years. What we are discussing isn't the drying up of the gaming market, but the drying up of the youth market, i.e. what AOS is supposed to be aimed at winning over. Games Workshop disregards its veterans and says it wants the youth market at a time when that youth market will not be attainable, at least not with their traditional total lack of marketing.


The parents who are funding these little timmys may want something more than pre-paints - especially dads who remember the fun of sticking airfix kits together. A fully terrained painted table top is an awesome thing compared to a random black 2-D space board with repeated prepainted stuff all over it.

This is wishful thinking. Parents only want to placate their children. Their children will be living and breathing Star Wars. The brand was always a super magnet for the youth market and that was even before Disney (the ultimate kings of marketing to children) got into the act.


I don't think the Star Wars IP will become more of a problem to any other wargame than it is now proportionately. Any more than I believed GW that LotR would be a huge entry level drug.

I agreed with you. I thought the LOTR flight of fancy was foolish. It wasn't sustainable even if it were to be a cash cow for a short time (it wasn't). Tolkien isn't coming back from the dead to write more books and it isn't an IP that can be bought and sold like Star Wars. We disagree about the Star Wars IP, obviously, and we will get to see it unfold in real time and very soon. I'm perfectly content to agree to disagree with you for now since our argument will literally be solved one way or the other in 1-2 years at most.


Actually if X-wing or any other star wars game is as simple, it may actually drum up custom for other systems if it is the first game people play - because people want to paint, model, convert, have a 3D battlefield - and unlike 40K, you know in X-wing, the good guys win at the end. At grimdark 2 minutes to midnight you know no such thing.

There is the idea that a "rising tide floats all boats" and to some degree that is true. However, that tends to happen for little fish (i.e. lower cost) who get lifted by a big fish causing waves. Games Workshop prices itself as a big fish. It will actually be undercut by the leviathan hitting the water and won't be lifted but rather swamped and drowned. The only question is whether or not enough veterans will stick by the company and make purchases to keep them in the black while Star Wars (and other small competitors) take away their target youth market. That was the point of my article. Games Workshop should be treasuring and finding ways to appeal and maintain its longstanding consumers because that is their port in a storm. Whether you are correct and they are just ignoring them or I am correct and they are actively driving them away... the end result is the same. It is a loss they cannot afford to take given the market weather at the moment. Star Wars is coming.

[Path Walker]

If you're going to try and put words in my mouth, you could at least say you're doing so.

But anyway, you are wrong about what I said, GW aren't trying to discourage Veterans from playing their games, they try and discourage problematic customers from hanging around in their stores where they make it difficult for the staff to recruit new players.

You've also never looked into the massive benefit LoTR had for GW, its the reason they were able to invest so much into 3d modelling and plastic production which makes them a world leader in that field now (even the hardest hearted would have to admit that no one does plastic miniatures quite as well as GW, Wyrd are close but still lagging a little behind, no one else is anywhere near).

Should they have renewed that contract for The Hobbit? No, with hindsight, probably not, but they weren't to know those films wouldn't attract the same level of interest as the previous trilogy when they signed the contract so it probably seemed like a sound move at the time.

People thought the prequels would be the end of GW as kids wouldn't care about 40k when they were obsessed with Star Wars, they were marketed to hell and in spite of adults with the filter of nostalgia not liking them, kids ate that **** right up, they were very popular with children. It didn't kill GW then, it probably won't this time either.

Looks like you'll have to find the next thing that will kill GW to rant about, or you know, drop it, its a company, why are you so obsessed with seeing a company fail?

- - - Updated - - -

Also nice to see all the people who scoff when its suggested that GWs most important customers are children then gleefully rubbing their hands together at the thought that kids not being interested will kill the company. Which is it guys?

[Caitsidhe]

If you're going to try and put words in my mouth, you could at least say you're doing so.

1. I thought you set me on ignore. Didn't you say you were going to do that? :D We both knew you wouldn't.
2. I didn't name you because I have manners. Since you have outed yourself, I highly suggest people go back through your posts and read what you wrote exactly.
3. You never do yourself or your cause any favors when you chime in. Thank you for climbing aboard. Having you along for the ride is like having another ace in the hole.


But anyway, you are wrong about what I said, GW aren't trying to discourage Veterans from playing their games, they try and discourage problematic customers from hanging around in their stores where they make it difficult for the staff to recruit new players.

I'm not wrong about what you said. I will happily quote you if you like. Attempting to spin it now is rather pointless.


You've also never looked into the massive benefit LoTR had for GW, its the reason they were able to invest so much into 3d modelling and plastic production which makes them a world leader in that field now (even the hardest hearted would have to admit that no one does plastic miniatures quite as well as GW, Wyrd are close but still lagging a little behind, no one else is anywhere near).

I've no idea what you are on about here. It is tangential but I'm willing to entertain it. Let's assume I have no idea as you suggest. Educate us. Give us some numbers and sources. Demonstrate why LOTR was a great step for them with supportable statements and facts. I'm happy to eat crow if you can.


