Topic: The grassy fields of Averland are a thing of the past (AoS Top 10)

[Philhelm]

From Games Workshop's "What's New Today," a list of top ten reasons why they love age of Sigmar.

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/blog/blog.jsp?_requestid=326536Check

4. The Mortal Realms. From the Realm of Fire to the Realm of Heavens and everything in between, the Mortal Realms offer a lifetime of war zones to fight over. The grassy fields of Averland are a thing of the past. Long live the floating islands of the Shimmertarn, the ever-changing Eldritch Fortress and the blood-spewing geysers of the Igneous Delta.

I think they're trolling us now.

[Darknight]

That does seem, I will admit, overly cruel.

[RE.Lee]

It does seem like a joke - you only need to watch the Warhammer: Total War latest video to see how great the battles in the Old World were. The new stuff is just meh...

[Darknight]

I wouldn't agree with that. I think the problem we have is that AoS (as it stands right now) is a totally different feel of game. That article linked above contains the absolute kernel of truth - this is an era of gods. That is the core of my AoS army's fluff (hint-hint! Check it out! ) - mortals who are PISSED that the gods are walking the earth.

AoS is a game which is ABSOLUTELY telling the stories of great battles - world-smashing powers, god-like beings clashing. This is freaking Saint Michael kicking Satan's ass and booting him out of Heaven's door. This is Ragnarok every Tuesday.

That might not be to your taste. But I think it's unfair to describe it as "meh".

[ZeroTwentythree]

I think someone, or several someones, at GW are having a field day repeatedly poking at the WFB veterans...

[Zak]

I think someone, or several someones, at GW are having a field day repeatedly poking at the WFB veterans...

  agreed

[Darknight]

Or they are realizing "you know, that game just didn't sell. Maybe if we tell people the new game isn't anything like that, it will be popular?"

We have to remember - we liked WFB. But not enough people did. It wasn't popular. It didn't sell enough to make it worthwhile. They have an audience of "GW Fans" who did not like WarhammerFB. Saying "Guys! This isn't WFB!" is a perfect strategy.

[The Ol Perfesser]

Heh, had to chuckle at reason #8 where they trash talk their own WFB models which were poorly designed and a pain to rank up. 
"Oh, by the way guys we were never really good at designing models to fit in units, so we just gave up and now we don't rank anymore!!!!"   

[Darknight]

Again, it makes sense - that WAS an issue. How many times did people complain about that, or post threads about how to position them etc.? It was a common issue.

GW made a game which simply wasn't popular - it was not popular for lots of reasons. Saying "AoS isn't like that unpopular game!" is the way you sell it to people.

Again - we're skewed because we actually liked it.

[The Ol Perfesser]

Yes, but I am amused by the irony of the situation.  If they had made the effort to produce figures that ranked nicely in the first place (and rules that were balanced, etc, etc), then perhaps WFB would have been more popular and they would not have needed to ditch it and start over.

[Darknight]

I can't argue with a "perhaps"

But ... we certainly thought the rules were balanced enough (we played the game!) We thought the models ranked well enough (we ranked them!)

It's an impossible situation for us to understand, I think - we have a game we loved and enjoyed and supported and was popular to us. But we were the minority. So, that is why GW is promoting the new game by saying "Yeah, we know you didn't like the old one ..."

[Franz Volker]

Those are some very reasonable points. They made me want to buy AoS.

[knightofthelance]

Or they are realizing "you know, that game just didn't sell. Maybe if we tell people the new game isn't anything like that, it will be popular?"

We have to remember - we liked WFB. But not enough people did. It wasn't popular. It didn't sell enough to make it worthwhile. They have an audience of "GW Fans" who did not like WarhammerFB. Saying "Guys! This isn't WFB!" is a perfect strategy.

I guess. But "Hey, remember that terrible game that we made? Well, this isn't it." Hardly seems like a winning strategy...

[Elder Days]

It's safe to say I feel sufficiently alienated.

[Darknight]

It is if you show HOW it is different.

I have been re-reading previous threads on AoS. Somewhere in them, Finlay remarked on how many games of WFB were played at the Eurobash (the forum's annual gathering in St Niklaas for gaming etc.) I could not find that post, but I found my post referencing it; 3.

Presuming I remembered Finlay's comment correctly when I posted, that is ... suggestive.

3.

3 games of Warhammer Fantasy Battle were played at a weekend gathering (I think at least three days) of maybe two-dozen or more gamers drawn from WARHAMMER-Empire.com

That is suggestive - and it is suggestive the game of WFB was simply not popular. Even among us - loyal followers!

