|
Post by gjnoronh on Feb 15, 2018 18:29:33 GMT
"Of course the new GW based the ''new'' lore on World of Warhammer they are not able to create something like Sigmar, Nagash, Chaos Deities..."
Odd I wonder if GW didn't create those things who did. . .
"And Again" if you are saying you've read multiple AoS Black Library books and found them lacking compared to WFB Black Library books I can't argue. If you are saying you hate AoS and therefore hate everything associated with it without having read the Black Library books. . .well that's kind of what I thought.
Again I've read one AoS Black Library book, and was pleasantly surprised and am definitely interested in reading more. The story lines for the other books are at least comparable to the previous Black Library stuff on the surface (Black Library isn't exactly the peak of Fantasy literature in the first place.) Unless you've been playing since before 1990 I almost certainly have been playing Warhammer and reading Black Library fiction longer then you. I've seen a lot of good and bad in that time. AoS lore at this point is actually more of the same quality I've seen before.
8th died because of lack of sales - companies siphoning off GW's sales in part caused that death. If 8th ed sold well GW wouldn't have killed the golden goose. AoS was just an attempt to take the existing IP (including key characters from the old world) and make it profitable again.
But that being said "And Again" it sounds like you hate AoS - that's okay but do you love 8th ed? If so why not join this forum and the community it represents and participate in keeping 8th ed alive.
I don't think we get anywhere focusing on our hatred and anger, we get someplace building on the things we love and enjoy. There's room (here it is right here on this forum!) for 8th ed and AoS in the universe of gamers. Help build what you love rather then being angry about things you can't change.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Feb 15, 2018 19:32:29 GMT
Personally, I think that they were hoping that the game (AoS) would be popular enough in itself that they didn't have to "resurrect" old world characters like these, but now that it isn't the hit they wanted it to be, their having to fall back on this plan. Personally I absolutely detest AoS, but I was under the impression that financially it was (regrettably) doing very well. It's hard to know for certain because it is difficult to separate out the relative contributions of 40k and Total War: Warhammer to GW's recent rise in profits and stock value. However, on the surface level, AoS seems to be doing very well.
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Feb 15, 2018 19:40:39 GMT
The game that killed Warhammer - Kings of War is indeed pillaging quite a bit from Warhammer that’s been their whole business model. Using Warhammers Fluff and Art to siphon sales away from WFB is one of the factors in its demise. There are other companies that do the same without their own games. I think you pay Kings of War way too much credit. I don't think it was that much of a threat to WFB. Even now that WFB is gone, there is very little buzz surrounding KoW. The popularity of KoW has never been all that high. The thing that killed WFB in my opinion was GW's own behavior. They made no effort to communicate with their customers, put little towards updating their product in terms of FAQs and completely avoided social media. I think WFB might actually do quite well if it resided in the current environment that GW has created under their new management. Kirby was a death sentence for WFB. I really don't think that KoW had very much to do with it. Maybe they had a slight effect, but extremely minuscule at best.
|
|
|
Post by gjnoronh on Feb 15, 2018 20:19:52 GMT
Just a reminder during the same period of WFB's decline the same company (GW) had the highest selling game in the world without the same market share loss that WFB had. You can dislike GW in general but they had the same approach to their games for a highly successful and for an unsuccesful game in the same time period. IT's not GW itself that explains the decline of WFB.
I was part of the Direwolf team that had direct access to the lead GW rules designer during 6th-7th-8th (my tenure was IIRC only 7th-8th). We were able to directly email compiled and curated questions from other players to that designer. GW lost market share on WFB during 7th even when the FAQ's were fairly common - 8th was hit or miss (some years they were very responsive some years they were not as a good example Unmodified Leadership had about 4 different FAQ's in 8th ed) but the decline in sales was prior.
KoW as a game didn't steal a lot of sales. Mantic as their parent company picked up a lot of WFB sales however. I was a paint judge at GT level events through 6th-8th in the NE US. The proportion of armies that were non GW minis rose significantly through that time period was never more then 10% of total armies but out of 'newly painted' armies in our region it was more.