Should they have renewed that contract for The Hobbit? No, with hindsight, probably not, but they weren't to know those films wouldn't attract the same level of interest as the previous trilogy when they signed the contract so it probably seemed like a sound move at the time.

Make up your mind. Was it a good idea or not. It either ended up making them money or losing them money.


People thought the prequels would be the end of GW as kids wouldn't care about 40k when they were obsessed with Star Wars, they were marketed to hell and in spite of adults with the filter of nostalgia not liking them, kids ate that **** right up, they were very popular with children. It didn't kill GW then, it probably won't this time either.

It probably won't? :D Don't tell me doubt has created a minor fissure in your otherwise indomitable, Pollyanna mindset? I didn't say it would kill GW. I said it was a fools errand to aim the game at the youth market when they won't be able to compete with what is coming. My argument is that they should value their veterans because those are the people paying the bills. The imaginary lines of children waiting to pour into Games Workshop stores will only bring in imaginary money.


Looks like you'll have to find the next thing that will kill GW to rant about, or you know, drop it, its a company, why are you so obsessed with seeing a company fail?

There is a difference between how you and I approach a debate, how we support our arguments, and even why we do it. I don't rant. I don't rave. I'm actually pretty passionless about it. I'm not obsessed with seeing Games Workshop fail. I merely comment on their actions. If I wanted them to fail I would never offer advice and cheer them on right alongside you Pathwalker. :D Instead, I offer a consumer's constructive critique and what I believe will help their sales right along with my predictions of what will happen (right down to guessing the percentage of lost sales accurately in the last two reports) if they don't. I'm a tabletop wargamer. It is one of my favorite hobbies. I'd rather they do the job well and create more games for me to play.

[Path Walker]

You're so very, very delusional. I unblocked because I couldn't resist seeing what utter, utter nonsense you'd be spilling this time, sadly it was just more of the same. I can't even be arsed to mess about with Quote tags to reply to you, you humongous lunatic.

What I said was that occasionally a new manager would start in an area and clean up shop by getting rid of problematic veterans. You took it personally because you're a problematic customer.

You said LotR was a failure, GW say LoTR was a success for them and they invested their money back. Its on you to prove your point, not me to prove theirs. Burden of proof is on you for that.

It was a good decision at the time it was made. It turned out to be a bad idea due to factors outside their control. This happens in business, you can make the right call but it isn't the correct decision at the end of the day, no one is to blame. That's why i used the word hindsight.

Once more you state, in spite of saying you support your arguments, that Veterans are paying the bills, again, as you apparently come up with all the facts and figures, please show some evidence to dispute the notion that new players, as GW say, spend more money on the hobby and are more valuable customers compared with veterans. GW states that an average customer will spend the majority of their money in the first 18 months of taking up the hobby.

And again, the company is restructuring to change its customer base, they expected loss of sales over the period and said as much in every report that loss of sales was in acceptable limits while it restructured and that they're still in profit so its not a problem.

GW is a business, they make business decisions, you are a serial complainer who whines about a company not making the decisions you think would be best.

So to reiterate, you're not a share holder, they don't have to explain anything to you and if you think you are smarter, show it. the burden of proof is on you, not me or GW. You've offered nothing constructive or intelligent. You have ranted, you can claim to not but its obvious when you read your posts that you're an angry young man who thinks he's smarter than everyone else in the room, you're also delusional in thinking anyone, at the company or on this board, cares about how much "advice" you offer.

Playing the dispassionate intellectual while raving about toy soldiers is such a cliché.

[Mr Mystery]

You took a calculated business decision which led to massive growth, before coming to an abrupt end, but still managed to leave you in a better position than when you started......

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/superheroes/images/4/43/Captain_Hindsight.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20101112014058

[Path Walker]

although apparently more than 50% of sales from LoTR in the last year came just from selling Smaugs

[Denzark]

I can't help but put on my broken record and state I think this highlights the Atlantic cultural divide. GW doesn't do 'the community' because it is vibrant without them spending time on it - in the UK at least. This might not work in the States - because there is clearly a higher sense of entitlement as a consumer.

The proposition that the Whale of Disney would come after the Minnow of GW is odd to me - because GW are such a minnow by comparison the £16m profit (or whatever from last year) is not even worth the steam off Minnie Mouse's lady bits.

Star Wars anything and everything will do well. But then, it has always done so. Grimdark is not a direct competitor though, they just happen to have some common themes.

If GW thought FFG was a competitor I don't think they would add to the strength of that competitor's hand by licensing stuff their way.

[Gamgee]

I can't help but put on my broken record and state I think this highlights the Atlantic cultural divide. GW doesn't do 'the community' because it is vibrant without them spending time on it - in the UK at least. This might not work in the States - because there is clearly a higher sense of entitlement as a consumer.

The proposition that the Whale of Disney would come after the Minnow of GW is odd to me - because GW are such a minnow by comparison the £16m profit (or whatever from last year) is not even worth the steam off Minnie Mouse's lady bits.

Star Wars anything and everything will do well. But then, it has always done so. Grimdark is not a direct competitor though, they just happen to have some common themes.

