The Rumour Thread

[Jagged Red Lines]

Well, most of the people I know who are in to AoS also play the game. 

Most of us are dads, so we only play at events, probably once every month or two.

Because we don't get to play so often, when we do our lists we play are highly tuned. 

Because we don't get to paint as much, we only want to buy and paint units that have value in game.

I would say the majority of people who play this game fit a similar demographic and therefore have a similar attitude to purchasing decisions.

Of course, I've never encountered anyone who buys the models and then does nothing with them. Doesn't paint them, doesn't play with them. 

I would be surprised if that was the majority of their customer base.

11 minutes ago, sandlemad said:

Sounds like a bad idea tbh, those kinds of lists only last until the next points update or battletome refresh. Which is to say yeah, they’d sell well, to a minority of serious tournament whales at least, but tbh I don’t think GW is actually interested in specifically targeting them.

@CommissarRotke Peachie’s podcast, Painting Phase, had a good interview with Tom Hibberd, formerly a senior designer in GW, and he was clear that GW works on the assumption that a majority of people buying don’t necessarily go on to play much, if at all. Many don’t even paint. The idea behind stuff like Contrast paints was to smooth all that out, get people painting quickly, onto the tabletop, and ultimately staying in the GW ecosystem for longer.

He was also pretty clear about tournament players, folks with multiple armies, people who focus in on older ranges, people who are deep into it enough to be deeply involved in forums, they’re all such a tiny minority in the grand scheme of things that they’re not really worth considering when it comes to serious business decision.

 

[Jagged Red Lines]

9 minutes ago, EonChao said:

This, I hate the way the meta starts to take over most casual scenes. I'm very much fine with battle forces and vanguards being cool grab bags of that faction for people to start small projects with

Eh, I've never met a casual AoS player, because the game itself is a casual game. Some of the top players in the community,  are also some of the genuinely sweetest human beings I've ever met. 

Actually, I find those who lambast the competitive scene as pretty toxic. Fortunately, the only time I've run into them has been in 40k.

I've never, ever had a bad game of AoS, or seen anyone complain about competitiveness.

Edited October 23, 2023 by Jagged Red Lines

[EonChao]

1 minute ago, Jagged Red Lines said:

Well, most of the people I know who are in to AoS also play the game. 

Most of us are dads, so we only play at events, probably once every month or two.

Because we don't get to play so often, when we do our lists we play are highly tuned. 

Because we don't get to paint as much, we only want to buy and paint units that have value in game.

I would say the majority of people who play this game fit a similar demographic and therefore have a similar attitude to purchasing decisions.

Of course, I've never encountered anyone who buys the models and then does nothing with them. Doesn't paint them, doesn't play with them. 

I would be surprised if that was the majority of their customer base.

 

Most people in every game's player base don't play in competitive events, nor do they post on forums. They just tend to be people enjoying their hobby by themselves their own way. These boxes are designed to appeal to both them, and new players to make them think it's a good deal to start a new army with one of them. They're not caring about the most efficient or powerful builds because they either know that changes and don't care or they're focused on casual or flavourful builds. And this isn't me talking from a point of view of "most people I know" but based on what designers for various games have said in interviews. We here are in the minority, engaged enough to post on a forum. Competitive players are in even more of a minority.

This is true of every game, from Warhammer, to Magic the Gathering, to Pokemon, to Fortnite. The majority of people playing are intensely casual about it and if these boxes didn't sell well GW would do something different.

[Neverchosen]

I admit I like when the boxes have a broader theme to them; like how The Ork set focuses on a specific subfaction. This has nothing to do with the Meta, but rather I like the idea of someone maybe being interested in an aspect of an army finding a good starting point for their collection. The Space Marine Battleforces last year were a good example of what I would like to see. 

I also think it would have been nice for the Eternus box to have had Chaos Legionnaires and Chaotic Beasts to have tied it more to Be'Lakor and the Eightpoints. Or the Vengorian court to have traded Death Rattle Skeletons for Vargheists to keep with the bestial vampire theme. 

