What influences GW's decision making?

[polarbear]

Hi there, I hope this topic is okay but feel free to delete if not.

I'm interested in the factors influencing GW to make the decisions it has throughout the course of AoS.

I have to assume that the game was changed to reinvigorate sales in the fantasy side, which it seems to have done a great job at.

But has this been the main driver in army decisions as well?

Brettonians and Tomb Kings we all kind of knew were probably low on the sales list of GW armies historically, so it wasn't too surprising they got discontinued at the start.

But what about High Elves and Skaven? My anecdotal experience told me those were two very popular armies, but they have both been pushed to the side for the first two years of AoS. I thought elves were very popular in general, more popular than dwarves, but GW has made two new dwarf armies before even touching elves.

Does that mean Beastmen outsold High Elves historically? It's hard for me to accept that anecdotally. Maybe that is your experience, or maybe there are other factors influencing GW's decisions on which direction to go. Ultimately, at some point, the goal is obviously to sell as much as possible, so however their decision making process is, that has to be the end game.

From a business perspective, I'm quite interested in the behind the scenes meetings in GW headquarters, knowing all the numbers and the reasons they pursue different avenues.

To some extent, I assume they are factoring in current inventory and cost of producing more models, and packaging older items they want to run down the inventory for. Maybe High Elves were indeed popular, but their inventory situation is such that GW would rather wind them down and start fresh with a new aelf concept.

What do you think?

[rokapoke]

To me it's 200% clear that the game designers and writers (in fact, seemingly the entire GW/White Dwarf staff) are huge fans of the game. 

From that perspective, then, I think many of the decisions are directed toward making the game (as played by the masses) more like the game that was intended/expected by the GW team. That means (in my opinion) that some of the nerfs/buffs are to discourage/encourage units that are seen too much/not enough. Some of the FAQ answers are used to clarify rules that have been misinterpreted by the player base. 

Each decision is intended to make the game what they thought it could be when it first rolled out. I think the original no-points style of AoS is well-maintained now by GW's consistent push for three distinct (but interchangeable at times) styles of play, for instance. 

Then again, as far as the rules and changes go, I consider myself an optimist. 

[BaldoBeardo]

I think it's a combination of factors. Money, obviously. Rule of cool/ inspiration is in there too. IP / copyright is also now a big responsibility post chapterhouse.

 

To use your examples, Kharadhron and Fyreslayers were new unique takes on the various dwarf tropes.

High elves... Well, they (frankly) aren't that distinguishable from the Tolkien idea. So they'd need a "killer" theme before they got any updates.

 

We already know that the model has changed from the rules team leading the way to the mini designers having primacy.

Stormcast - such a blindingly obvious idea. "Good chaos warriors" or a fantasy port of space marines. But still a unique GW thing.

That's why we're seeing god-specific chaos updates, rather than more "dark barbarian horde" minis.

Beyond FEC (a formulaic but still distinct development of the ghoul idea), undead are.. well.. undead. I'd imagine when we see the (most likely) Deathrattle update, there will be something to distinguish them from the more generic fantasy undead paradigm.

Bonesplittaz are again a pretty distinct version of orcs. Ironjawz are stylistically identifiable.

BCR - loads of companies do ogre minis. Very few do *mounted* ogres.

And it's pretty much bolted on that if we see updated to any dark elves, it'll be an expansion on witch elves or the Corsair idea - both very GW.

 

So basically (and very much IMO) there's probably plenty of ideas bubbling around all the time - but they're all waiting to get that "yup, this is an identifiably GW product" before any progress happens. I think financial concerns are probably the last consideration now. The way GW has moved in the last few years, if it's "proper GW" it'll still sell by the bucket load...

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

[shinros]

No one knows. There is a theory that many of the models that were gotten rid of was because they could not protect them easily. Since GW has had problems with people copying their IP for various reasons. It's most likely that reason that plays a part in the reason why GW moved to AOS. 