If GW thought FFG was a competitor I don't think they would add to the strength of that competitor's hand by licensing stuff their way.

It's not Disney they need to worry about. It's Disney's comrade FFG I went into detail on it in my previous post.. So... indirectly it is Disney. Hahaha. FFG is being put into a position where they could buy up GW. Which is now such a minnow to them and their scale of profit. Then some years down the line they are bought up or brought into the Disney fold. Very clever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrLgXmHJTFI#t=1m20s

[Mr Mystery]

Odd.

FFG's owners published their results.

And the FFG element wasn't really anywhere near GW's own takings?

[Path Walker]

It's not Disney they need to worry about. It's Disney's comrade FFG I went into detail on it in my previous post.. So... indirectly it is Disney. Hahaha. FFG is being put into a position where they could buy up GW. Which is now such a minnow to them and their scale of profit. Then some years down the line they are bought up or brought into the Disney fold. Very clever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrLgXmHJTFI#t=1m20s

Except they don't compete in the same spheres at all, their is audience cross over but, GW is about collecting miniatures that you can play with, thats their business model (agree with it or not), FFG don't have that same model, they sell games, the models are just playing pieces for those games, so both can happily coexist, they have shown no interest in competing with each other, as other people pointed out GW license properties to FFG, their relationship is mutually beneficial.

Disney could just as easily license Star Wars miniature wargames to another company anyway, hell, GW have a good track record there with the LoTR deal, I'm sure if they approached Disney with the idea they'd listen.

[Gamgee]

Except they don't compete in the same spheres at all, their is audience cross over but, GW is about collecting miniatures that you can play with, thats their business model (agree with it or not), FFG don't have that same model, they sell games, the models are just playing pieces for those games, so both can happily coexist, they have shown no interest in competing with each other, as other people pointed out GW license properties to FFG, their relationship is mutually beneficial.

Disney could just as easily license Star Wars miniature wargames to another company anyway, hell, GW have a good track record there with the LoTR deal, I'm sure if they approached Disney with the idea they'd listen.

Wouldn't it be great if FFG owned 40k? It would make a great game. It certainly couldn't hurt to own the second biggest mini IP to use for any sort of game they want without having to deal with GW's derp. Makes perfect business sense to me. And since they even make good games I could easily see them considering it. At one point in history 40k was a great game. Then they got into the minatures side. Hid behind their walls so to speak.

[Captain Bubonicus]

2 things here. Firstly - I don't think they are working hard to marginalize and alienate older consumers. They may not be doing anything to NOT marginalize and alienate them, but it is a sin of omission not commission.

I think the AOS rules they released for older WHFB miniatures were a pretty good example of GW giving the "old guard" the finger...

"Sure, you can keep playing with your old miniatures - but you have to rub your head, pat your belly and scream "RUBBER BABY BUGGY BUMPER" the whole time you're playing. Isn't this fun?"

[Mr Mystery]

Not really, no.

And can you define 'GW's derp' please? And how do you mean GW, a company noted for their miniatures, 'got into the miniatures' side?

[daboarder]

I can't help but put on my broken record and state I think this highlights the Atlantic cultural divide. GW doesn't do 'the community' because it is vibrant without them spending time on it - in the UK at least. This might not work in the States - because there is clearly a higher sense of entitlement as a consumer.

The proposition that the Whale of Disney would come after the Minnow of GW is odd to me - because GW are such a minnow by comparison the £16m profit (or whatever from last year) is not even worth the steam off Minnie Mouse's lady bits.

Star Wars anything and everything will do well. But then, it has always done so. Grimdark is not a direct competitor though, they just happen to have some common themes.

If GW thought FFG was a competitor I don't think they would add to the strength of that competitor's hand by licensing stuff their way.

its less "come after" and more, Eat all the food in the pond

[Gamgee]

Not really, no.

And can you define 'GW's derp' please? And how do you mean GW, a company noted for their miniatures, 'got into the miniatures' side?

You said it yourself. Their into the business of selling miniatures. Doesn't seem to stop them from shoving out games ALL the time, but yeah I'll agree with you because it doesn't really matter. Even if all they did and all their focus was on mini's only there is more than enough incentive to buy them up. FFG currently has two of the best selling minatures games around and is gaining ground fast. In the span of a few year's their doing what GW took their entire company's existence to do. Any executive not worried wouldn't be on my payroll.

[Denzark]

its less "come after" and more, Eat all the food in the pond

I get this - but even where GW figures are not great (in profit whilst just today all the major markets lost 3-8% - in a DAY) they are still not in a position where they would be forced to sell - so why would the board let the golden goose go?

[Path Walker]

You said it yourself. Their into the business of selling miniatures. Doesn't seem to stop them from shoving out games ALL the time, but yeah I'll agree with you because it doesn't really matter. Even if all they did and all their focus was on mini's only there is more than enough incentive to buy them up. FFG currently has two of the best selling minatures games around and is gaining ground fast. In the span of a few year's their doing what GW took their entire company's existence to do. Any executive not worried wouldn't be on my payroll.

