Do Age of Sigmar armies deserve better rules than leftover WHFB armies?

[Overread]

4 minutes ago, Walrustaco said:

I wonder how all the deepkin players are gonna feel when they see daddy Teclis with his new perfect family 😞

Think it's only a matter of time for deepkin. Sorry to say 😢

They will redouble their efforts and unleash new horrors from the far depths of the seas. Storming into the battlefields in a fresh tsunami of destructive force! Who knows we might see vast armoured crabs; huge sea serpents; nightmarhish angler fish; ancient trilobites! 

[Whitefang]

And new aelves may be able to breathe under water but Deepkin can not?🤣

[HollowHills]

45 minutes ago, Overread said:

Edited down for brevity 

I get what you are saying. I'm not suggesting they should make these armies unplayable. More like they should be lower tier than the new armies. 

And not that the newest army is always the best. Just a clear line between armies released before summer 2015 and armies released since then. 

Basically so the old armies are there for people who want to use their old models, but not to encourage them being chosen over the newer factions. 

Does that make more sense? 

32 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

This is just a troll topic.

No need to fuel division.

 

24 minutes ago, Phasteon said:

This. 

This discussion is just a hidden platform created to let off some steam because of OPs frustration about the Idoneth Deepkin Battletome (a tome thats perfectly fine tbh)

Classic. 

Genuinely not a troll topic. I am most familiar with idoneth out of all the new armies, so I used them as an example. 

I am dissatisfied with their battletome, but not because it isn't competitive enough. I wish it had better balance and its a shame that such a small model range is made smaller but dodgy rules, but that isn't the point. 

I believe many of the new aos armies should have better rules, stormcast, KO, Nighthaunt... 

[Clan's Cynic]

HollowHills wanting anything vaguely related to WHFB to get squat'ed. Isn't this new. Did some Greatswords pulp your Eels?

So let's say Idoneth go ten years without an update, their kits are showing their age compared to say... the new Freyius Peoplium and Flat Duradin books. Would you agree to giving Idoneth a weak book because their models aren't as new? What happens if Cities of Sigmar does receive an update and they keep the Empire aesthetic? Should the new Warriors of Chaos have weaker rules than Blood Warriors because they're literally just an update to a WHFB kit?

And believe me, there were people who said Kharadrons didn't fit AoS when they were first revealed. 

Edited January 20, 2020 by Clan's Cynic

[Melcavuk]

Again your targetting pre-aos models as though they are not officially part of the setting. Those that survived the cull are Age of Sigmar models as much as any eel riding elf or walking tree, making them worse to suit some sort of agenda that new should always be better would likely form a toxic attitude within the setting, because one day your idoneth arent going to be "new", say we bump the date forward to the day after idoneth were released for equally arbitrary reasons (Let say we're only playing the siege of 8 points onwards, so now your army is "old") it'd suddenly be a much different suggestion because it would target your own perception of "proper armies"

[Phasteon]

4 minutes ago, HollowHills said:

I believe many of the new aos armies should have better rules, stormcast, KO, Nighthaunt... 

Thats your opinion and its fine I guess but I have no problem with the KO tome so far. 

Won 5/5 Games (I lost against 2 of those armies pretty hard when I played KO the last time) and which is most important its finally fun to play Skyvessels, which are the reason I started the army. 

[Oceanic_Eyes]

9 minutes ago, Clan's Cynic said:

...compared to say... the new Freyius Peoplium and Flat Duradin books.

Tell me more about Flat Duardin

I think if anything it'd be a very nasty GW tactic to make all the new ranges stronger rules wise just to sell the newer models.

In a perfect world I'd want the rules to be decently balanced across all AOS factions (yes, the WHFB models and factions that are in AoS are just as much a part of AoS now as the completely new lines), and to have new and updated models for all factions.

Off the top of my head, the new Ogor Tyrant and the new Chaos Warriors are great examples of sorely needed new kits that still keep the wonderful aesthetic of the models they're succeeding.

[novakai]

4 minutes ago, HollowHills said:

I get what you are saying. I'm not suggesting they should make these armies unplayable. More like they should be lower tier than the new armies. 

And not that the newest army is always the best. Just a clear line between armies released before summer 2015 and armies released since then. 

Basically so the old armies are there for people who want to use their old models, but not to encourage them being chosen over the newer factions. 

Does that make more sense? 

 

Genuinely not a troll topic. I am most familiar with idoneth out of all the new armies, so I used them as an example. 

I am dissatisfied with their battletome, but not because it isn't competitive enough. I wish it had better balance and its a shame that such a small model range is made smaller but dodgy rules, but that isn't the point. 

I believe many of the new aos armies should have better rules, stormcast, KO, Nighthaunt... 