 

As BaldoBeardo said look at the various high elf units there were not that different from Tolkein. Also tomb kings were clearly just eygtian skeletons. They had an article interviewing the designer of Nagash and the Mortarch's and he said they were made in mind for the "grim" aesthetic for the undead of AOS. Their words were they wanted it to be more "grim" and "dark" etc hence why the vampire count range was carried over and the tomb kings weren't. Combined with the low sales of tomb kings and GW changing the aesthetic of the undead for AOS which is the reason why I believed they went with the decision to get rid of them.

AOS 

Tomb Kings

[Jharen]

I suspect we've seen new dwarf faction early on simply because they were a GREAT seller, but they were selling, they had their fans.  So by reinventing them, giving a fresh spin on and focusing in on the themes of the dwarf models that people seemed to buy/like more of, they could increase their sales on a range/faction that was otherwise just doing okay.  This COULD be why we haven't seen things like Skaven, Undead, Aelfs just yet.  For one they want to make them more unique and create their own IP, to pick a direction for these factions they feel like they can really nail down in the current setting.  They know these factions will sell well whenever they release them, and so they can spend time now building up other less possible factions while riding in the security of their top sellers (chaos and stormcast).

[shinros]

3 minutes ago, Jharen said:

I suspect we've seen new dwarf faction early on simply because they were a GREAT seller, but they were selling, they had their fans.  So by reinventing them, giving a fresh spin on and focusing in on the themes of the dwarf models that people seemed to buy/like more of, they could increase their sales on a range/faction that was otherwise just doing okay.  This COULD be why we haven't seen things like Skaven, Undead, Aelfs just yet.  For one they want to make them more unique and create their own IP, to pick a direction for these factions they feel like they can really nail down in the current setting.  They know these factions will sell well whenever they release them, and so they can spend time now building up other less possible factions while riding in the security of their top sellers (chaos and stormcast).

Yup hence why I think that the reason why undead has not gotten an update yet is because GW might actually be developing a new range for them with the deathlords "aesthetic" in mind just look at the shadespire skeletons. Hence why GW strangely has not reboxed the zombies I think it's likely they are making new ones. 

In the case of skaven the first skaven clan they went with is clan pestelins you can do crazy things with them looking at their battletome lore they fit right in. I honestly have a gut feeling that free peoples are not going to be the "human" faction for AOS it's going to be devoted of sigmar. 

[inunn]

I think it’s safe to assume that GW have the definitive sales figures for which armies sold best/made them the most money. These figures almost certainly play into decisions, but I think that it’s probably not the case that decisions are informed purely by number crunching alone.

Numbers only get you so far. I suspect GW has a strategy, which is more or less a theory of why their previous decisions have/haven’t worked and what kind of things work. I’m obviously speculating here, but I think if they looked at fantasy and compared it with 40k the conclusions they would draw are that they do better when their armies are more distinctively GW rather than generic genre staples.

If they have a theory like this then sales figures of individual armies aren’t that important in the grand scheme of things. It doesn’t matter if high elves sell great. It becomes much more important for them to use their existing assets (models) to lay the ground for future developments along their strategy, than to keep current players happy and make the most of these assets in the short term.

[BaldoBeardo]

Hence why GW strangely has not reboxed the zombies I think it's likely they are making new ones. 

I bloody hope so. The only time I've ever considered Mantic minis. A box of the guys pushing the corpse cart, please!

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[shinros]

5 minutes ago, inunn said:

I think it’s safe to assume that GW have the definitive sales figures for which armies sold best/made them the most money. These figures almost certainly play into decisions, but I think that it’s probably not the case that decisions are informed purely by number crunching alone.

Numbers only get you so far. I suspect GW has a strategy, which is more or less a theory of why their previous decisions have/haven’t worked and what kind of things work. I’m obviously speculating here, but I think if they looked at fantasy and compared it with 40k the conclusions they would draw are that they do better when their armies are more distinctively GW rather than generic genre staples.