I really think you're overestimating FFGs size and remember, those big games they have? They're based on licenses (they also have their own IPs and great games based on those like Android and Descent) what happens if Disney pull them? They are limited in their scope by fact that their biggest sellers aren't wholly owned, no one knows the terms of those deals but FFG and Disney and no one can say how long they'll last.

I'm sure the new star wars films will be great, well marketed successes but that's out of FFGs hands, they're reliant on another company for their success. If Disney got a better deal from someone else, they'd leave.

[Arkhan Land]

no one knows the terms of those deals but FFG and Disney and no one can say how long they'll last.

I'm sure the new star wars films will be great, well marketed successes but that's out of FFGs hands, they're reliant on another company for their success. If Disney got a better deal from someone else, they'd leave.

I would assume and hope for their sake that perhaps they have some sort of longer term agreement, if they were smart maybe through the next three episodes and in a situation where you are tied to a company like that im sure you'de have plans to try and step-it up if need be or know that youde make a profit in having to force your licensor to buy back its rights for the duration of whatever contract (assuming they were going to make enough money to do something that drastic)


You said it yourself. Their into the business of selling miniatures. Doesn't seem to stop them from shoving out games ALL the time, but yeah I'll agree with you because it doesn't really matter. Even if all they did and all their focus was on mini's only there is more than enough incentive to buy them up. FFG currently has two of the best selling minatures games around and is gaining ground fast. In the span of a few year's their doing what GW took their entire company's existence to do. Any executive not worried wouldn't be on my payroll.

in addition to miniatures GW has made an entire print publication department that is making them a fine amount of money in physical and totally non-physical sales through their books and ebooks. FFG can never ever do this, do you know why? because the rights to do so are owned by other companies, when FFGs mini market becomes saturated or they have badly selling release they have no other corner to go into. It kind of doesnt matter if they make a better or more popular mini-game in the end the only thing thats allowed companies to survive is diversifying through merchandising and licensing. Star wars has sold as a franchise under 8 Billion in ticket sales and home video/rental/etc. BUT they have made TWENTY BILLION DOLLARS selling EVERYTHING ELSE.

GW has survived periods when it has lost its smaller games and had flimsy releases in all its core games (Now included), if the same happened to FFG or PP, a company like them wouldnt have a leg to stand on.

[grimmas]

Just a little context.

FFG last year £25M globally

GW £120M globally

Things drop off quite a lot after number one.

It's a bit like the U.S. Navy in that respect.

X-Wing is a welcome addition to Wargaming but it has a long way to go.

Also by the logic being touted surely one could replace AoS or GW with any other game or company and say they are finished because, Star Wars.

[Path Walker]

According to the logic in the OP, any product that aims at the 9-14 year old demographic is doomed to fail in the next decade because Star Wars.

[Caitsidhe]

According to the logic in the OP, any product that aims at the 9-14 year old demographic is doomed to fail in the next decade because Star Wars.

No, I was very specific. Games Workshop is a company with a very limited product line, i.e. it has 40K, 30K if that can truly be considered its own branch, and Age of Sigmar. Ostensibly (or so they claim) AOS is designed to take aim at the youth market. It does so at the expense of a fair percentage of its older consumers. I feel it is a poor choice for Games Workshop to aim one of its few branches at a market in which it cannot hope to compete. I think they would be well served by finding a way to reach out to their older consumers, create a better public relations situations with their market (they have the worst), and lock down that portion of their base which will be most loyal. Games Workshop has priced itself as a luxury item. Luxury items always suffer when a popular (and less expensive) alternative hits the scene.

[Mr Mystery]

Can you define and cite said definition of 'fair percentage' please?

[Caitsidhe]

Can you define and cite said definition of 'fair percentage' please?

Unfortunately I can't. It it too soon, although I expect the next report will demonstrate it with another decline in overall sales. I can say exactly who I mean however. It would be all Fantasy players who want more complexity in their game, i.e. a game not simplified to the extreme to make it easier for the very young. I would also be talking about all those people that Pathwalker has conveniently commented on above in one of his gems, i.e. the people that he says Games Workshop is restructuring. :D If we were to take his word for it, anyone outside the first eighteen months. That is a rather astounding number of us don't you think?

[Path Walker]

No, I was very specific. Games Workshop is a company with a very limited product line, i.e. it has 40K, 30K if that can truly be considered its own branch, and Age of Sigmar. Ostensibly (or so they claim) AOS is designed to take aim at the youth market. It does so at the expense of a fair percentage of its older consumers. I feel it is a poor choice for Games Workshop to aim one of its few branches at a market in which it cannot hope to compete. I think they would be well served by finding a way to reach out to their older consumers, create a better public relations situations with their market (they have the worst), and lock down that portion of their base which will be most loyal. Games Workshop has priced itself as a luxury item. Luxury items always suffer when a popular (and less expensive) alternative hits the scene.

Also: Please cite sources for: " AOS is designed to take aim at the youth market", if you have none, explain how you think this wargame is any more aimed at children than any of their other products have been for the last 20 years.

"create a better public relations situations with their market (they have the worst)" - explain how you have decided they have the worst public relations in the market, citing sources or studies.