I am not sure if it better rules but that balancing rules is a tough job and GW is not consistent on the power curbs of every army. I don't think it has anything to do with age of product,

Stormcast, Nighthaunt, IDK are army that just got power creep on by newer release just like Maggotkin, BoC, and to a degree DoK and Gloomspite. those army probably need a new update more then anything else.

KO I think was just a very tough army to balance without expanding their range a bit (that and GW finally gave Jervis Johnson an editor that finally reeled him even if it was a bit much on some rule restriction). they had to be really careful with them or they will ended up being errata 

strength also vary to like  Sylvaneath, BoC and Gloomspite  seem a bit weaker and some are fairly balance like Khorne, Ironjawz, Mawtribes, Fyreslayers, S2D, and some they totally ****** the pooch like FEC, Skaven, Slaanesh, and maybe the new Tzeentch and OBR.

Don't get me wrong, I dealt with a lot of toxic WHF players IRL and seen it Total War community and their youtubers and they are never going to play AoS even if you gave them stronger rules. but any leftover WHF army can become an AoS army if they decided to update any of the old range into newer stuff what they did with Sylvaneath and Gloomspite.

 

[HollowHills]

47 minutes ago, Icegoat said:

It's well documented the poor sales suffered by the new aos factions everything but stormcast eternal have sold poorly. Fyreslayers,kharaadron, idoneth have all been very slow sellers.ossiarchs have had some better success. So maybe yes they should receive worse rules.but they don't try winning a game with cities of sigmar it's entirely impossible against new armies. In a few years the old armies will clearly not exist in aos and will be resigned to the new warhammer old world game.but believe me there is a reason they are releasing pointy aelves and its because all the new elf and dwarf factions etc. Have had very very low sales .

The only reason I am responding to this post is to debunk any rumours about new armies selling badly. There is absolutely no evidence for that. 

What we do know is that GW profits keep increasing dramatically over the last few years. 

Now why would GW persist with a strategy of releasing  new armies each year if a significant proportion of the new armies released thus far sols badly? 

Why would they decide the solution to elves selling badly is to release more elves? 

Why dilute your elf playing base? You would instead try to sell the existing elves as you've already spent a lot of money paying designers and building moulds etc. 

Alternative take the elves actually sold well so they want to replicate those profits by tapping into the same vein. This actually matches the picture of increased profits rather than the doom and gloom. 

[HollowHills]

20 minutes ago, Clan's Cynic said:

Flat Duradin

I did lol. 

Also I don't want it all to be squatted, just to be worse than armies designed for aos until they receive a thematic update. 

I don't want skaven to cease existing, just for them to be weaker until they get thematic update. 

[Icegoat]

It's the adoption of 40k into meme and popular culture that's driven gw profits in the recent years. Not eel elfs and fyre dwarfs. Aos is popular due to stormcast and chaos all other armies are crumb sales just to give these two armies something else to fight. That's not me trolling that's just the very obvious and harsh truth. 

[Overread]

2 minutes ago, HollowHills said:

I did lol. 

Also I don't want it all to be squatted, just to be worse than armies designed for aos until they receive a thematic update. 

I don't want skaven to cease existing, just for them to be weaker until they get thematic update. 

But why should Skaven players suffer for years just because the models aren't as new? It doesn't make any sense. Plus if an army sells REALLY badly then GW has to make even more investment to get them selling again. With the risk that they might never take off again.  Or do we want repeats of what happened to TombKings? 

I'd rather armies had solid rules that are on the same level and good through the whole life of the game irrespective if the sculpt of the model is new or old. New stuff will certainly get new stats and reworking when big additions are made, that tends to happen anyway. Even if not then it still unlocks things and new potential. If Skaven got new Acolyte models you can bet they'd fly off the shelves over the higher priced ones they've got now in the old material. 

 

Why hobble armies, which will result in reduced sales, when they can fly as high as the others and be on equal footing. All because a sculpt is old. Heck look at some of the old skaven metals - they are still really good sculpts even now. Many of their assassin models are every bit as good as the modern stuff. Just because they've a 20 year history and are made of metal shouldn't mean that GW makes them underperform. 

[SwampHeart]

9 minutes ago, Icegoat said:

It's the adoption of 40k into meme and popular culture that's driven gw profits in the recent years. Not eel elfs and fyre dwarfs. Aos is popular due to stormcast and chaos all other armies are crumb sales just to give these two armies something else to fight. That's not me trolling that's just the very obvious and harsh truth. 

Show proof - link to concrete information that proves this is true. 

And as to the main point - in the politest possible terms, get bent. I love Cities of Sigmar and the fact that you think my army should be less than yours just because its not 'new' is utter garbage and a genuinely offensive idea. 

Edited January 20, 2020 by SwampHeart

[Whitefang]

Consumers pay the same amount of money to buy GW’s products, why are they deserved second-class rule? And why can’t they have freedom and equality  to choose any legitimate model they like but “new” model?