If they have a theory like this then sales figures of individual armies aren’t that important in the grand scheme of things. It doesn’t matter if high elves sell great. It becomes much more important for them to use their existing assets (models) to lay the ground for future developments along their strategy, than to keep current players happy and make the most of these assets in the short term.

This also makes a lot sense I mean chaos is a clear example of what you just said each of them are getting quite a unique aesthetic. Look at blades of khorne and Disciple of tzeentch with khorne you have a very barbrian warrior look to them and with tzeentch they have a cabal/wizard sort of aesthetic. Instead of corrupted norse barbarians in various colours depending on the god.  

3 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

 

 

I bloody hope so. The only time I've ever considered Mantic minis. A box of the guys pushing the corpse cart, please!

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
 

 

Think about it, in the new handbook(I don't have it yet) do zombies have the discount available to them for taking them in high numbers? If they do why haven't they reboxed them just like the deathrattle models? Seems kinda strange don't you think? Also honestly I don't know much stock we should place in facebook but when people were begging GW for a plastic vampire model and zombies they responded "They will see if nagash can conjure something up." This was a about a year ago or 6-8months+ at least. I also assume model designs at least take 2+ years to do. 

Still with the general handbook 2017 this would be the perfect time to do it yet they haven't? This is just idle speculation but it's bloody strange to me. 

[Baron Klatz]

"I honestly have a gut feeling that free peoples are not going to be the "human" faction for AOS it's going to be devoted of sigmar. "

How so? If it was still the Age of Chaos i'd agree but with the growth of proper cities and armies (and the Devoted absence from Skirmish) that doesn't seem very likely.

On-topic, another factor for GW is the threat of being sued for plagiarism. Companies like Nintendo and it's Pokemon franchise have to go out of their way to find Fakemon fanart and make sure nothing matches up with their new designs or they put themselves at the mercy of a lawsuit.

With the expanding Tabletop industry focusing on fantasy products and general franchises filling in the gapps for "less generic" designs it made a minefield for GW to walk through in order to support their fantasy IP. 

And looking at their current designs I think GW did a great job of making a unique setting that incorporates enough popular modernnfantasy tropes without stepping on anyone's toes.

 

 

[daedalus81]

The new Nurgle slug character had it's cultivator teased on March 29th.  Five months ago.

KO got teased a couple of months prior to release.  There are oodles of models ready to go.  They're just awaiting a window for release.  Right now 40K is getting the stuff it needs to reboot.  

[shinros]

1 hour ago, Baron Klatz said:

"I honestly have a gut feeling that free peoples are not going to be the "human" faction for AOS it's going to be devoted of sigmar. "

How so? If it was still the Age of Chaos i'd agree but with the growth of proper cities and armies (and the Devoted absence from Skirmish) that doesn't seem very likely.

On-topic, another factor for GW is the threat of being sued for plagiarism. Companies like Nintendo and it's Pokemon franchise have to go out of their way to find Fakemon fanart and make sure nothing matches up with their new designs or they put themselves at the mercy of a lawsuit.

With the expanding Tabletop industry focusing on fantasy products and general franchises filling in the gapps for "less generic" designs it made a minefield for GW to walk through in order to support their fantasy IP. 

And looking at their current designs I think GW did a great job of making a unique setting that incorporates enough popular modernnfantasy tropes without stepping on anyone's toes.

 

 

Due to the fact that in context which army looks more high fantasy? Which army that still has that human element and fit with the grandiose setting of AOS? I personally believe that they did not make that new warrior priest model with a gryph hound for no reason and the two aelf models are highly likely from the a new aelf faction(Who are also absent from skirmish). Free peoples are a part of the setting but do you think free peoples will be the human faction that GW wants to push? Looking at the new army releases they want to make things unique or put their own spin on things. 

Why release this guy? Just to leave him alone in a undeveloped faction compared to free guild? Who also pretty much have a full range? I do believe in the new handbook all the factions that are in there with abilities will get their own books but not any time soon I think. 