I do think that this applies more for specific factions that have wider model ranges. It might be hard to make a specific battleforce for Flesh Eater Courts or Fyreslayers. For example I would love to get a Harlequin battleforce as they are the Eldar Subfaction I would be interested in. 

Edited October 23, 2023 by Neverchosen

[MothmanDraws]

If the points in oldworld stay roughly the same that STD box is a good chunk of a warriors of chaos army 

[Marcvs]

27 minutes ago, sandlemad said:

Peachie’s podcast, Painting Phase, had a good interview with Tom Hibberd, formerly a senior designer in GW, and he was clear that GW works on the assumption that a majority of people buying don’t necessarily go on to play much, if at all. Many don’t even paint.

they even work on the assumption that a lot of people will just impulse buy their product and possibly/probably never do anything with it

[Marcvs]

2 hours ago, Grungnisson said:

I'd say him autochanting his warscroll prayer is already an interesting option. Plus, depending on the battlepack, there are always at least some useful generic options.

well he can't take the generic prayers in 3rd edition (Curse and the like), so he has access to Smite and Bless which are not exactly great.

[Ejecutor]

37 minutes ago, 01rtb01 said:

Honestly that sounds like a horrific idea. 

I've bought battleforces pretty much every year. You realise there's more to gaming than the "meta"? Good models, will always be good models. The meta shifts like the sands.

And meta changes more than we change our panties.

[Ejecutor]

Btw I didn't mention it because the Astra BF looked a bit fakish, but the Spanish guy that first showed that BF (the day before Valrak did) also mentioned the price would be 150 €.

As now the BF has been confirmed I think it is worth mentioning it. If is is true it would be cheaper than the maths I've seen here today.

[Jagged Red Lines]

24 minutes ago, EonChao said:

The majority of people playing are intensely casual about it

This sounds reasonable, but I'd have to disagree. The people who play majority of time outside of events are actually more hardcore.

The best players are invariably the ones who have got 'reps' in with an army. They play weekly, at a gaming club. 

They might not do events, but through regular gaming, they have honed their skills as a general and in the majority of cases are better players.

Then you have someone like my mates who are all middle-aged with families, who meet up once a month at a pub for a three game tournament.

We are 'competitive event players' but most of us are ******, because we don't play as often as we should. But neither do we berate other people, or else make them feel bad, for playing units that are the most points efficient choices in their respective books.

All I'm saying is that people who play the game with any degree of regularity, whether that's at events or clubs, do in fact care about unit choices and list building.

GW should recognise that people do play their game, and perhaps at times it might be worthwhile recognising that in tailored bundles like these battleforces.

[Luperci]

5 minutes ago, Jagged Red Lines said:

This sounds reasonable, but I'd have to disagree. The people who play majority of time outside of events are actually more hardcore.

The best players are invariably the ones who have got 'reps' in with an army. They play weekly, at a gaming club. 

They might not do events, but through regular gaming, they have honed their skills as a general and in the majority of cases are better players.

Then you have someone like my mates who are all middle-aged with families, who meet up once a month at a pub for a three game tournament.

We are 'competitive event players' but most of us are ******, because we don't play as often as we should. But neither do we berate other people, or else make them feel bad, for playing units that are the most points efficient choices in their respective books.

All I'm saying is that people who play the game with any degree of regularity, whether that's at events or clubs, do in fact care about unit choices and list building.

GW should recognise that people do play their game, and perhaps at times it might be worthwhile recognising that in tailored bundles like these battleforces.

I think there's a difference between GW making a balanced game and GW making a competitive wargame. I'm all for the former but I'd rather GW not lean on the competitive aspect too hard. I don't have the chance to play loads and don't really enjoy playing against super competitive players so I'd rather that didn't become the norm.