"lock down that portion of their base which will be most loyal" - explain how you're defining loyalty exactly and how that helps them as a business when they don't spend much money.

Its a kids game, has been for longer than most people here have played, if you started post 1994, then you've always played a game aimed squarely at children. Get over it, adult fans are not more important than children.

- - - Updated - - -


Unfortunately I can't. It it too soon, although I expect the next report will demonstrate it with another decline in overall sales. I can say exactly who I mean however. It would be all Fantasy players who want more complexity in their game, i.e. a game not simplified to the extreme to make it easier for the very young. I would also be talking about all those people that Pathwalker has conveniently commented on above in one of his gems, i.e. the people that he says Games Workshop is restructuring. :D If we were to take his word for it, anyone outside the first eighteen months. That is a rather astounding number of us don't you think?

This is the most badly written paragraph of grasping nonsense that I've ever read.

[Caitsidhe]

Also: Please cite sources for: " AOS is designed to take aim at the youth market", if you have none, explain how you think this wargame is any more aimed at children than any of their other products have been for the last 20 years.

If you don't know why already, I sure as heck can't explain it to you. :D I suppose you can't tell the difference between the rules sets.


"create a better public relations situations with their market (they have the worst)" - explain how you have decided they have the worst public relations in the market, citing sources or studies.

Soda just went out my nose again. You are the absolute best thing about BOLS. You should know that you won me ten bucks the other day. Some thought the party was over when you claimed you were setting me on ignore. I just smiled and put ten bucks on your reappearance. You just can't quit me. :D As with your other statement above, if you need me to quote studies at you to prove that Games Workshop has a public relations problem, there is no way I'm the person to talk to you about it. It would be like me telling some stranger's kid that Father Christmas isn't real.


"lock down that portion of their base which will be most loyal" - explain how you're defining loyalty exactly and how that helps them as a business when they don't spend much money.

Its a kids game, has been for longer than most people here have played, if you started post 1994, then you've always played a game aimed squarely at children. Get over it, adult fans are not more important than children.

- - - Updated - - -

This is kind of funny because by your own logic, I suppose I could quote YOU as a source for your first question. I've stated many times that I suspect there is a huge cultural divide based on which side of the Atlantic you reside. Perhaps England is a land where children outnumber the adults playing Games Workshop products. In the United States, that isn't the case. Adults are 99.9% of the market. If you like it better I am happy to caveat my opinions to that grim fact. If Games Workshop doesn't care about the American market, then more power to them. It suffices to say that AOS is not exactly taking off over here. I am one of the FEW people playing it and I don't even like it.


This is the most badly written paragraph of grasping nonsense that I've ever read.

Psst... Father Christmas isn't real. I'm glad you are back man. Our gatherings just haven't been the same. I am raising my coffee, purchased with my winnings due to your triumphant return, to you. The hits just keep on coming.

[Mr Mystery]

See, I just can't buy into the 'AoS has ruined Warhammer forever more'.

Not because I enjoy AoS for what it is, but because, well, Oldhammer is something of a well worn tradition. Those who played earlier editions of the game will continue to do so.

I dunno about anyone else, but I'm a collecting nightmare. I've got all the books barring Triumph and Treachery (which I always forgot to go and buy), but including Kislev and Lustria - so as far as Oldhammer is concerned, I'm good to go back to 7th Ed if needs be. I kind of suspect I'm not alone in this, and I'd imagine that if not a single player, then most groups would be able to pool resources and wind up with nearly every book.

And given they're not fully available anymore (except some through Apple, electronically) I suspect the morally dubious practice of downloading the books could now be seen as a lot less morally dubious (as you may not be able to get them any other way).

AoS? Well, so far it seems to be doing pretty well. It's not exploded like a Cashladen Hydrogen Bomb, but from the various (uncited) sources I'm aware of, there is interest in the game. For first hand anecdote, my local GW has regular holes in its Warhammer stock for the first time in a long time. The manager was saying against expectation, it's mostly Dark Elves, Empire and Chaos selling, and his Warhammer Average Transaction Value is considerably up.

Though there are of course a number of conclusion we could draw - panic buying from those sticking with the devil they know, seeking to ensure SQUARE BASE GOOD, ROUND BASE BAD forever more. Could be long dormant gamers updating their collections for Warhammer. Could be long dormant gamers updating their collections for AoS. There's a lot of possibilities, and if I'm honest it's like 'little column A, bit of column B' etc.

[Caitsidhe]

See, I just can't buy into the 'AoS has ruined Warhammer forever more'.

