home

Author Topic: The Economics of AoS  (Read 4157 times)

Offline Caustizer

  • Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Empire. Yes, we Cannon!
The Economics of AoS
« on: July 21, 2015, 08:17:01 PM »
Games Workshop has taken a big risk by changing one of their most iconic games and simplifying it as completely as they have. This decision was clearly made because the company currently only has one successful franchise - Warhammer 40K. The problem this has created for them is that there is danger for a 40K burnout to occur amongst the fan base if the game continues to change as rapidly as it has for the past year and a half. People will simply get frustrated that they have to relearn the game constantly as new codexes are released and whole armies become obsolete before the paint on them even dries. Perhaps the most prolific examples of this are the new Space Marines and Eldar books but this also includes rules given in the End Times, which are now completely irrelevant in AoS.

Cutting to the chase, I feel that AoS won't be a profitable enterprise unless they institute some method of calculating the effectiveness of one unit versus another on the table and providing means to organize your forces to ensure roughly fair games. From the games I've seen of AoS so far, players have divided into two camps:

1) Follow the rules to the letter and use whatever you want. This has led to a number of lopsided battles that ended quickly as many units were over/underestimated in terms of effectiveness and came to dominate the game. One game was won by a Chaos Lord who summoned a unit of 50 Warriors AND a Chaos Dragon in one game. There's no way for a Sudden Death mechanic to accommodate for this, or any unrestrained summoning mechanics. All the games I saw ran this way ended poorly and generated little excitement considering their long setup times. It also creates a pay-to-win environment that beginning players would likely find off putting.

2) Ran a rough comp based on counting wounds and 'eyeballing it' mixed with negotiation. This approach currently seems to make the most sense, as wounds tend to be a good measurement of a model's effectiveness in the current AoS ruleset. Even though a 1 wound Empire Handgunner might be inferior to a 1 wound High Elf Swordmaster, the Handgunner benefits from a number of synergy bonuses that when added together could make them at least on-par if not better. This theory requires additional testing though, so don't hit me on it yet.

Going through the latest storybook for Age of Sigmar (since the rules are already out for free, that's effectively what it is) it's apparent that GW has big plans for their new game, and that somewhere down the line the races are going to be reorganized by a means similar to the army books, with brand new kits and rules taking precedence over the old models and their tacky warscrolls. Perhaps the reason the rules are available for free is because of the enormity of the change, and the fact that all existing army books are out of date immediately. Attempting to resell them would likely have led to a mass exodus from Warhammer (larger then the one that is occurring now that is) and accusations of gouging.

AoS has a lot of potential, but until they fix the problem of balance it will begin to haemorrhage players after the 'Oooo shiny!' factor wears off until it becomes a shadow of what Warhammer Fantasy used to be. One could argue with the complete elimination of list building, it currently is.

Offline ZeroTwentythree

  • Members
  • Posts: 7770
  • i'm a mercenary doom bringer
Re: The Economics of AoS
« Reply #1 on: July 21, 2015, 08:27:13 PM »
It also creates a pay-to-win environment that beginning players would likely find off putting.

I played MtG and a few other CCG games when they first hit the market. This is the single biggest reason that I quit playing CCGs within a couple years and have no interest in playing them (or collectible/blind miniatures games) again.

To be honest, that's what kills my interest in a lot of "supported" non-collectable/blind miniatures games too. ("Supported" being what seems to be the popular term for games that have a constant stream of required purchases, updates, and upgrades to their rules and figures.) Quality of gameplay usually seems to take a back seat to profits.

But those types of games seem to have a lot of success stories, so obviously a lot of people enjoy pumping money into being competitive. So more power to them -- just not my thing.  :wink:


Offline StealthKnightSteg

  • Members
  • Posts: 5188
  • Squishing Squickhoppers since 1999
    • https://www.facebook.com/vincent.goede
Re: The Economics of AoS
« Reply #2 on: July 21, 2015, 08:56:53 PM »
I'm not one of those 2 sections you mentioned..