Supremancism is not funny

[novakai]

11 minutes ago, Whitefang said:

Consumers pay the same amount of money to buy GW’s products, why are they deserved second-class rule? And why can’t they have freedom and equality  to choose any legitimate model they like but “new” model?

Supremancism is not funny

I would say no one deserve second class rules but because of inconsistent balancing by GW, it kind of happens to unfortunate player bases (Grey knights)

they are also purposely making mini marines underperform to incise Primaris marine in everyone's army. 

[Gaz Taylor]

25 minutes ago, Icegoat said:

It's the adoption of 40k into meme and popular culture that's driven gw profits in the recent years. Not eel elfs and fyre dwarfs. Aos is popular due to stormcast and chaos all other armies are crumb sales just to give these two armies something else to fight. That's not me trolling that's just the very obvious and harsh truth. 

+++ Mod Hat On +++
 

This is trolling. I’m issuing you a warning with points now. Continue and we will look at a weeks ban.

Please don’t carry on doing this

[HollowHills]

OK well basically no one agrees. 

I'll try to go back to having good ideas like Tyrion being in charge of the Idoneth. 

[Kramer]

57 minutes ago, HollowHills said:

You also have a load of players hanging around now who don't really like AoS and like to hurl insults at stormcast, idoneth etc. Salty WHFB players who are probably the most negative people still in the hobby. (to be clear I'm not saying everyone who plays an old army is like this, just that these people exist and would only play old armies). 

First of this is very separate to the discussion. ****’s will be ****’s. 
 

59 minutes ago, HollowHills said:

To me these new armies should be the most competitive and then old armies should only be supported enough to let you use an existing collection. Not to encourage new players to buy them over proper aos armies. 

At some level I agree with you. I think it might have been the plan at some point of GW as well. Because new stuff is cool, so focus on that. But the negative response on any kit disappearing is a clear sign that’s not the way to treat their consumer base. 

but the bigger issue is rules writing for sales. Despite all the conspiracies that claim GW do this. For every keeper of Slaanesh which they release a ironclad which doesn’t see play*. For every Morathi they release, there is a Laviadon.

also to a degree they already do what your suggesting with legends  

* until now

[relic456]

Doesn't this kind of happen naturally already?

A very general and high level thought experiment.

I judge an armies age by the age of their models, not how long they've been in the game. In general, new players are likely to gravitate towards newer armies (more detailed models, prettier, more dynamic) while older players are more likely to own older models and therefore older armies. Additionally, nobody stays in the hobby forever, so generally the longer you're in the hobby the more likely it is you'll drop out. My conclusion would be that the number of people who own older models naturally decline as time goes on while the number of people who own newer models generally increase.

When armies made up of old models are brought forward rules-wise, there is some natural "fat trimming" (see Cities of Sigmar), squatting more and more models. However, these armies tend to get fewer model updates. Therefore, the older armies are generally made up of older models and therefore aren't as attractive to newer players. Also, as old players drop out. Therefore, less people play older armies, less people buy older armies, and GW eventually squats models and armies as a business decision.

Further, power creep exists on a long enough scale (like the life of an edition). Armies with older models are brought up to speed rules wise once an edition, and may benefit from power creep. However, new armies with new models are created constantly, and are the most likely to benefit from power creep. So while older armies gain new rules with each edition, they don't gain nearly as many new models. Again, this ties back in to players being less likely to buy them. 

Without model updates, rules updates are basically all that keep older armies from phasing out entirely. The next update to Cities of Sigmar (presumably in 3.0) is potentially years away. How many players who have those models are going to drop out by then? How many new players are going to buy the older models compared to a new army (like Flat Dwarves)? At what point do those factors impact GW's decision about which armies come forward in a new edition and which stay behind? 

I think this holds true for any army, I'm just picking on Cities since they're one of the older armies model wise.

TL;DR: Armies that only get rules updates and minor model updates are doomed to die out naturally, because the people who own them drop out of the hobby and the new people joining the hobby are more likely to buy an army with new models.

Edited January 20, 2020 by relic456

[Overread]

I'd like to point out that Slaanesh is currently doing about the best and is an army pretty much as old as the entire franchise itself using a model - keeper of secrets - that's been around about as long (in one form or another).

 

 

[Walrustaco]

Is an army only as new as its newest model? 

Does that make Ogor Mawtribes a much newer army than Idoneth Deepkin? 

I believe so.

Slightly worrying for Idoneth Deepkin players.

[novakai]

1 minute ago, Walrustaco said:

Is an army only as new as its newest model? 

Does that make Ogor Mawtribes a much newer army than Idoneth Deepkin? 

I believe so.

Slightly worrying for Idoneth Deepkin players.