In the end this is just speculation but looking at the art(previous art of warrior priest) and the lore they are setting up with the order of ayzr(witch hunters) GW can go to town on that human faction considering the bases we have and looking at the new war priest. 

[Baron Klatz]

Oh yeah, they can definitely go to town with a faction that ties so closely between the common man and the Stormcasts (as warrior priests were a obvious inspiration for their design, a natural evolution really).

I'm just not sure they'll be the main "humans". There's a lot they can do with everyone in the end. Insane technology and mobile fortresse engines for Ironweld, the wizards expanding their arts and gathering new creatures, freeguild training new soldiers for different realms and acquiring new cavalry mounts and the devoted growing further between armored bastions of faith and deliverers of Sigmar's justice.

But I think we bird-walked off-topic here.

[shinros]

12 hours ago, Baron Klatz said:

Oh yeah, they can definitely go to town with a faction that ties so closely between the common man and the Stormcasts (as warrior priests were a obvious inspiration for their design, a natural evolution really).

I'm just not sure they'll be the main "humans". There's a lot they can do with everyone in the end. Insane technology and mobile fortresse engines for Ironweld, the wizards expanding their arts and gathering new creatures, freeguild training new soldiers for different realms and acquiring new cavalry mounts and the devoted growing further between armored bastions of faith and deliverers of Sigmar's justice.

But I think we bird-walked off-topic here.

Yeah let's keep on topic but to end the discussion what lends credence to what you are saying GW has shown they will release multiple factions of the same race. Ironjaw's, Bonesplitterz, Kharadron and fyreslayers. Everything in the handbook is a main stay for the future.

[polarbear]

30 minutes ago, shinros said:

Yeah let's keep on topic but to end the discussion what lends credence to what you are saying GW has shown they will release multiple factions of the same race. Ironjaw's, Bonesplitterz, Kharadron and fyreslayers. Everything in the handbook is a main stay for the future I think. 

I think all that stuff is on topic.

I also think GW gets some payback from building up anticipation. People are clawing their eyes out for a big Death or Aelves release. A return of a Tomb King-esque army in the future would be huge too, thanks mostly to discontinuing them for AoS, which built up such a mystique about the army. 

[AGPO]

A lot of really good points have been made already, but I think a big part of the decision making round AOS and 8th ed 40k is to do with removing barriers to entry into the hobby and new armies. In previous editions a 2000 pt pitched battle was the overwhelmingly dominant style of play. It was a particular issue with fantasy which required huge numbers of core troops even for small games. Getting to that point puts a lot of people off starting. There's the same investment barriers in a new army. GW want to be able to sell a kit to as many players as possible to get a return on those expensive moulds. It's why space marines get so much support - >80% of 40k players own a marine army. Recent decisions are all about breaking down these barriers:

Alliances/allies/keywords - you can add that new stormcast kit/marine tank to any order/imperium army, or start using your new army alongside your old one whilst you build it a unit at a time.

Open play - get going before you know all the rules/have a matched play/battleforged army

Narrative - actively encouraging a different style to widen appeal and participation.

Skirmish - one kit and you're off, play in a lunch break.

GHB - keep armies fresh so people don't have to start a whole new one to get something new from their games

Campaign books and supplements - can be sold to any player regardless of armies.

[Jamopower]

10 hours ago, Baron Klatz said:

Oh yeah, they can definitely go to town with a faction that ties so closely between the common man and the Stormcasts (as warrior priests were a obvious inspiration for their design, a natural evolution really).

I'm just not sure they'll be the main "humans". There's a lot they can do with everyone in the end. Insane technology and mobile fortresse engines for Ironweld, the wizards expanding their arts and gathering new creatures, freeguild training new soldiers for different realms and acquiring new cavalry mounts and the devoted growing further between armored bastions of faith and deliverers of Sigmar's justice.

But I think we bird-walked off-topic here.