[Jagged Red Lines]

 

9 minutes ago, Luperci said:

I think there's a difference between GW making a balanced game and GW making a competitive wargame. I'm all for the former but I'd rather GW not lean on the competitive aspect too hard. I don't have the chance to play loads and don't really enjoy playing against super competitive players so I'd rather that didn't become the norm.

I think there's a big difference between a competitive player and a competitive format.

The game is fundamentally in the latter category by definition - there are winners and losers. 

That said, I've yet to encounter a person so competitive they were unpleasant to play against. 

At the last GT I went to, I played against two players who are ranked in the top 10 in the country. They were perfectly lovely human beings, and the games were lighthearted and full of banter. 

There were several moments where units may have just been out range, where my opponent gave me the benefit of the doubt. And allowed me to take back my move after they explained what their units did in combat. 

I got absolutely thrashed, tabled in the second or third turns, but the atmosphere was always pleasant and afterwards we had a chat about what decisions I could have made to have the game go another way.

This game is a social experience, and even at the highest competitive end of the game, you have a duty to your opponent to ensure they have a good time. I think that's the attitude that makes the AoS competitive community so great, (especially compared to 40k!)

[ScionOfOssia]

1 hour ago, Neverchosen said:

I admit I like when the boxes have a broader theme to them; like how The Ork set focuses on a specific subfaction. This has nothing to do with the Meta, but rather I like the idea of someone maybe being interested in an aspect of an army finding a good starting point for their collection. The Space Marine Battleforces last year were a good example of what I would like to see. 

I also think it would have been nice for the Eternus box to have had Chaos Legionnaires and Chaotic Beasts to have tied it more to Be'Lakor and the Eightpoints. Or the Vengorian court to have traded Death Rattle Skeletons for Vargheists to keep with the bestial vampire theme. 

I do think that this applies more for specific factions that have wider model ranges. It might be hard to make a specific battleforce for Flesh Eater Courts or Fyreslayers. For example I would love to get a Harlequin battleforce as they are the Eldar Subfaction I would be interested in. 

Once again a win for the Ossiarchs! If you run this with the less optimal choice of Arch Kavalos Zandtos, you’ll have a surprisingly solid Mortis Praetorians list, because 4 units in the box can capitalize on their Legion trait (A countercharge) extremely well, with Morghasts having Strike First on an 8+ and the mounted units having mortals on charge. It works with a generic Liege-Kavalos as well, but it’s less thematic. 

[Luperci]

9 minutes ago, Jagged Red Lines said:

 

I think there's a big difference between a competitive player and a competitive format.

The game is fundamentally in the latter category by definition - there are winners and losers. 

That said, I've yet to encounter a person so competitive they were unpleasant to play against. 

At the last GT I went to, I played against two players who are ranked in the top 10 in the country. They were perfectly lovely human beings, and the games were lighthearted and full of banter. 

There were several moments where units may have just been out range, where my opponent gave me the benefit of the doubt. And allowed me to take back my move after they explained what their units did in combat. 

I got absolutely thrashed, tabled in the second or third turns, but the atmosphere was always pleasant and afterwards we had a chat about what decisions I could have made to have the game go another way.

This game is a social experience, and even at the highest competitive end of the game, you have a duty to your opponent to ensure they have a good time. I think that's the attitude that makes the AoS competitive community so great, (especially compared to 40k!)

Definitely agree on that last point, I've had all too many bad experiences with 40k players unfortunately. It's just a personal preference thing I suppose, to me it feels like competitive is becoming more and more the default format where I'd rather prefer to play a narrative campaign.

[Flippy]

35 minutes ago, Jagged Red Lines said:

GW should recognise that people do play their game, and perhaps at times it might be worthwhile recognising that in tailored bundles like these battleforces.

I think GW knows very well that they sell gaming pieces and not little marvellous sculptures. People tend to exaggerate the “we sell minis” aspect, but the company is not Miniatures Workshop after all. They tried to go light on the gaming part with AoS 1.0 and hopefully learned the lesson.