"looks at current Butcher and Maneater model"

Don't get too cocky, Kid, ya still pretty out of date

 

[Walrustaco]

Just now, novakai said:

"looks at current Butcher and Maneater model"

Don't get too cocky, Kid, ya still pretty out of date

 

Your problem is that you looked at them. If you don't then it's fine.

[Saturmorn Carvilli]

@ the OP

If you don't play Warhammer 40k as well you might want to a take a look around at some 40k forums concerning Space Marines. 

Assuming you know nothing about 40k, it is generally regarded that up to 50% of all sales for 40k are Space Marines.  As such, they tend to get more models, more often.  As someone the created a Primaris only army last year, I got to read a great number of posts on how Space Marines shouldn't get more models (as well as a number of posts where the models look bad or aren't real space marines).  Additionally, in August Space Marines were the first (and only at the time of writing) to get a real 2nd codex.  Chaos Space Marines had a kind of codex 1.5 (note: I also play Chaos Space Marines), but it was barely different from the original 8th edition one that GW even had a flowchart on if a player should buy it or not.  I didn't. 

However, with the latest Codex: Space Marines the forums I used to visit were in a spin about how Space Marines are OP now.  So you have very aggressive outright hate toward space marines because they constantly were getting new models and had a codex that made them one of the best factions in the game.  This reached a boiling point with the Iron Hands (subfaction of space marine) supplement that was, no kind way to put this, overpowerly broken.  Fortunately, GW didn't put out Errata/FAQ material rather quickly.  Still, there are a great number of people that don't think it was near enough and truly hate GW, space marines and even space marine players.  I am also willing to bet that most of those people actually believe that GW does fudge the rules to get new releases better rules despite the evidence to the contrary.

I think what you are purposing to cause much of the strife that exists in the online 40k community.  I also don't think it would be particularly healthy for the game or GW to do.  Again, Warhammer 40k 7th edition (and previous editions) actually seemed to have what you are proposing.  Research the introduction of 40k Flyers if you want to get a glimpse of how that was received.  It was during 40ks 6th and 7th editions that a great number of players just became fed up with GW and left.  I think 8th edition 40k was largely a response my GW who has learned their customers DO actually have limits to what they will put up with.

Again, I think engineering new models (or armies which I think is the same just more extreme and easier for your customer base to see through) to have the best rules is one of those things you will find the player base largely won't accept and will move to games that don't do that.  And it is very dangerous for GW to have their customers leave the sheltered walled garden of the hhhobby and learn how of companies do things.  I didn't start miniatures war gamin in GW, and I know their are several much better designed games outside the wall garden.  I like GW games because as I get older I don't really care as much as having a good chance to win games.  Nor do I want to really put that much effort in finding/maintaining  a group.  I don't even actually want a particularly deep game and like the shallowness of GW games so I can socialize more than figure out my next move.  Others that want better, deeper rules may find that once outside the GW bubble.  At that point it will take a lot of effort to get them back.

Still, I think implementing a plan where a miniatures war game has 'new hotness' and 'old and busted' rules as miniatures age is a fast way for me to stop spending money altogether on that companies products.  Sorry, for the essay.

Edited January 20, 2020 by Saturmorn Carvilli

[novakai]

1 minute ago, Walrustaco said:

Your problem is that you looked at them. If you don't then it's fine.

you try playing a game blindfold and see how that goes for ya

also finecast existing is so egregious to this day

14 minutes ago, relic456 said:

Doesn't this kind of happen naturally already?

A thought experiment. Age is based on the age of the models, not how long the army has existed in WH. New players are likely to tend towards newer armies (more detailed models, prettier, more dynamic). Old players are more likely to own older models and older armies. Nobody stays in the hobby forever, so generally the longer you're in the hobby the more likely it is you'll drop out. Old armies are brought forward but are generally trimmed down (see Cities of Sigmar). Newer players are less likely to buy older armies compared to a new army with new models. Old players drop out , less people play older armies, less people buy older armies, models and armies are squatted as a business decision.

Power creep exists. Old armies are updated once an edition, new armies with new models are created constantly. Old armies might have brief power spikes on their release, but will be outclassed by newer armies eventually. Without new models to go along with new rules, old armies naturally die out.

Cities are good now, but how good will they be at the end of 2.0? What about half way through 3.0? How many models will stick around when they get a 3.0 update?

I think this holds true for any army, I'm just picking on Cities since they're one of the older armies model wise.

Edit: whoops sent this instead of just saving the draft. In the process of editing to be coherent!

yeah I am also on the fence of the longevity of Cities given that in the miniature industry old products being retire and squat for inventory purposes is always going to happen even for a company like GW. it just how business are run.

if Pointy Aelves don't incorporate any of the remaining high elf units outside of allies or Kurnothi with wanderers their lifespan of those particular models are called into question.

like IDK could have easily been Scourge privateers or use their unit but that was not the path they chose