So I'll add mine to the equation

3) Use the rules as they are and make terms with your opponent to make this a fun game for both taking eachother into account. So a tactical battle takes place with setting up your units and countering your opponent with what's being setup. And not just throwing every big thing you got on the table (making your agreement void that you made). Then you just try the game out looking and learning from your own units and the supposed counter measures you placed on the board to see how effective they actualy were.. That experience you take with you for next games eventually making the games you play evenly balanced within your gaming group and having fun with a less cumbersome, faster paced game.
Anything else that you can't counter with dropping units needs to be dealt with by employing the right tactics (like taking out the blood secrator asap if he is near bloodreavers)
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.

"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music." -- Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989

Offline Dosiere

  • Members
  • Posts: 1085
Re: The Economics of AoS
« Reply #3 on: July 22, 2015, 02:52:23 AM »
AoS plays better with a sensible comp system.  What STealthKnight is describing only works with a close knit group of players that play each other often enough to essentially create their own comp system, however loose it is.  For players like me, who actually want to play AoS but rely on pick up games with essentially strangers to do so it doesn't work.  Fortunately, there are some very good and simple comp systems out already by fans that make this game much much more enjoyable for people like myself.  My favorite so far is the might system that takes a unique approach to balancing the game without destroying the advantages AoS offers in its core rules over more cumbersome games like 40k or WFB. 

It's all very frustrating, as the lack of a balancing system has lead to a lack of pick up games which means I'm not able to get games in.  One of my highest hopes with AoS was that it would let me play MORE since games should be much faster, so I don't have to devote an entire evening to play a single game.  All its lead to though is a dead game in my area that no one is even playing.  I tried to get a game the other day and all the fantasy players were either playing 40k or mordheim, not a single person was even willing to play AoS.  One guy offered to play a game of 8th but even if I had the time I hadn't brought a list or my rulebooks.   :eusa_wall:

Offline Ambrose

  • Members
  • Posts: 1264
Re: The Economics of AoS
« Reply #4 on: July 22, 2015, 04:17:16 AM »
I have heard AoS is fun to play, but I think most warhammer players want a bit more from their fantasy game.  AoS, as of yet, just doesn't appeal to me.  They ended a great story IMO for one that is too similar to 40k.

It was pointed out to me that the ending of Warhammer is much like a breakup.  GW called it quits and now I am feeling rejected, angry, upset and at a loss of words and an intense desire to make it work.  In time, these feelings will pass and my eye will begin to look for a different 'game' that I was meant to be with.  There are plenty of fish in the sea.

Happy fishing everyone!
Ambrose

P.S.  I know that it is not a direct sign of the fail of AoS, but the limited edition is STILL for sale.  Like that glorious twin tailed comet from long ago, I think it is an omen...
"Faith, Steel and Gunpowder"

Offline Tommy2dice

  • Members
  • Posts: 4
Re: The Economics of AoS
« Reply #5 on: July 22, 2015, 03:36:34 PM »
Ive played a few games and its a freaking awesome!!!! My poor empire army was broken laying in a box for 6 years untill a few weeks ago. Since then the restoration work h8s begun in ernest. Fixing up the old paint scheme and rebasing to 20mm mdf rounds has been a great joy.

Now reguards to "balance"
Take a look at your warscrolls. You will notice on the unit entry "this unit is ten or more models" ect That there is the key! This is How we have been doing it is as follows. 8 warscrolls 1-3 hero 2-6 troop 1-2 warmachines ect.

So for example
General on steed
General bsb
Wizzard
(3 hero warscrolls)

30 halberdiers (10 @ 1warscroll each = 3 warscrolls)
10 handgunners  1 warscroll
Cannon 1 warscroll
Total 8 warscrolls

Simple and easy to do and had faitly balanced games following this system.




Offline Fidelis von Sigmaringen

  • Members
  • Posts: 9682
  • Attorney-at-RAW
Re: The Economics of AoS
« Reply #6 on: July 22, 2015, 06:32:20 PM »
Hardly. Warriors of Chaos, White Lions etc. - they are all units of at least 10 and will eat State Troops (Halberdiers as such do not exist anymore) for breakfast.
It is not enough to have no ideas of your own; you must also be incapable of expressing them.
Sex, lies and manuscripts: The History of the Empire as Depicted in the Art of the Time (10/07/16)

Offline Dosiere

  • Members
  • Posts: 1085
Re: The Economics of AoS
« Reply #7 on: July 22, 2015, 06:35:25 PM »
Blood Knights...

