Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Kramer said:

It;s weird how somebody can agree with you in such an opposing manner, haha ūüėāRead what I was replying to, and see that I agree that it's a good thing to keep it in one tome. Just not the argument that the power ranking of the chaos gods in the lore should have any influence on the discussions¬†¬†

As to your comment about 'they don't seem to be an unique snowflake'  (with all the connotations of that phrase). Seem is the keyword there. GW controls the story, the background of each clan is unique enough and GW could easily expand on it if needed. In units with Pestilence and Skryre you have a bigger roster than Ironjaws for an extreme example. but compare it to AoS releases like DoK, ID, KO. DoK 15 scrolls, 6 boxes. ID, 16 scrolls 11 boxes. KO 12 sets. Pestilence currently has 7 sets and Skryre 12. With two unique playstyles in the grand Alliance. Add two multi purpose and your are easily equal to that.
If the differences in the your examples mean there is enough there for unique rosters and playstyles. Absolutely the game would be better with them as different factions, as they would function as different armies just share a root in the lore.

all in all, still like the umbrella tome but with a little effort it could have been separate tomes. Just like spider riders could have been a separate faction/tome with a little effort. (just an example closer to your heart I guess ;) )

Yeah, I understand your point about the power-levels of the various gods.  But, I am viewing it more from the point of view of the company fleshing out the model ranges within the grand alliance category system they created. 

GW seems to be driving AoS development in tandem with the story they are trying to tell for the Mortal Realms.  This is somewhat new compared to what they did in the past for 40k or Fantasy.  To your point, they very well could take a minor faction within the universe and make a ton of separate model ranges and army books for that faction.  That is precisely what they did for 40k with Space Marines.  Those are all very tiny forces when it comes to the galaxy at large (1000 guys per chapter - yet the Imperium spans pretty much the entire milky-way galaxy...).  If we went with the largest and most powerful forces got the most army books then probably 3/4+ of the codexes for 40k would be variations of Imperial Guard & Orks (if we go off the background).  So yeah, I get your point for that.

I probably did not express my thoughts well enough.  If GW makes 1 book for each chaos faction, but then makes 2-5 for Skaven, then Skaven would obviously overshadow the rest of the Grand Alliance.  I don't think they want that to happen.  The same thing goes for any faction really.  In addition, I think they need to consider the broader impact of how many books they add to the game and the sales impact of how they split up or consolidate any of the races/allegiances.  The more books they add to the game, the more complex the game state becomes, the harder it is to try to test and balance (lets ignore how successful they historically are at this), and the more resources it requires from them to properly support all of those armies with future releases.  I personally would prefer if the game consisted of a smaller number of umbrella books that could be refreshed every ~2 years than a very broad selection of books that lead them back to the 4-10 years between updates timeline we used to have.  But that is simply my opinion and preference.

And considering they are a business they most likely have to consider the sales impact of how narrow or broad they make any of these releases.  Could they have released a separate book and full model range for Moonclan & Spiderfang?  Sure they could have.  Can they make a full range for every Skaven clan?  Sure they can.  But what is the purchasing habits of the fans of those ranges and the broader audience appeal?  Is there a point where splitting the faction up effectively just cannibalizes sales of other sister ranges?  I expect that there probably is (I'm not sure where that threshold lies).  If they made the effort to create a full separate model line for every clan, and a full book, how much sales would that generate beyond simply creating a single tome that houses all of those clans?  Would it be enough to justify the additional development & production costs?  I don't know, but I expect that is something they have to consider. 

I do believe there is a point where they would simply fracture the Skaven (or any faction) player base and run into diminishing returns.  There are undoubtedly a few greedy rats people who would hoard collect all of it, such as @Skreech Verminking, but I don't expect they would be the majority.  It is probably better for GW's bottom line if they spread the updates out across a broader swathe of the playerbase than focus on a single niche.  The single niche focus that they did with 40k Space Marines for the last ~20 years has come back to bite them now and is probably the primary factor for the push to replace standard space marines with Primaris (they ran into a market saturation of their own making).

Edited by Skabnoze
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One big bonus to teh way GW has started doing sub-armies within AoS is that they can add to it and take away from it and its only paperwork. They can take all the temples of Daughters of Khaine and close them and just have one army. With Marines they went the other way and made dedicated sub-armies; the problem is every one they add they have to keep around or risk losing players. 