GW has to know this - even if all they saw were the sales, the have to know the unpopularity. They see how often it is played in their stores. They see stuff.

They might not know WHY it isn't popular - but they know it is not popular. So saying "This new game is nothing like the old one - and here is the way it is different!" might very well help. Because the new features of the game might be something gamers like.

Specifically; they point out Averland is gone, there aren't green fields. Maybe gamers don't want this kind of realism - maybe they want high fantasy (and this connects to the "lots of gods" thing - people LIKE uber-powerful people... have you not seen the success of the Avengers' movies?) But they also point out the game is free and you can play it with your existing models - low bar to entry.

Actually, to return to the Avengers ....

That movie includes a scene where the Hulk beats up Loki ("Puny god"). And that perfectly, to my mind, sums up what people seem to want - they want unfettered, powerful characters who live without rules telling the world what to do. They want to have heroes without weaknesses. They just want simple, straight action.

It's very ... flat. It lacks narrative depth. It isn't great literature. But it is accessible, and it is popular.

[knightofthelance]

I just really think they would have been better sticking to why the new game is great, without knocking on the old one (which was under the control of the same group of people). If they really wanted to convince people it's not WFB they would have simply left those books on the shelves and said "check out this new and totally different game".  Releasing a bunch of models for the new game at the same time all at once would have also helped, at least a big initial release of the two main armies would have made it easier to see it as an all new game, without having to poke fun at their own previous work.

[Deuce]

I just really think they would have been better sticking to why the new game is great, without knocking on the old one (which was under the control of the same group of people). If they really wanted to convince people it's not WFB they would have simply left those books on the shelves and said "check out this new and totally different game".  Releasing a bunch of models for the new game at the same time all at once would have also helped, at least a big initial release of the two main armies would have made it easier to see it as an all new game, without having to poke fun at their own previous work.

Yeah, this.

I do accept that WFB might have reached the point where something needed to be done about it, although I think GW have to cop the bulk of the blame for killing one of their golden goose there.

But actively trolling the people who actually stuck with that game, the ones who kept buying and talking about it after all others had gone, those who might already be aggrieved by the changes, by effectively announcing that that old game was in retrospect a bit lame and this new one is nothing like it - is really not the way to win hearts and minds.

This approach also assumes that people drifted away from WFB for reasons which I think are largely bunk. Or alternatively that because WFB had become unprofitable that nobody liked anything about the game any more. I don't think anyone stopped playing WFB because the setting was boring. Or for that matter because ranking up units was a bit fiddly. These might have been minor gripes among the playing community but they're not the reason WFB failed - after all, ranked units and a very similar setting were fundamental parts of the WFB that became such a success in the first place.

They might have been factors in stopping people getting into WFB (even if relatively trivial ones compared to cost of entry), and that's certainly worth thinking about, but there are two sides of the coin and when a previously popular and profitable line starts to stutter you need to ask why people are stopping playing as well as why not enough people are starting. GW's whole attitude to the end of WFB and the start of AoS, reflected in this recent stuff, is that as far as that part of the equation goes they simply couldn't give a toss.

[GamesPoet]

From Games Workshop's "What's New Today," a list of top ten reasons why they love age of Sigmar.

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/blog/blog.jsp?_requestid=326536Check

4. The Mortal Realms. From the Realm of Fire to the Realm of Heavens and everything in between, the Mortal Realms offer a lifetime of war zones to fight over. The grassy fields of Averland are a thing of the past. Long live the floating islands of the Shimmertarn, the ever-changing Eldritch Fortress and the blood-spewing geysers of the Igneous Delta.

I think they're trolling us now.

If they are, why in the world woudl they want to do that?

Wait ... wow, they really wrote that?   Evidently there is less interest in bringing old timers along than some suspected they did.

Uh oh, my next comment will probably get me being labeled pedantic again ...

(GP ... no, don't do it!)

...  ... Averland lives!

Wait ... let me put that in bolder print ...

(GP ... no, don't do it!)

... ... I'm definitely not impressed in the slightest with GW's comment.  And this is coming from a guy who has been intending to give WAoS a try, even though I'm not impressed with much of what they've done, and tried to be understanding of their decision.  And then this comes along, and some folks wonder why other folks have the distaste for GW that they do?

Averland lives!

[knightofthelance]

I've maintained that AoS is simply a massive troll since the day the warscrolls came out. They've done nothing to change my mind since.

I've played a few games. A couple with my brother when he came to visit to try it out, and a few with the kids. I thought we might play more, but I'm actually leaning toward Mordhiem, but with These or similar for them. Reaper mouslings will feature strongly of course. They are "cute" and cheap.