Offline Fidelis von Sigmaringen

  • Members
  • Posts: 9682
  • Attorney-at-RAW
Re: The Economics of AoS
« Reply #8 on: July 22, 2015, 06:40:27 PM »
Indeed. They are only units of 5 or more, but even those 5 will eat State Troops for breakfast. Or, being Vampires, have them as apéritif.
It is not enough to have no ideas of your own; you must also be incapable of expressing them.
Sex, lies and manuscripts: The History of the Empire as Depicted in the Art of the Time (10/07/16)

Offline Tommy2dice

  • Members
  • Posts: 4
Re: The Economics of AoS
« Reply #9 on: July 22, 2015, 10:54:44 PM »
True, but those kind of units have always been a stronger choice compared to what the empire had anyway.

Offline Dosiere

  • Members
  • Posts: 1085
Re: The Economics of AoS
« Reply #10 on: July 22, 2015, 11:10:08 PM »
True, but those kind of units have always been a stronger choice compared to what the empire had anyway.

Yes, but not at the same cost.  My point is that if you are going to comp AoS anyway, warscrolls or wounds are not a great way to do it.

Offline stretch_135

  • Members
  • Posts: 1181
  • Resident Tall Guy
Re: The Economics of AoS
« Reply #11 on: July 23, 2015, 01:00:38 AM »
It was pointed out to me that the ending of Warhammer is much like a breakup.  GW called it quits and now I am feeling rejected, angry, upset and at a loss of words and an intense desire to make it work.  In time, these feelings will pass and my eye will begin to look for a different 'game' that I was meant to be with.  There are plenty of fish in the sea.

This summary encapsulates my feelings waaaaaay more than I'm comfortable with haha.
On the quest to get my painting in the red this year...follow the madness here: Blog!

Offline Caustizer

  • Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Empire. Yes, we Cannon!
Re: The Economics of AoS
« Reply #12 on: July 27, 2015, 04:46:42 PM »
I find it really interesting how Marksmen with Hochland Long Rifles inside squads of Handgunners can benefit from the accuracy buffs that are abundantly available, making them almost a must-take. Run the formation and have a nearby Captain, and next thing you know all your HLRs are hitting on 2s, wounding on 2s, and picking off enough of your opponent's stuff to force him to come to you (and hence into range of your Handguns). It's almost viable to take only Handgunners/Outriders, backed up with the appropriate buff characters/machines, and Cannons. I say almost viable, because you would still need a few close combat units to muscle through once that part of the battle begins.

The funny thing about Age of Sigmar is that the Sigmarines are disinteresting compared to the previous Fantasy factions because of how undeveloped they are. Simply speaking, looking past the shiny gold and fancy details Stormcast Eternals are actually a very basic army lacking the flourishes that are supposed to make them neat to play on the tabletop (such as Monsters, Artillery, Wizards, etc). Given GW's refusal to release the rules for models that aren't purchasable yet/haven't been done, we as Fantasy players have no idea what the meta-strategy and play intent of the SE faction is.

Are there going to be Sigmar Tanks? Azur Dragonriders? Celestial Cannons? Sigmarine Wizards? My point is, how can they expect us to buy miniatures for an army that isn't complete? Sure, it will be at some point, but until the game stabilizes and becomes more fleshed out, I'll be keeping my money inside my wallet.

Offline Darknight

  • Pure of Heart
  • Members
  • Posts: 7547
  • Dipped in Magic, Clothed in Science
Re: The Economics of AoS
« Reply #13 on: July 29, 2015, 08:11:05 AM »
I think GW's strategy is radically different from the one you are expecting; note there is no requirement to keep to a single "army's" warscrolls. There are synergistic benefits if you use ones with the same keywords, but that is it.

So, to your point about the handgunners - great strategy! You say you think you need some close-combat troops to handle that part of the game - would Stormcasts work for that? Because I think that is what GW is expecting / hoping you do. You (as an existing player) have an existing army. You then decide to get into AoS and come up with this strategy of handgunners to force the enemy to close. But you can add whatever you want to your army - you could add some Demigryphons, or you could think "Hey, these guys are shiny and fun - I'll get some of them to put in."