That means its all good when marines are selling strong; but when they oversaturate and players start to shift away suddenly GW is left with a halfdozen chapters of models of which only a couple are actually selling in any good volume. 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Skabnoze said:

I probably did not express my thoughts well enough.  If GW makes 1 book for each chaos faction, but then makes 2-5 for Skaven, then Skaven would obviously overshadow the rest of the Grand Alliance.  I don't think they want that to happen.  The same thing goes for any faction really.  In addition, I think they need to consider the broader impact of how many books they add to the game and the sales impact of how they split up or consolidate any of the races/allegiances.  The more books they add to the game, the more complex the game state becomes, the harder it is to try to test and balance (lets ignore how successful they historically are at this), and the more resources it requires from them to properly support all of those armies with future releases.  I personally would prefer if the game consisted of a smaller number of umbrella books that could be refreshed every ~2 years than a very broad selection of books that lead them back to the 4-10 years between updates timeline we used to have.  But that is simply my opinion and preference.

Also, they could keep the microfactions inside the bigger factions. For example they may in the future release a few Moulder models for Skaven.  Skaven players rejoice, those who enjoy that special side of Skaven will be even more pleased, but you reach a greater audience.  Both groups of player can use those models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Thiagoma said:

Also, they could keep the microfactions inside the bigger factions. For example they may in the future release a few Moulder models for Skaven.  Skaven players rejoice, those who enjoy that special side of Skaven will be even more pleased, but you reach a greater audience.  Both groups of player can use those models.

This is a big bit esp when looking forward. 

AoS launched with the idea of having loads of small armies in Grand Alliances. I think GWs plan at the time was that that way they could release a bunch of models, sell them and then retire them and release something different. Continual new armies, continual new BIG releases with BIG Sales. Thing is that doesn't work for gamers. Gamers are long term customers and want support. Armies that get ignored fast fall into lack of sales and that means either dumping investment or investing even more to bring them back. If you have 5 skaven armies then you've got to update 5 skaven armies to keep your skaven players happy. If you've got one combined tome then you only need update skaven once to keep all potentially happy as they are not locked out. Plus with a single tome customers are more likely to go multi-clan over time; whilst with single tomes you've got more chance of ending up with more collecting single clans - that means you might end up with a load of pestilens players and then no one playing skyre suddenly! 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Overread said:

One big bonus to teh way GW has started doing sub-armies within AoS is that they can add to it and take away from it and its only paperwork. They can take all the temples of Daughters of Khaine and close them and just have one army. With Marines they went the other way and made dedicated sub-armies; the problem is every one they add they have to keep around or risk losing players. 

That means its all good when marines are selling strong; but when they oversaturate and players start to shift away suddenly GW is left with a halfdozen chapters of models of which only a couple are actually selling in any good volume. 

 

 

It is basically the problem that they created when they split Warhammer Fantasy factions into a ton of mini-factions for AoS on release and then also created entire new factions and model ranges.  They now appear to be working to reforge a lot of those micro-factions back up into broader groupings because the game was a difficult to support mess with the amount of fracturing that they did.  My feeling is that this consolidation is a very good thing and we should be careful about advocating that they effectively reverse course.  I understand everyone's desire to have their personal favorite forces have more attention and in-depth focus.  I'm right there with everyone.  If I had my way every grot and orc subfaction would have a full dedicated model range and army book.  I would then create more grot and orc armies such as steampunk grot sky-pirates.  But it is probably a good thing I am not in charge because I am not sure those actions would improve the long-term health of the game as a whole.

Edited by Skabnoze
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Thiagoma said:

Also, they could keep the microfactions inside the bigger factions. For example they may in the future release a few Moulder models for Skaven.  Skaven players rejoice, those who enjoy that special side of Skaven will be even more pleased, but you reach a greater audience.  Both groups of player can use those models.

I think this worked especially well with the Gitz - Spiderfang and Moonclan still feel like completely distinct forces, within one tome.  You *can* mix them up in one list, but in general even though I have armies of both, I'm not really tempted to mix them up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Overread said:

This is a big bit esp when looking forward. 

AoS launched with the idea of having loads of small armies in Grand Alliances. I think GWs plan at the time was that that way they could release a bunch of models, sell them and then retire them and release something different. Continual new armies, continual new BIG releases with BIG Sales. Thing is that doesn't work for gamers. Gamers are long term customers and want support. 

I agree.

It is also helpful to consider that miniature games don't necessarily work like other games.  You can create a board game, or card game, and make the splash release cycle where you make new products and then discontinue them when you make a new splash release.  That is effectively how most collectible games work.  But we have never seen an effective collectible miniature game that still requires players to assemble & paint their miniatures.  Large wargames simply don't work like that.  There is a significant investment on the part of the player in buying, assembling, and painting their force that does not exist in games that effectively play straight out of the box.  Many of those games also have cheaper buy ins - at least for the broad playerbase (ignore high level competition). 