For the record, we agree here. I don't like the rules. I think the timing was bad. I think it will have to improve a great deal and gain some kind of balance if it is going to fly. While I can't speak with any authority about what will happen outside the United States, I feel pretty confident about it tanking entirely over here. For better or for worst, the American community is tied together by the LGS and the pick up games and tournaments that happen therein. AOS in its current form explodes that dynamic. While I can appreciate your stated sentiments in other posts that the game is supposed to be more casual and that two rational players should be able to get together and be able to work out what is acceptable and what isn't in their game before playing... that just isn't our tradition over here. We like our rules grounded, well-defined and set so that we can meet another stranger and get down to the business of playing the game. The American consumer isn't going to conform to what Games Workshop thinks the culture "should be" they will simply move on to games where they get what is within their comfort zone. Whether you want to label American consumers as spoiled or entitled or whatever else... it is just how things are over here. We expect the product to cater to us, not the other way around. Anecdotal or not, I am dead serious about people moving on from all sorts of Games Workshop products. Right prior to my most recent move, the LGS where I spent the last ten years among die hard 40K fanatics suffered over sixty percent losses to our player base. What is worse, those loses came from people who were so fanatical and Games Workshop friendly that Pathwalker would have saluted them if they passed on the street. When you start losing those guys, there is a serious problem. Losing me is no big deal. I'm a Philistine. I don't care about the IP. I only care about the game. I'm dime a dozen. Losing the people I'm talking about to other games is the hallmark of a disaster.


Not because I enjoy AoS for what it is, but because, well, Oldhammer is something of a well worn tradition. Those who played earlier editions of the game will continue to do so.

I agree with you here in part. We can always break out our old stuff and play among our close friends, but the community (at least in the U.S.) evaporates. Since most of us played at the LGS, our central spot falls away too because it isn't going to be dedicated to hosting games it no longer sells. As I said before, the United States has an entirely different culture for gaming.


AoS? Well, so far it seems to be doing pretty well. It's not exploded like a Cashladen Hydrogen Bomb, but from the various (uncited) sources I'm aware of, there is interest in the game. For first hand anecdote, my local GW has regular holes in its Warhammer stock for the first time in a long time. The manager was saying against expectation, it's mostly Dark Elves, Empire and Chaos selling, and his Warhammer Average Transaction Value is considerably up.

This is something we will have to attribute to anecdotal experiences and our different locations. Where I am at (and back in my former stomping ground) sales are through the floor. Obviously, we will see things clearer in a very short period of time. And if I am wrong about what is happening in my country, I will be the first to bow before you Mr. Mystery and cut into my crow pie. It suffices to say that I don't see myself having to do that anytime soon.

[nsc]

For all the boasting and pandering of these, "other games," and how they're, "taking over," GW still moves more product here than all the competitors combined.

Also note how GW has released analytics saying that most purchases come from a wargamers first 18 months in the hobby. How little WHFB sold before and during the end times. Now explain to me why GW owes anything to these supposed "die-hard-Caitsidhe fans" who weren't profitable consumers.

The facts are pretty clear-cut, if rank and file square bases made money then AoS wouldn't have come out, instead GW moved to balance the armies and bring every "army book" to similar levels of strength, they allow customizing your forces to be much simpler, they're making it easier for consumers to have the product conform to them (you can just buy whatever models you want and play with them, nothing says you need a whole army just because you like the look of this one unit), they allow the game to scale much smaller than before, which combines with the last part to allow players to slowly grow new armies one box at a time, they allow old armies to be modified in the same way (buying and using single boxes at a time).

You say that Americans want the game to conform to them, it does, no longer are you told how you have to play with your toys, but somehow this is more restrictive before and you have to conform to the product?

[Caitsidhe]

For all the boasting and pandering of these, "other games," and how they're, "taking over," GW still moves more product here than all the competitors combined.

Agreed. I have never debated this point. My argument is that their current course of action is leading to that changing. The evidence I cite to support that is a steadily declining sales as shown in the last several reports, the shake up at Games Workshop itself and its product line, and the rather awkward public relations situations it has as compared to its competitors.


Also note how GW has released analytics saying that most purchases come from a wargamers first 18 months in the hobby. How little WHFB sold before and during the end times. Now explain to me why GW owes anything to these supposed "die-hard-Caitsidhe fans" who weren't profitable consumers.

Games Workshop doesn't owe the die-hard fans anything. Games Workshop isn't in a partnership with its consumer base. It is a merchant that wants to divest them of their dollars and cause them to buy more product. The fact that Fantasy was tanking isn't surprising. Mr. Mystery and I used to debate about that a long ways back. I had this funny theory that as the game got more and more random that the worse effect it would have on long term sales. I have this crazy idea that a successful game requires game balance. The last edition of Warhammer Fantasy was just another step towards chaos and random game outcomes. The game tanked HARD. I suppose it could be a coincidence but I did state it would happen and WHY I thought it would happen. The funny thing is that AOS didn't learn a single thing from that failure in sales. They drew entirely different conclusions. They translated random right out of Warhammer Fantasy and made it central to AOS. In regards to the 18 month metric, I have no idea how they would even calculate that. Even if it were true, are we (as consumers) honestly going to cheer a company that states after eighteen months they don't give a rat's patootie about us? :D


The facts are pretty clear-cut, if rank and file square bases made money then AoS wouldn't have come out, instead GW moved to balance the armies and bring every "army book" to similar levels of strength, they allow customizing your forces to be much simpler, they're making it easier for consumers to have the product conform to them (you can just buy whatever models you want and play with them, nothing says you need a whole army just because you like the look of this one unit), they allow the game to scale much smaller than before, which combines with the last part to allow players to slowly grow new armies one box at a time, they allow old armies to be modified in the same way (buying and using single boxes at a time).