[GamesPoet]

That does seem, I will admit, overly cruel.

Yes! 

I wouldn't agree with that. I think the problem we have is that AoS (as it stands right now) is a totally different feel of game. That article linked above contains the absolute kernel of truth - this is an era of gods. That is the core of my AoS army's fluff (hint-hint! Check it out! ) - mortals who are PISSED that the gods are walking the earth.

AoS is a game which is ABSOLUTELY telling the stories of great battles - world-smashing powers, god-like beings clashing. This is freaking Saint Michael kicking Satan's ass and booting him out of Heaven's door. This is Ragnarok every Tuesday.

That might not be to your taste. But I think it's unfair to describe it as "meh".

Ok, yet others will take issue with this.  Not that either viewpoint is a surprise.

Specifically; they point out Averland is gone, there aren't green fields. Maybe gamers don't want this kind of realism - ...

And those that do want this, they slap in the face?  And what's going to keep them from doing this?  I'm so unimpressed with their action.

Averland lives!

And I really hope this forum stays a Warhammer-Empire forum.

And I am resisting the release of some of my other comments, at least for the moment.

[StealthKnightSteg]

Yeah bout 3 games of WHFB, I played one of those during a 4 day weekend thing! But it wasn't played really because everyone was in a waiting motion due to end times and all the rumors concerning the coming of AoS, people were unsure how their fantasy would become and were hesitant to play something they didn't know where it would go.

Lots of Mordheim was being played

[Darknight]

@GP - you and I are in agreement about this staying a Warhammer (Fantasy Battle) and Empire forum. I have been making this argument since before the game came out. I would not be overly upset if the mod team said "No AoS conversations on the forum outside one very specific sub-forum" or even (although this would be far from a perfect solution) "No AoS conversations at all."

This approach also assumes that people drifted away from WFB for reasons which I think are largely bunk.

I agree - but 1) what are the real reasons and 2) did GW know them?

People just weren't playing the game - it is very hard to find out why people DON'T do something. When I was a redshirt, if you asked people why they didn't play in the WFB games, they often said things like they just didn't like fantasy, they didn't like Elves and Goblins, they liked sci-fi more. They often said they didn't like the larger unit sizes etc.

Of the people who do play, complaints about ranking models might be what GW hears (certainly, we all hear it - but I don't think to the degree their piece suggests). Complaints about a lack of balance etc. might be another.

And, as well, I think there is a case to be made that GW ditched the points etc. because they just don't WANT tournament players. I am not sure why, exactly - but I have heard that view expressed from a lot of different sources.

Ultimately, this GW "what's new" post does seem ill-considered and perhaps deliberately cruel. It is not something I think was a good idea. I can understand the motivation behind it, but I think it falls flat.

What GW need to do - more than anything else right now - is come up with some additional variant rules which allow for ranked units (giving them bonuses and minuses) so 8th ed armies can function effectively in this game. I don't think it would be too hard from a rules standpoint.

They are not going to do this. Instead, they are going to do what they just did. That was a mistake.

[Ambrose]

What GW need to do - more than anything else right now - is come up with some additional variant rules which allow for ranked units (giving them bonuses and minuses) so 8th ed armies can function effectively in this game. I don't think it would be too hard from a rules standpoint.

Agreed.  Before AoS's release I was really hoping the rumours that there would be a 9th edition (this is where I hoped they would implement use of formations, etc) AND a skirmish game to be true.  This would have been the best place to implement a smaller game system where people could still play with the fluff they enjoy and have smaller, quicker games.

The fact that the game wasn't selling could have been addressed with a few smart changes to the current rules, summer/winter campaigns that were story driven (with new models for us to buy!) and a smaller skirmish rule system that simplified the rules (like AoS) so people could play it casually, pick it up and learn it well, and expand on INTO a bigger game if they wanted.

I watched an interview that sums up my prediction;  Some company somewhere will fill this new void of mass tactical fantasy combat.  Don't know who it will be yet but if there is a need/demand, someone will fill it.

Ambrose

[Finlay]

dk, every second post in a thread clearly for upset vets.

Hmm.
 



"Long live the floating islands of the Shimmertarn, the ever-changing Eldritch Fortress and the blood-spewing geysers of the Igneous Delta."

This sounds absolutely terrible. I never used the stupid magic terrain in 8th.

only 1/6 rivers in the world are not full of blood or poison. jokes.

[Darknight]

dk, every second post in a thread clearly for upset vets.

Hmm.
 

I, too, have been in the hobby for a long time and I, as expressed above, do think this particular "what's new" article wasn't a nice move on GW's part. I have called it cruel and ill-advised. I am not exactly NOT upset here.