Hard to get international numbers but in my region there's been a lot more new players for AoS then there were for 8th where there were very few new players.
I think it's telling that they did took a similar approach to 8th ed 40K as they did to AoS. Rules are really quite similar, and they 'advanced the story line' including killing off some key components of the lore (i.e. Cadia was destroyed.) It's also telling they didn't take quite as drastic approach though both with the rules and the fluff.
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Feb 15, 2018 21:33:04 GMT
Playing devil's advocate here... One of the problems we had with GW was that they killed off the Old World. Now they are integrating lots of the fluff of that world into AoS. Is that not a good thing? They are listening to the grumbling and in a few years time it will seem like the Old World lives again... -----------Yes, you make an excellent point. And frankly, if Grom the Paunch returned in AOS, I'd love it. And I'm glad that many characters did survive and move into AOS. From my understand though, many AOS tournament organizers prevent the world-that-was units. They ban the "legend" armies and force people to only play with round bases. If not for this, I might actually participate in the game. My miniatures will remain on squares though, so as a player I'm excluded from the tourney scene. Anyway, regarding Gotrek, it's just more about the story and the end. I liked how the series ended and would like to leave it there. But I'm sure I'll get use to Gotrek being back and actually enjoy it. I'd rather see Malus Darkblade return, there is just something about Gotrek and Felix returning that seems wrong to me (shrug). I'll probably still listen to the audio story though, as I'm curious...
|
|
|
Post by gjnoronh on Feb 15, 2018 21:47:08 GMT
Come on Kevin you are on site every year for the largest AoS tournament in the NE US. Da Boyz was also the first US AoS GT. The issue is accuracy of base sizes for determining the number of attacks a unit gets. That was also an issue in 7th/8th ed for example when units like ungors were rebased from one base size to another or units like the Hell Cannon were now sold with with a base when they were previously baseless. For Da Boyz we explicitly allow square or round but you've got to 'virtually' use the right base size when determining attacks. From my Da Boyz rules pack: "While we will allow square based models you should use the current 'official' base size in terms of determining supporting attacks. For example if a model is currently sold by GW with a round/oval base that is the size to use. If it is currently not sold with a round/square base you may want to review the following resources to determine approximate sizes: warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=130071www.dropbox.com/s/wqsx9u96fihqbz0/Warhammer%20base%20size%20chart%20V1.pdf?dl=0" I can't speak for all TO's but the available free online GW compendium for legacy units have gradually shrunk as armies get 'proper books' As far as I know every 8th ed unit choice is available as a unit choice in at least one if not multiple AoS books or an online free compendium. Older character models are downgraded to generic heroes in many cases. But that same process is the same through past editions of WFB as some character models gained and lost specific entries i.e. Valten, Aekold Helbrass, and that high elf nemesis of Grom whose name is escaping me (who goes from a griffon mounted guy to a blind warrior to I think out of the game again at various points over the course of 5th-8th)
|
|
|
Post by alanthemoderate on Feb 15, 2018 21:47:28 GMT
-----------Yes, you make an excellent point. And frankly, if Grom the Paunch returned in AOS, I'd love it. And I'm glad that many characters did survive and move into AOS. From my understand though, many AOS tournament organizers prevent the world-that-was units. They ban the "legend" armies and force people to only play with round bases. If not for this, I might actually participate in the game. My miniatures will remain on squares though, so as a player I'm excluded from the tourney scene. I would just look for more relaxed tourneys or local play, AoS is a fun game to play, especially if you don't have to buy new models or rebase them
|
|
|
Post by mottdon on Feb 15, 2018 22:23:42 GMT
I was enticed to play AoS when it first came out, but the whole "moving to round bases" was a huge middle finger to me, not because it meant that I'd have to rebase thousands and thousands of models, pointlessly, but rather, because it didn't work with 8th edition, which I actually WANTED to play.