The question is why didn't it make money? As I have pointed out in other posts, it wasn't so long ago that that the champions of this current edition were singing the PRAISES of 8th Edition Fantasy. You will forgive me if I take that with a grain of salt? What has actually changed? :D


You say that Americans want the game to conform to them, it does, no longer are you told how you have to play with your toys, but somehow this is more restrictive before and you have to conform to the product?

You missed my point. Americans like rules in our games. We like them standardized. We like the ties that bind. We like plug and play. Believe it or not, we like being told how to play with our toys. :D

[40kGamer]

Though there are of course a number of conclusion we could draw - panic buying from those sticking with the devil they know, seeking to ensure SQUARE BASE GOOD, ROUND BASE BAD forever more. Could be long dormant gamers updating their collections for Warhammer. Could be long dormant gamers updating their collections for AoS. There's a lot of possibilities, and if I'm honest it's like 'little column A, bit of column B' etc.

I've done a lot of defensive buying since AoS was released to ensure I can play the old style to my dying day. (All this with me not having played a game of WFB since 1999) I still haven't been able to get excited about the new game but who knows what it's going to look like in a couple years the way they keep changing their design philosophies.

- - - Updated - - -


For all the boasting and pandering of these, "other games," and how they're, "taking over," GW still moves more product here than all the competitors combined.

Given that we have no numbers for the hundreds of small manufacturers, the historical community or all of the copyright pirates in the world, I find this claim highly dubious at best.

[40kGamer]

I have this crazy idea that a successful game requires game balance. The last edition of Warhammer Fantasy was just another step towards chaos and random game outcomes. The game tanked HARD. I suppose it could be a coincidence but I did state it would happen and WHY I thought it would happen. The funny thing is that AOS didn't learn a single thing from that failure in sales. They drew entirely different conclusions. They translated random right out of Warhammer Fantasy and made it central to AOS.

You bloody heretic! 'True' gamers want to hold hands and sing Kumbaya while letting the random whims of fate rule the day. Balance and structure only exist to serve the selfish WAAC players who want to burn and salt the earth to destroy all life. ;)


In regards to the 18 month metric, I have no idea how they would even calculate that. Even if it were true, are we (as consumers) honestly going to cheer a company that states after eighteen months they don't give a rat's patootie about us? :D

Sounds like one of those statistics that is pulled right out of someone's butt. Unless they are assigning customers some kind of loyalty number and tracking their purchases at all gaming outlets it has no meaning. I don't know how you could even begin to make that claim in the US market. Everyone I know buys from multiple bricks and mortar as well as online with almost noone buying from GW direct since they never discount.


You missed my point. Americans like rules in our games. We like them standardized. We like the ties that bind. We like plug and play. Believe it or not, we like being told how to play with our toys. :D

We also like things to make sense and to be able to play with random people at a set level for the game. Even American 'gaming clubs' are super loose affairs that have people coming and going constantly. Maybe they can grab the 9 year old market with this type of product. I've only ever seen a couple of kids under college age playing anything GW, and they were playing with their parent!

[Erik Setzer]

Not really, no.

And can you define 'GW's derp' please? And how do you mean GW, a company noted for their miniatures, 'got into the miniatures' side?

I'm not in agreement with any comment that GW "got into the miniatures side," since they always were, but I will correct you on your own statement as well. Games Workshop is a company noted for their GAMES. The miniatures are used to play the games that people know about. The background was created to support the games.

Even Games Workshop effectively admits - without saying it aloud, of course - that games are what drive their sales of miniatures, not the other way around. Would you claim WFB's models were bad? No, of course not. So why did the WFB line of miniatures stop selling? Because there were problems with the game (some of which are related to the cost to play the game with their figures, so that was a miniature-related problem). They threw out WFB and brought in AoS in order to try to rejuvenate sales of an entire line of miniatures, because without the game, they couldn't sell the figures.

Every time someone trots out that line about "they're a miniatures company" at face value, I have to wonder if they're even paying attention. Yes, they make miniatures. The miniatures support the games. The games are why we have the universe everyone knows, and what most people (when not prodded by GW to do otherwise) refer to GW by. They're even renaming their stores after the games (ironically, the game they killed off and replaced because they neglected it so much).

GW's known for their games, as they should be. Sure, people know the miniatures you use to play the games as well. But let's not pretend they're a model company, or that they'd be able to exist as they are now if they ever kicked the games to the curb.

[Erik Setzer]

See, I just can't buy into the 'AoS has ruined Warhammer forever more'.

Not because I enjoy AoS for what it is, but because, well, Oldhammer is something of a well worn tradition. Those who played earlier editions of the game will continue to do so.

(Snipped all the rest because it'd take up too much space to requote.)

I have a ton of older books *including* T&T (had to bring my own copy often for our local T&T games). Would have a lot more, but, well, fire happened. Still rebuilding the collection through used book stores and other means as I can. I've got quite a collection of downloads as well.