The free peoples already have quite new range of models that have strong Warhammer aesthetics, so for a new AoS-human faction, the devoted look much more probable. This also applies to many other factions. GW unified the aesthetics of many factions strongly in 8th edition and those models fit well in to AoS. Especially the stuff that came during and just before the End of Times, like the Treelords, Nagash, Stormfiends, etc. are in every sense AoS designed models.

[Killax]

12 hours ago, polarbear said:

Hi there, I hope this topic is okay but feel free to delete if not.

I'm interested in the factors influencing GW to make the decisions it has throughout the course of AoS.

I have to assume that the game was changed to reinvigorate sales in the fantasy side, which it seems to have done a great job at.

But has this been the main driver in army decisions as well?

Brettonians and Tomb Kings we all kind of knew were probably low on the sales list of GW armies historically, so it wasn't too surprising they got discontinued at the start.

But what about High Elves and Skaven? My anecdotal experience told me those were two very popular armies, but they have both been pushed to the side for the first two years of AoS. I thought elves were very popular in general, more popular than dwarves, but GW has made two new dwarf armies before even touching elves.

Does that mean Beastmen outsold High Elves historically? It's hard for me to accept that anecdotally. Maybe that is your experience, or maybe there are other factors influencing GW's decisions on which direction to go. Ultimately, at some point, the goal is obviously to sell as much as possible, so however their decision making process is, that has to be the end game.

From a business perspective, I'm quite interested in the behind the scenes meetings in GW headquarters, knowing all the numbers and the reasons they pursue different avenues.

To some extent, I assume they are factoring in current inventory and cost of producing more models, and packaging older items they want to run down the inventory for. Maybe High Elves were indeed popular, but their inventory situation is such that GW would rather wind them down and start fresh with a new aelf concept.

What do you think?

Great topic, I think it´s always interesting to talk about this because it can give many a clearer vision on what is to come for what. Since Rountree´s return I think that Games Workshop tries to behave to the customer like a brick and mortar store, meaning that they actively listen to customers, you can ask them questions and certain demands or wishes will actually be granted if they are within the right context of the game´s former  setting.

Sales of their games is a big part in their marketing strategy and in the actual GW stores, now often called Warhammer stores. However this isn´t really where the process begins. What I see quite clearly is that GW´s employees, both writers, artists and sculptors actually get more creative room as they did in the last 10 years. Based on their creativity I see that GW decides to market X or Y for that period. Offcourse some background and marketing demands will be checked but we can all roughly guess what´s popular and whats not. This too is largely based on current popular popculture media. Heroic and characterful models are generally picked and developed really well, these obviously need an evil anthagonist so this too is included in their lines. The latest two big GW projects as such could be called Stormcast vs Khorne and much more recently Primaris Space Marines vs Nurgle. 

Tomb Kings and Brettonia
Certain lines dissapeared at GW and this is actually not something new. Like others and yourself might also have guessed I think one of the prime reasons as to why Brettonia and Tomb Kings dissapeared has more to do with their IP (colourful knights and egyptian undead are not GW exclusive) as their actual sales. There are more lines that do not sell extremely well and not all have to be dropped either. There is a great profit on ANY non-starterbox game.

High Elves, Skaven and Beastmen
Currently I think that both of them still get releases but they are found in other games, like Blood Bowl. It's easy to miss that but the new releases are actually there and/or upcomming. The only real reason I can think of as to why they do not have too many new AoS specific releases is because GW still needs to flesh out the human good versus the human evil. This in essence is exactly what the whole story of Stormcast vs Chaos is about. In addition one of the reasons as to why Stormcast and Chaos are popular to begin with has to do with the fact that they are the "fantasy knights" of GW's ranges. Chaos became very popular roughly 15 years ago due to the new Chaos Warrior plastic kit who at that time was incredible by comparison. The rest really is history. Fantasy vikings carried a lot of weight for WFB and as a result was a very solid foundation for AoS to work upon. 