Even though the "official word" from GW was that you could use either base in a game if AoS, I knew it would only be a matter of time before square bases we're banned from play in place like tournaments. I also didn't want to explain every time why my bases we're square instead of round to newbies.
Out of curiosity, what is the reason tournaments are making players use rounds? Is it aesthetics or is there an actual gameplay component that can't be measured from a square? Surely not because of the difference in measurements? That would be ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by alanthemoderate on Feb 15, 2018 22:33:23 GMT
I was enticed to play AoS when it first came out, but the whole "moving to round bases" was a huge middle finger to me, not because it meant that I'd have to rebase thousands and thousands of models, pointlessly, but rather, because it didn't work with 8th edition, which I actually WANTED to play. Even though the "official word" from GW was that you could use either base in a game if AoS, I knew it would only be a matter of time before square bases we're banned from play in place like tournaments. I also didn't want to explain every time why my bases we're square instead of round to newbies. Out of curiosity, what is the reason tournaments are making players use rounds? Is it aesthetics or is there an actual gameplay component that can't be measured from a square? Surely not because of the difference in measurements? That would be ridiculous. Well round bases are slightly larger than squares, thus units can't be in as tight ranks and thus allow less attacks for massive units. That is generally the tournament rules, though those I have seen will mostly allow you to just put some poster putty and stick it to a round base for the Tourny. I actually started purely liking the aesthetics of square bases vs round bases, and boy howdy am I glad in retrospect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2018 23:04:04 GMT
I actually like the aesthetics of round bases in a skirmish setting as opposed to squares. To the point that I'm rebasing a bunch of my models so that all my Mordheim warbands I'm creating for an upcoming Mordheim campaign will be on round bases.
Not going to mass convert to rounds though 12-20 models per warband (I'm putting together 6 of them to try and introduce variety and let noobs get a sense for how different armies feel/play). Or even play AoS for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by gjnoronh on Feb 16, 2018 2:33:57 GMT
mottdon see my post above yours for answers. Key issue is many troops in AoS have attacks with a 1 inch reach. A bloodletter on a 25 mm square base gets two ranks attacking whereas the current base size 32 mm round allows only one rank to attack.
|
|
|
Post by grandmasterwang on Feb 16, 2018 6:22:54 GMT
Gotrek and Felix in AOS is pure fail and an admission that the lore/Mortal Realms suck and they feel the need to dig up actual quality characters from an amazing World.
I love Gotrek and Felix but have zero interest in seeing their lore butchered in AOS. This is coming from someone who is not an AOS hater and has actually bought 3 + AOS novels and listened to the 4 part audio drama series involving Mannfred and Nagash.
I'd much rather see a Khorgos Khul solo book or a Gaunt Summoner book or basically any unique AOS book rather than a poor recycling of a classic fantasy duo. Literally the worst characters to bring into AOS imo.
I read the Fyreslayers book (it was passable).... do another book about them or the Kharadron Overlords.....
I'm all for another Gotrek and Felix book.......but only if it's set in the actual Warhammer world, not this hypothetical future spin off we know as AOS. They already butchered Sigmar's lore...I don't want to see them do it to Gotrek and Felix.