If Magic the Gathering stops selling a specific set and makes a whole new set it does not have a massive impact for the average customer.  They can buy the new stuff, or not, and keep playing.  Their old cards still work fine and they don't necessarily have to buy the new stuff.  But they could also play exclusively new stuff or mix new stuff in with the old.  The barrier to entry is low enough that if some customers are turned off by this sales mechanism it is still cheap enough to get new people to buy in.

Miniature games are much more expensive in terms of what it takes to get a standard army (a card deck is much cheaper).  They also require more work on the part of the player before they can be used.  If GW started a sales cycle of single-release armies they would likely cause a lot of their players to simply quit the game in favor of something else with longer-term support.  GW used a sales strategy like this with Specialist Games since the 90s and look at the life-span of those games.  They generally only flourish while they have active support and as soon as that support slows down they tend to die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Skabnoze I can see your point but now you just fall overboard. It's not about releasing 5 ork factions and 10 elven factions. When there is a fine theme/subject GW can work on and create around it a new faction then it should IF we agree that so far this is how AoS developed. If somebody decided that Slayers and Witch Elves deserve their own faction then Skaven certainly deserve more than one combo faction. We see how distinct each clan is and don't need any creative team to flesh that out - clans are already pretty much ready. Few models here and there and you have independent and strongly themed factions. It doesn't necessarily have to canibalize each other - it can draw new people into the hobby if they see how rich and unique AoS is. There is probably a faction number that exceeding will give more bad than good. I don't know that number. Yet in my opinion if GW would turn back and now start conglomerating all the dwarfs together, all the elves together, all chaos gods together that would kill this game. We would end up with few messy alliances that would look like several drunk people meet and each throw his 5 cents into combo-faction. Model updates for that kind of factions would satisfy nobody. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Skabnoze said:

 There are undoubtedly a few greedy rats people who would hoard collect all of it, such as @Skreech Verminking, 

Greedy?

Im Just a simple terrifying Verminlord, who feels pity for all those left alone rats.

ūüėČ

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Skreech Verminking said:

Greedy?

Im Just a simple terrifying Verminlord, who feels pity for all those left alone rats.

ūüėČ

 

I don't know what you are talking about.  I simply said there were people who would collect all of it...

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Aryann said:

@Skabnoze I can see your point but now you just fall overboard. It's not about releasing 5 ork factions and 10 elven factions. When there is a fine theme/subject GW can work on and create around it a new faction then it should IF we agree that so far this is how AoS developed. If somebody decided that Slayers and Witch Elves deserve their own faction then Skaven certainly deserve more than one combo faction. We see how distinct each clan is and don't need any creative team to flesh that out - clans are already pretty much ready. Few models here and there and you have independent and strongly themed factions. It doesn't necessarily have to canibalize each other - it can draw new people into the hobby if they see how rich and unique AoS is. There is probably a faction number that exceeding will give more bad than good. I don't know that number. Yet in my opinion if GW would turn back and now start conglomerating all the dwarfs together, all the elves together, all chaos gods together that would kill this game. We would end up with few messy alliances that would look like several drunk people meet and each throw his 5 cents into combo-faction. Model updates for that kind of factions would satisfy nobody. 

Distinct on there own way and still perfectly able to fit together.

If I had the choice, I’d rather take the mixed version, since it gives the skaven a certain flavor and a distinction from other faction. Beeing able to field an arsenal of horrendous monsters and firepower, while supported by hordes and hordes of clanrats, Stormvermins etc. Is something I really believ fits the skaven perfect.

although I do agree with you in some terms. There definitely could be potential in some clans having their own book. Just I believe we need at least 1where they are all combined, unless you want the Masterclan to vanish, since it wouldn’t had any place in the realms anymore.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Aryann said:

@Skabnoze I can see your point but now you just fall overboard. It's not about releasing 5 ork factions and 10 elven factions. When there is a fine theme/subject GW can work on and create around it a new faction then it should IF we agree that so far this is how AoS developed. If somebody decided that Slayers and Witch Elves deserve their own faction then Skaven certainly deserve more than one combo faction. We see how distinct each clan is and don't need any creative team to flesh that out - clans are already pretty much ready. Few models here and there and you have independent and strongly themed factions. It doesn't necessarily have to canibalize each other - it can draw new people into the hobby if they see how rich and unique AoS is. There is probably a faction number that exceeding will give more bad than good. I don't know that number. Yet in my opinion if GW would turn back and now start conglomerating all the dwarfs together, all the elves together, all chaos gods together that would kill this game. We would end up with few messy alliances that would look like several drunk people meet and each throw his 5 cents into combo-faction. Model updates for that kind of factions would satisfy nobody. 