Beastmen, when I worked in the store, where sold the least. Really largely in my opinion because it suffered from the size-syndrom. Meaning that practically every model was the same in design but ranging from small (ungor) to extra large (cygor). One of the reasons as to why they stuck around in my opinion is because they too where part of Chaos and as a result still semi popular because it could be called part of that range. To date I still believe this is the case. I also think that GW doesn't really need to produce them at a high tempo so this means their original vacume molds likely still work out. It's quite possible that Brettonia and Tomb Kings at their time where much more popular but their livespan would simply not port over too wel to AoS because of the high fantasy design of AoS. We could always agrue they could but it's clear GW made their descission...

A new Age
More important to keep in mind is that as per 2015 GW likely started a new decennia plan that will at least last through 2025 under the mind of Rountree. Its very likely Rountree saw the need for social media in GW as GW actually was falling behind on that in years before him. Likewise I see that GW now very actively listens to it's customer base and communicates with them. This all means that more FAQ and Errata are needed as ever but it's all to massively improve trust in GW again and add to the gaming experience.

After those initial 10 years I deem it very likely that GW will continue this way because customer relations are very important and I feel this is where GW dropped the ball under Kirby, which in turned allowed for other compagnies to show up and be much more interctive with their player base. 

For those who want X or Y, you rest assured it will come. However it's also not unthinkable that the same way we are going now will at least last until the end of 2018, as there is always a 3 year evaluation and in many cases a larger change is then implemented aswell. 

 

[shinros]

1 hour ago, Jamopower said:

The free peoples already have quite new range of models that have strong Warhammer aesthetics, so for a new AoS-human faction, the devoted look much more probable. This also applies to many other factions. GW unified the aesthetics of many factions strongly in 8th edition and those models fit well in to AoS. Especially the stuff that came during and just before the End of Times, like the Treelords, Nagash, Stormfiends, etc. are in every sense AoS designed models.

Pretty much GW themselves has even said that Nagash and the mortarch's were made in mind for the aesthetic for the undead of AOS I assume the same for each of the end times releases. Since none of the end times models have seen the light of day in the total war warhammer video game. They are a part of a different ip. 

[Galas]

The reason I think bretonnia was drop its because that army was the little baby of the Perry Brothers. Those two love historical, and thats why they where the "patrons" of Bretonnia. Without them, that army didn't had anny support from the study.

It has been said many times that for an army to be made, theres need to be "fans" of that army in the proper studio. If nobody likes an army (Probably what happens toSisters of Battle), nobody is gonna have exciting and need ideas about it. 

 

The Marketing team can say "Guys, we need a new Sisters of Battle line" but if the creative minds don't have inspiration to do a good job, it just isn't gonna happen. 

[TheOtherJosh]

GW has also done (in the past) historical battles, in the form of "Warhammer Historical" (which was dissolved around 2010) and their Warhammer Ancient Battles line of books. The cross over between their Fantasy line (bretonians etc) and the old Warhammer Historical was pretty reasonable. But that doesn't exist anymore...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warhammer_Ancient_Battles

[polarbear]

10 hours ago, Galas said:

The reason I think bretonnia was drop its because that army was the little baby of the Perry Brothers. Those two love historical, and thats why they where the "patrons" of Bretonnia. Without them, that army didn't had anny support from the study.

It has been said many times that for an army to be made, theres need to be "fans" of that army in the proper studio. If nobody likes an army (Probably what happens toSisters of Battle), nobody is gonna have exciting and need ideas about it. 

 

The Marketing team can say "Guys, we need a new Sisters of Battle line" but if the creative minds don't have inspiration to do a good job, it just isn't gonna happen. 

That's a great point I overlooked. In so many businesses, my own included, the type of product we put out is largely dictated by the tastes of the staff and changes over time with turnover.

[Killax]

18 hours ago, Galas said:

The reason I think bretonnia was drop its because that army was the little baby of the Perry Brothers. Those two love historical, and thats why they where the "patrons" of Bretonnia. Without them, that army didn't had anny support from the study.

It has been said many times that for an army to be made, theres need to be "fans" of that army in the proper studio. If nobody likes an army (Probably what happens toSisters of Battle), nobody is gonna have exciting and need ideas about it. 