GW is not trying to get you to collect "an army" in the sense they did before - they are trying to get you to buy figures you like the look of.

We are talking about the economics of AoS, and someone on another forum posted something very insightful. From an economics standpoint, army lists and restrictions and points are a terrible idea - because they limit sales. Army lists put a limit on the number of certain things that can be sold, and put in requirements for certain models. If those certain models aren't appealing - I am thinking core troops, here - players might get alternatives from another company just to fill out the army.

With the AoS model, GW is saying "Like the model? Buy it! You can field it in your army! Come up with whatever fluff you like for it! We've got some suggestions, but I'm sure you can think of something!"

Isn't Unbound and Apocalypse all about the same thing? On a certain level?
Completed Projects | History of Ophelia VII

Quote from: PhillyT
Everyone finds their balance between satisfaction and obsession.

Offline knightofthelance

  • Members
  • Posts: 483
Re: The Economics of AoS
« Reply #14 on: July 29, 2015, 11:32:31 AM »
Quote
We are talking about the economics of AoS, and someone on another forum posted something very insightful. From an economics standpoint, army lists and restrictions and points are a terrible idea - because they limit sales. Army lists put a limit on the number of certain things that can be sold, and put in requirements for certain models. If those certain models aren't appealing - I am thinking core troops, here - players might get alternatives from another company just to fill out the army.

I realize that's how GW has chosen to view it, but just as often army lists and restrictions provide the motivation to buy a unit. I picked up a skycutter simply because doing so gave me access to all the "options" in the army. There is no doubt that people have bought demigrifs simply because they were to good to pass up.

The models that aren't appealing part is interesting though, because I do think that matches fairly closely with GWs current thinking. They seem to have lost confidence in their own product (and in may cases justifiably so).

Offline Darknight

  • Pure of Heart
  • Members
  • Posts: 7547
  • Dipped in Magic, Clothed in Science
Re: The Economics of AoS
« Reply #15 on: July 29, 2015, 01:20:02 PM »
When I was a redshirt, it was a constant difficulty to encourage players (youngsters starting) to buy basic troops (and even the rules) ... they wanted cool things (tanks, monsters, heroes). Now, with AoS, you can literally field that army!
Completed Projects | History of Ophelia VII

Quote from: PhillyT
Everyone finds their balance between satisfaction and obsession.

Offline SorenJ

  • Members
  • Posts: 457
Re: The Economics of AoS
« Reply #16 on: July 29, 2015, 01:51:57 PM »
GW is not trying to get you to collect "an army" in the sense they did before - they are trying to get you to buy figures you like the look of.
...
With the AoS model, GW is saying "Like the model? Buy it! You can field it in your army! Come up with whatever fluff you like for it! We've got some suggestions, but I'm sure you can think of something!"

There is much truth in this, I agree and I welcome the idea of mixing things (different races) up a bit from a gaming and collectors perspective. An yes, the concept of collecting more than one army seems attractive from a sales point. However, you also loose the effect of people being forced to buy a minimum number of models like 40 core state troopers, but I believe this what indeed was drove a lot of customers away from WHFB.

Although I haven't played 40K since space marines were scouts, I believe that the current army composition rules are also leaning towards a 'take what you want' concept. However, there is still rules for making army lists and points  - and yet 40K continues to dominate the miniature market http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/07/state-of-the-tabletop-industry-spring-2015.html So your point about removing points and composition rules being motivated by economy are somewhat contradicted by the fact that 40K is doing so well.

One should also consider that making new models for AoS is quite costly and as such releasing a 9th editon perhaps with a skirmish tweak that used existing models would have been a more safe strategy. So in that sense AoS is a gamble, and the real question is; is it a desperate last measures of a struggeling company, or a move that will create a new market and bring new customers?

Now I don't know much about business planning and marketing, although I do know to always examine the existing competition. Are there any skirmish style tabletop games out there? Well, yes: Warmahordes and Malifaux indeed come to mind. Does AoS have what it takes to be competitive sales wise with these two. IMO - I don't think so.