I like Skaven, but who says they *deserve* more than one combo faction? 

I get your point about combining dwarfs and elves back together, but I don't quite fully agree.  Remember that these factions originally started from a more combined place.  It is also worth remembering that AoS has very much been a work in progress and GW seems to have pivoted more than once during the game's short lifespan into their current model.  Fyreslayers were in the original release wave which as @Overread described seems like it was meant as smaller splash releases.  You can put some other armies such as Ironjawz into that bucket as well.  Other armies were designed as similar splash-releases but using already existing Warhammer Fantasy ranges to fill out more faction ranges - such as Flesh Eater Courts, Clan Pestilens, Beastclaw Raiders, Bonesplitterz, etc.  The whole time they started iterating what the concept of a Battletome exactly is and then began adapting new releases to that.  For some of those they reused old kits and made some new ones (Sylvaneth & Daughters of Khaine), made entirely new full armies (Nighthaunt, Idoneth Deepkin), for others they started trying to knit back together disparate factions (Legions of Nagash, Beasts of Chaos), and then they started doing a hybrid of new releases & consolidation (Gloomspite).  They have steadily improved in regards to the state of releases, but the whole game is still very much a work-in-progress.

I really enjoy this game right now, but when you take the entire whole state of the game it is still a mess.  In a perfect universe they could fully explore every interesting nuance of all of the factions.  But that is not the world we occupy.  I feel that the best thing for GW to do is to put some brakes on releasing brand new factions into the game and get the current factions into a better state.  The early factions were not fully fleshed out and they should probably do that.  They massively split up the stuff carried over from Warhammer Fantasy and that no longer seems to fit the vision for the game - so they should fix those factions also.  Then other factions have books that are not functioning well or not updated to the current template for Battletomes and they should probably fix that.  And then once they get these things nailed down they can work to drop a ton of new stuff into the game or expand existing factions.  This is just my opinion, but I am really tired of the sloppy state of the game factions as a whole and I am very glad to see GW issuing these umbrella style books to correct that sooner rather than later.  If GW can roll allegiances up into these umbrella books (like putting Pestilens into the new Skaven book) then there is nothing stopping them from breaking them out at a later date.

But when GW manages to address issues with multiple allegiances in a single book we should be collectively glad to see that they are improving larger chunks of the game at a quicker pace rather than getting upset that they are not deep-diving into what we individually think they should.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Skabnoze said:

I really enjoy this game right now, but when you take the entire whole state of the game it is still a mess.

I guess the game always has and always will be in a state of being unfinished. In the dark days before Age of Sigmar but after The End Times I was ready to dig in and keep playing an unsupported 8th Edition. It didn't take too long before this dynamic, evolving game with exciting new stuff drew me in.

Is the game too much of a mess though? Yes, I think it is a little but GW are on to it with their lastest releases and the tidying up of the web store. Be interesting to see where we are in 12 months.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Greyshadow said:

I guess the game always has and always will be in a state of being unfinished. In the dark days before Age of Sigmar but after The End Times I was ready to dig in and keep playing an unsupported 8th Edition. It didn't take too long before this dynamic, evolving game with exciting new stuff drew me in.

Is the game too much of a mess though? Yes, I think it is a little but GW are on to it with their lastest releases and the tidying up of the web store. Be interesting to see where we are in 12 months.

It's an interesting point.  Agreed that the game will always be unfinished - finished means dead in the water.

I agree that it's messy, but I don't agree that it's too much of a mess (but that's subjective) :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Greyshadow said:

I guess the game always has and always will be in a state of being unfinished. In the dark days before Age of Sigmar but after The End Times I was ready to dig in and keep playing an unsupported 8th Edition. It didn't take too long before this dynamic, evolving game with exciting new stuff drew me in.

Is the game too much of a mess though? Yes, I think it is a little but GW are on to it with their lastest releases and the tidying up of the web store. Be interesting to see where we are in 12 months.

I agree that the game will always be in a state of unfinished.  If they ever finished it then it is likely it would start to fade away.