Doesn't really mean much, though. People aren't playing the game any more.

The game wasn't "well worn" or anything. It's sad that people defend the new thing by saying whatever it replaced was old and needed to die... especially when the "new" thing is really just a simpler version of another type of game that's been around about as long as the other "well worn tradition." To that end, AoS is just as much relying on "well worn tradition," just a different type.

AoS *did* kill Warhammer. It's dead. And that's probably going to always leave a lot of people sour on AoS. Even more so because, really, it wouldn't have cost that much to just keep updating it in electronic format or something and release rules for new models online, like they're doing with AoS. Realistically, they could have kept two sets of rules going for the same miniatures. Given that they claim they're a "miniatures company" and all, it would seem like a great idea to try to appeal to as many people as possible. But that didn't happen, because... well, who knows? There's so many times dumb things happen and they're preventable, but I guess Kirby and Rountree know better than everyone. And now WFB is dead. Yeah.

Ahem. Yeah, I let some of my own bitterness through there. But it's more toward the Board who killed a game because they refused to admit they weren't doing things right (and actively went in the wrong direction).

You can talk anecdotally about your own scene, but then the rest of us can as well. The local GW store has a dwindling group of players, and the fantasy scene is down to a tiny number who all get on one table to do a multiplayer match they never finish every weekend. The shelves are filled with fantasy product, and a ridiculous number of AoS books. The FLGS's in the area aren't moving the product particularly well. A loose "tournament" was set up, and barely attracted anyone. It seems more people are playing Warmachine now (there was always a decent WM crowd, but the WFB players still outnumbered them). People are looking at Kings of War, or Frostgrave. Yeah, think about that: AoS is sold to us on the idea that "you can play it with just a few models!," but people would still rather play a different skirmish-level game. (Mainly because below a certain model count, AoS goes way too fast and its extreme simplicity shows, making you wonder why you aren't just playing a $20 game instead. As the model count goes up, the price also expands tremendously. This isn't that noticeable for people with existing armies or those with plenty of cash they willingly throw at anything GW releases, but is an issue for new players.)

So, yeah, good for your area. In our area it basically just pushed people to go to other companies for enjoyable fantasy games.

The thing to really watch for is what happens if AoS can't grab a spot and hold on and claw its way up? Since miniatures are sold by the games, if the game isn't able to keep an audience, GW might be faced with half of its line being unable to sell well. Would they actually at that point cut off half of their line? Would they explain it away as saying no one wants fantasy models? Would they actually admit publicly that the games are what drive the sales of miniatures and so they should put effort into making good games that had lower barrier of entry and a good balance to allow for pick up games and all?

I don't hope for AoS to fail, but I am curious to see what would happen if it did. Would the Board stubbornly keep up their current attitude, or would they realize that shedding all but one product line is an example that something is very, very wrong?

- - - Updated - - -


Also note how GW has released analytics saying that most purchases come from a wargamers first 18 months in the hobby. How little WHFB sold before and during the end times. Now explain to me why GW owes anything to these supposed "die-hard-Caitsidhe fans" who weren't profitable consumers.

Oh? Please do share with the class. I've never seen any numbers on what's actually selling coming directly from GW. They don't even break down what's GW "proper," what's BL, and what's FW, much less break down paints, magazines, 40K, WFB/AoS, LoTR/Hobbit, etc.

[Charon]

Sounds like one of those statistics that is pulled right out of someone's butt. Unless they are assigning customers some kind of loyalty number and tracking their purchases at all gaming outlets it has no meaning. I don't know how you could even begin to make that claim in the US market. Everyone I know buys from multiple bricks and mortar as well as online with almost noone buying from GW direct since they never discount.

Actually I can believe that. Seems to be the time span where people finally realize that the game does not get more fair if they buy different models.
On a more serious note: I did hear something similar from a friend of mine when he had his "indoctrination". He does not know where the numbers come from but they use it in their training.
It is funny as it was quite the opposite with me as I did not bother to buy boxes just to convert/model/kitbash which I do now in addition to expanding and starting new armies (40k that is).

[40kGamer]

Actually I can believe that. Seems to be the time span where people finally realize that the game does not get more fair if they buy different models.
On a more serious note: I did hear something similar from a friend of mine when he had his "indoctrination". He does not know where the numbers come from but they use it in their training.
It is funny as it was quite the opposite with me as I did not bother to buy boxes just to convert/model/kitbash which I do now in addition to expanding and starting new armies (40k that is).

Guess I was atypical. I bought very little for the first 4 years since I was a college kid, hard to burn $ on games when you're lucky to afford food. :p Purchases increased year by year until 6th 40k tipped over the apple cart and it's been downhill from there.

[spiralingcadaver]

You bloody heretic! 'True' gamers want to hold hands and sing Kumbaya while letting the random whims of fate rule the day. Balance and structure only exist to serve the selfish WAAC players who want to burn and salt the earth to destroy all life. ;)

LMAO!

Also, eloquently put, caitsidhe