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Feb 16, 2018 14:51:06 GMT
Come on Kevin you are on site every year for the largest AoS tournament in the NE US. Da Boyz was also the first US AoS GT. The issue is accuracy of base sizes for determining the number of attacks a unit gets. That was also an issue in 7th/8th ed for example when units like ungors were rebased from one base size to another or units like the Hell Cannon were now sold with with a base when they were previously baseless. For Da Boyz we explicitly allow square or round but you've got to 'virtually' use the right base size when determining attacks. From my Da Boyz rules pack: "While we will allow square based models you should use the current 'official' base size in terms of determining supporting attacks. For example if a model is currently sold by GW with a round/oval base that is the size to use. If it is currently not sold with a round/square base you may want to review the following resources to determine approximate sizes: warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=130071www.dropbox.com/s/wqsx9u96fihqbz0/Warhammer%20base%20size%20chart%20V1.pdf?dl=0" I can't speak for all TO's but the available free online GW compendium for legacy units have gradually shrunk as armies get 'proper books' As far as I know every 8th ed unit choice is available as a unit choice in at least one if not multiple AoS books or an online free compendium. Older character models are downgraded to generic heroes in many cases. But that same process is the same through past editions of WFB as some character models gained and lost specific entries i.e. Valten, Aekold Helbrass, and that high elf nemesis of Grom whose name is escaping me (who goes from a griffon mounted guy to a blind warrior to I think out of the game again at various points over the course of 5th-8th) ---------------I'm not trying to give a sob story regarding the tournament scene. But I don't like that the AOS rules says bases don't matter and then some tourney organizers are enforcing round bases. I did notice there are now round movement trays...so I could place models with square bases on the movement trays...are people using movement trays and does that work out? I want to make clear that I am not against AOS. I've bough almost every AOS army book and supplement and I enjoy reading the new lore and seeing what's going on with the WFB characters. I'm waiting for the the return of Malekith (they refer to him as Malerion now, it seems), one of the books implied that he rules over the Shadow Realm and has become melded with his dragon... Anyway, I think AOS is also a good game, my issue is that they stopped making WFB and replaced it with AOS. An unnecessary move in my eyes (please don't lecture me about the sales model, I get it). WFB > AOS Eltharion the Grim is the Elf you are thinking of, gjnoronh
|
|
|
Post by mottdon on Feb 16, 2018 15:18:20 GMT
How feasible is it to print off (or purchase laser cutouts) some appropriate sized round disks to set a square based model on for AoS gaming purposes? If technical play is what these tournaments are after, wouldn't that suffice? Otherwise, someone is pushing an AoS agenda and doesn't need the support of 8th edition players.
And I loved the warrior's death Eltharion the Grim (and Stormwing) had to the hands of Arkhan the Black. That was a glorious death in battle. Almost got 'em!
|
|
|
Post by gjnoronh on Feb 16, 2018 15:44:56 GMT
Hey Kev I know you aren't anti AoS just a true lover of 8th. I may have been giving you a hard time about not knowing what Da Boyz was doing but that's it - and that was intended as good natured teasing. I'm sorry if it felt like a true dig. It was not intended as such - my apologies.
For both 40K and AoS I've been using my square based daemons and just bring along a spare base of the appropriate size to use for measuring. I don't think I've seen someone use square bases in round trays but I think you could. Usually people use the trays for deployment and to speed movement and then in combat pull the models off the tray as needed (because of the 'lapping around' style of AoS combats.) Actually for much of my personal AoS games I just was using my 8th ed magnetic movement trays and keeping things ranked up until combat.
I think the 'bases don't matter' rule in AoS was to avoid angst about rebasing models when the new game was released (there was already enough with the mismanagement of the AoS initial release to cause us all plenty of angst!)
The problem is 'ignore the base' causes some challenges in competitive game play. This is _exactly_ the same as the old 'play the model on the original base it was provided with' rule of thumb in previous editions. My Marauder Giant and Hell Cannon came with no bases if I used them that way in 8th ed WFB I would have a competitive advantage as less models could attack them and they had a smaller footprint for artillery. My 3rd ed Manticore model came with a 25 by 50 mm cavalry base - same issue (and boy could it avoid True line of sight shooting fire as it's shorter then a modern warhorse.)
A TO in 8th Ed WFB would say use the modern base size and use an appropriately sized model - and I think quite rightly so. The AoS TO's are starting to move to ensure the right base sizes as well for the same reason. At Da Boyz we did in the second year have a problem where a guy with the wrong base size was putting out twice as many attacks with his plaguebearers as he arguably should have (no fault of his though complicated situation as GW was in the midst of repackaging and rebasing the daemonic infantry.)
|
|