But, the mess I speak of is mainly because they changed their design vision for the game faster than they could update (or chose to) the various factions in the game.  So what we now have is a large number of factions in various states depending upon when their book was released (if they even have one).  Only a small handful of books have been reworked so far, so that leaves most factions with some combination of their release book and the GHB.  If GW can get most of the armies onto a close footing in regards to army-wide rules updated to the current state of the game then the game as a whole will be in a much better place.  We will all have a rough idea of what the armies will look like moving foward.  There will be less worry about armies being removed or no longer supported simply because GW will not have made a book of rules for them.  If any armies get cut from that future vision then we would at least know what they are and can better move forward as customers with purchasing decisions.  Also the more armies are updated and brought current then theoretically the more vibrant and diverse the player-base is and I think everyone benefits from a broader and more diverse array of opponents.

I agree with you that they seem to be getting onto this path.  My personal opinion is that so far GW is announcing exactly what I would like to see at least in regards to book releases so far this year.  They appear to have an emphasis on updating the state of the factions.  If they can knock out a lot of the rules updates at least (lets put model releases aside), then they should be positioned well for doing a number of really neat things for 2020.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Malakithe said:

The last few pages havent been very rumory lol

At least they are mainly discussing the upcoming releases.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, DantePQ said:

Really ? Slaughter Queen gets her ability to work a lot of time for me and take note that it is really powerfull for an army like DoK as almost any unit that you will use it on hits like a truck. 

I'm taking Melusai build to Heat 1 and it's really good, and you can still take Blood Sisters in any Slaughter Queen build. 

You still get no command abilities if you want to run snakes proper. They just need to make melusai battleline for Morathi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, HorticulusTGA said:

8PM Las Vegas time Thursday, the GW article should be up either at the start as they usually do, or just after the Seminar (usually 1 hour so around 9PM). 

In Europe / thats between 4 and 6 AM Friday... AARG

They put it up afterwards, with these seminars. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Malakithe said:

The last few pages havent been very rumory lol

Restart the clock!

  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mutton said:

You still get no command abilities if you want to run snakes proper. They just need to make melusai battleline for Morathi.

Yes you have generic CA and its possible to easy build all snake comeptitive army(or almost all snakes very comeptitve army) I just hope GW maksa Blood Stalkers 120-140 and battleline (with or without Medusa) 

Melusai Battleline if Morathi is general will be quite useless as you wont be able to take HaggNarr or Khailebron temple abilities like 5++ or Teleport

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Skabnoze said:

I get your point about combining dwarfs and elves back together, but I don't quite fully agree.¬† Remember that these factions originally started from a more combined place.¬† It is also worth remembering that AoS has very much been a work in progress and GW seems to have pivoted more than once during the game's short lifespan into their current model.¬† Fyreslayers were in the original release wave which as @Overread¬†described seems like it was meant as smaller splash releases.¬† You can put some other armies such as Ironjawz into that bucket as well.¬† Other armies were designed as similar splash-releases but using already existing Warhammer Fantasy ranges to fill out more faction ranges - such as Flesh Eater Courts, Clan Pestilens, Beastclaw Raiders, Bonesplitterz, etc.¬† The whole time they started iterating what the concept of a Battletome exactly is and then began adapting new releases to that.¬† For some of those they reused old kits and made some new ones (Sylvaneth & Daughters of Khaine), made entirely new full armies (Nighthaunt, Idoneth Deepkin), for others they started trying to knit back together disparate factions (Legions of Nagash, Beasts of Chaos), and then they started doing a hybrid of new releases & consolidation (Gloomspite).¬† They have steadily improved in regards to the state of releases, but the whole game is still very much a work-in-progress. ÔĽŅ

I'm not sure we can speak of evolution of some kind. Latest factions/battletomes were combo ones but now they might return to release small factions again. And in some way they do that - Flesh-Eater Courts second battletome. They could have just implement them in the next Legions of Nagash book instead of releasing their own "small" battletome again.

Then again latest battletomes might be combo style by people demand. Battletomes created of left-overs (no aversion meant) that were not intended to receive new models (LoN, BoC, Spiderfang, Skaven). Spiderfang could have been adapted into Gloomspite battletome or left abandonded. GW decided former. There are not to many "left-over" factions left - Aelves? with Free People? Dispossessed with Ironweld in addition? That's one battletome. Now we will probably receive Slaves to Darkness + Archaon + new Darkoath. That's second combo battletome. MAYBE Ogors if that counts. After that I'm pretty sure GW will return to mono-faction battletomes with Malerion aelves, Tyrion Aelves, Slaanesh and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the possibility of "do-over" battletomes? Where they go and rewrite, revise, etc some of the older books and AoS factions that haven't held up as well as newer factions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

√ó