The Marketing team can say "Guys, we need a new Sisters of Battle line" but if the creative minds don't have inspiration to do a good job, it just isn't gonna happen. 

Absolutely agree with this aswell. While GW doesn´t seem to hate on the Perry Brothers or something I do think that Brettonnia was typical in that it is/was one of the most historical correct Warhammer Fantasy armies and the result of that is that it would have been at a very akward place in Age of Sigmar's high fantasy/epic fantasy design. Now I have to say I never played Brettonia but if I recall correctly there was no blackpowder weaponry in it, magic was exclusive to the ladies and daughters of the lake, at one point it went towards a more religious side and overall you basically had a repeat of knights with semi different flavours to which the visual difference was minimal.

There is roughly two/three models from Brettonia that I do think would port over in a cool way and those would be Pegasus Knights and the Green Knight. Which was more or less their fantastical top (again if I recall correctly).

I also agree with you with the fans and creative minds within the team making a large part of the calls. It's because of that that I feel specialist games where brought back because many have fond memories of it, most of the specialist games really where good games with rules that could live up to today's standard. In many cases they where even more well thought out as the editions of Warhammer for their time.

[RuneBrush]

Probably a million different factors!  Quite a few are business orientated, bases on sales and profit margins, product feasibility etc, but from the sound of it, quite a few ideas for models come off the desk of the sculptors and designers themselves.  Jes Goodwin has books stuffed full of sketched ideas and concepts and there are frequent models that appear that were simply a sculptor messing around in their lunchtime.

What people are playing locally also has a bit of influence - having a gaming hall on-site allows GW to do a bit of customer canvasing without having to actively ask for feedback.  If each time one of the developers wanders through the hall they see two or three Dwarf armies being played for a few months, they'll likely feedback they've seen a lot of them.  Wether or not that actually makes a difference will vary I guess.

But I don't think there's a hard and fast rule if that makes sense.

[Jamopower]

3 hours ago, Killax said:

Absolutely agree with this aswell. While GW doesn´t seem to hate on the Perry Brothers or something I do think that Brettonnia was typical in that it is/was one of the most historical correct Warhammer Fantasy armies and the result of that is that it would have been at a very akward place in Age of Sigmar's high fantasy/epic fantasy design. Now I have to say I never played Brettonia but if I recall correctly there was no blackpowder weaponry in it, magic was exclusive to the ladies and daughters of the lake, at one point it went towards a more religious side and overall you basically had a repeat of knights with semi different flavours to which the visual difference was minimal.
 

For me it seemed that the initial Grand alliances for AoS, there was a lot of removing units that shared a same slot. I believe a big factor for this was to reduce the number of individual items as it seems to be a factor in the miniature gaming industry, for example Corvus Belli is constantly repackaging models together to reduce the numebr of different blisters. 

If you look at what was squatted during the grand alliances, there were stuff like high elf archers and spearmen, but they left glade guard and dark elf spearmen. Empire cannon was removed, but dwarf cannon spared. A lot of different knights were removed and some of the more special, like dragon princes, or cold ones were left. Looking at this, it makes sense that they drpped the whole Bretonnian range. There are already human infantry with newer models in the form of freeguild and few different kind of knights, that were also newer, and better incorporated in the Warhammer aesthetics. Same applies for Tomb kings, though it was quite surprising that they removed sphinxes and necropolis knights that were relatively new plastic kits.

I believe that the idea behind the grand alliances was bit different than what the armies are now as the allegiance abilities came to the game later and people liked them very much. This again led to some quite light allegiances as they were designed in the beginning to be just a part of the larger force and not a standalone army. At the same time, the split to smaller factions gave them an opportunity to build specialized forces like Sylvaneth, Beastclaw raiders, Ironjawz etc. I could easily see that kind of release for many of the smaller factions like lion rangers or even stuff like wardancers. In the end, Fyreslayers are basically a complete faction made out of single unit in the dwarf army and few related heroes.