Also, the meta does not change that quickly. But there is a different business issue with meta-bundles and that is the potential redundancy. As a dad player (i.e. more disposable income than free time) I will just buy the meta army if I really want one; if there is a bundle available I will take one, but the lack of bundle will not really impact my plans.

[Ferban]

Oh man.  If I hadn't bought the Army box for Seraphon I would be super tempted by this battleforce.  But I'm not really in need of another Slann and I already have the Hunters of Huanchi.  Same is sorta true for SBG.  Some really cool stuff in there, but a few too many duplicates to make it worth my while. 

Oh well.  I'm sure these will be great for some players.  I'll continue to get my models the old fashioned way.

[Goatforce]

I'm really confused why they decided to put another Vengorian Lord in a Christmas box, we already had one of them. Why didn't they use a Vamp on Zombie Dragon or something...

Tempted by the Seraphon box, just wish it was Kroak instead as I have a Slann. Or a Skink Starseer+ Salamander, but hey was not to be I guess. Might still get it as the Slann is such a cool model and I can build it differently

I quite like the Nid and StD box too. Ah with Imperialis and Old World coming there will be a lot of hard decisions to be made...

[Magnusaur]

Would have loved Kroak instead of the Slann, but the Seraphon battleforce looks pretty good to me.

Also really impressive when you realize that almost everything in these boxes (save the Morghast) was released within the past 4 years. Games Workshop is just pumping out incredible stuff at a record pace!

[Nighthaunt Noob]

7 hours ago, CommissarRotke said:

I do believe this but I've never really met anyone who is simply a collector? would love to see some numbers on players vs hobbyists vs collectors.

well where would you meet them? If they don't play the games they aren't as likely to be hanging out at stores or events. I'd say I fall mostly into this camp. I buy models I like but the only game I play these days is underworlds.

[DinoJon]

I really like the battleforces this year, I do wish Destruction got one but I understand that they just got a bunch of new stuff and hopefully we didn't get an Ogor one or Bonesplitterz one because they're getting new models. 

If I didn't go crazy and had bought 8 boxes of Kroxigor and two of the army boxes, I would snap pick up the Seraphon force. 

[Infernalslayer]

1 hour ago, Nighthaunt Noob said:

well where would you meet them? If they don't play the games they aren't as likely to be hanging out at stores or events. I'd say I fall mostly into this camp. I buy models I like but the only game I play these days is underworlds.

Same here. I haven't played AoS in 2 years, and even back then i would play a few games spread out yearly. That didn't work out well as GW keeps adding new rules and changing the game constantly so it is impossible to catch up if someone doesn't play often enough.

I like to keep up with the news of the game's state and its miniature releases, but currently i buy only the minis that i like and occasionally use them in games of One Page Rules with a couple of friends at home.

[Nezzhil]

15 hours ago, Marcvs said:

Ionus is also missing keywords (he's not a LORD or KNIGHT in Stormcast, so his prayers have no range), wonder if that's going to be fixed

I doubt it

[Lashna]

10 hours ago, Ejecutor said:

Btw I didn't mention it because the Astra BF looked a bit fakish, but the Spanish guy that first showed that BF (the day before Valrak did) also mentioned the price would be 150 €.

As now the BF has been confirmed I think it is worth mentioning it. If is is true it would be cheaper than the maths I've seen here today.

The boxes would look pretty neat if sold for 150€.

[Matrindur]

1 hour ago, Lashna said:

The boxes would look pretty neat if sold for 150€.

There is no way any Battleforce will be 150€, they were 170€ last year and they are not going to be cheaper. 

Edited October 24, 2023 by Matrindur

[Ejecutor]

20 minutes ago, Matrindur said:

There is no way any Battleforce will be 150€, they were 170€ last year and they are not going to be cheaper. 

Well, the source is the same guy that shared the first battlerforce image. I agree is very unlikely, but seeing he got the picture earlier than anyone else I would give it some little chances.