I asked and was answered.

[Path Walker]

You're getting more than what you paid for with the AoS rules.

[Erik Setzer]

Every time I see someone say that this game will be great for newbies and kids, I have to wonder: Have any of you actually seen kids and newbies play games? ^^;

You don't need looser and less restrictive rules for them, you need tighter, more balanced, and less ambiguous rules. Kids especially can become That Guy / Girl / Person very quickly without even trying, just because the game is rewarding them for it and they don't have the social experience yet to realize that they shouldn't.

The worst player in the group I saw playing Saturday was the only one under 18. He brought huge units of Ogres because the limit was number of Warscrolls, not models or anything. But he'd also been programmed by those players.

He's the only under-18 person I've seen playing games in the GW store for months now, possibly over a year. There were some kids who played alongside their dads, but it seems the fathers decided they couldn't afford that. The one kid left playing gets dropped off often at the store by his mother, who treats the store as a "day care" of sorts, at which point the cost becomes bearable (but she's apparently got some solid money, because the kid can get her to buy multiple kits for him to kit-bash one or two models).

Prices are still going to make parents hesitate.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

On prices: it's expensive, sure, but the Age of Sigmar box itself is marketed explicitly as "all you need to get playing!" - it treats the forces not as "starter armies" like battleforces but full-fledged forces in their own right - something you can expand but don't have to to enjoy the game. Contrast the Star Wars Armada box which gives you a mighty three whole ships for just a bit less money. The price will put people off but the price of wargaming generally puts people off.

[Mr Mystery]

I think you underestimate just how much the middle classes are willing to pay to keep their sprogs quiet....

Parent and Child gaming is also pretty cool, and absolutlely, 100% to be encouraged.

Whatever you think of the rules themselves (personal issue), surely you have to agree that this take on wargaming is incredibly accessible, and not just from the free rules. The rules are quick and easy, incredibly so. Anyone can pick it up over a game or two.

Compare to the previous incarnation - the size of the rulebook, the more involved manoeuvre rules. It was and still is a great game. But for sheer accessibility, it can't hold a candle to AoS.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Worth considering also that while GW games have got more and more expensive over the last few years, so have other competing entertainments. Big-name console games are now about fifty quid at release, consoles themselves are in the multiple hundreds. Cinema visits have gone up and up and up by a degree that'd make GW blush, so on and so on. Have you seen the price of Lego these days?

None of this is to say that GW's stuff is cheap or even reasonably priced (I'd happily take a reduction in... oh, everything's price) but it's not actually the uniquely expensive thing people sometimes treat it like.

[Auticus]

People have been griping about prices since the internet first came online.

People used to complain about the new $45 land raider and how absurd $25 rhinos were and how GW was gouging their customers and we should boycott them. That was in 2000.

The new plastic skeleton kit which debut at $19.99 for 20 skeletons was "an obvious price gouging ploy by GW... I mean come on... $1 for a plastic skeleton!!!!???".

The only way people would stop complaining about prices is if the plastic models were about $0.50 per and vehicles $10 or so.

And I agree that prices are way too high today but I'm just noting that that has been a constant drone since the internet first was.

[Erik Setzer]

On prices: it's expensive, sure, but the Age of Sigmar box itself is marketed explicitly as "all you need to get playing!" - it treats the forces not as "starter armies" like battleforces but full-fledged forces in their own right - something you can expand but don't have to to enjoy the game. Contrast the Star Wars Armada box which gives you a mighty three whole ships for just a bit less money. The price will put people off but the price of wargaming generally puts people off.

Three ships, already assembled and fully painted, plus multiple fighter squadrons. Also a bunch of tokens, range measuring stick, maneuver tool, cards, etc. I've played multiple games with just the box contents against a friend who hasn't been able to get a fleet yet, and they've been just fine.

Armada is $100 to AoS's $125. Armada can also be found at various retailers, including on Amazon for $70.

And then you look at Warmachine's starter set, $100 but on Amazon for $70, contains a warcaster, 2-3 jacks, and 5 heavy infantry for each side, plus cards, rulebook, everything you need to play. And you can get it for about half the price of AoS.

But outside of that, what if someone wants to get into the game without getting "Stormcast Eternals" or "Khorne Goretide?" Well, then, clearly the starter set isn't going to be "everything you need to play." And if it is, then how is it anything more than an over-glorified board game? (To that end, Dark Vengeance works the same. If you want to, you can play just the armies in DV against each other, as a "board game." The local GW manager actually markets it that way to people, telling them that even if they don't want to expand their force or get fully invested in the hobby, it gives them a "board game" to pull off the shelf and play.)

Who would stop at just the boxed set, anyway? They already have a bunch of releases lined up for the "Stormcast Eternals," so people will want those, especially if they don't want just a bunch of hammer-wielding guys in armor. What about when that cost sets in? What, do you limit your selection, and also limit whoever you're playing against, in order to save money?

You can't just say a game is cheap because of the starter set. Especially as it's called a "starter" set for a reason. And yes, they call the box a "starter" set, so clearly they don't intend for it to be all a person purchases.

[40kGamer]

I see it as Warhammer going back to its roots.
"Here's a game to play with your model collection."
That's how it got started after all.
I totally agree that from an organised tournament POV this is not the right product.
But then it wasn't designed to be, and while I'm sure the vocal element will nay-say me 25 years of gaming and some 7 years of working for GW have taught me that tournament players make up a VERY minor minority of the hobby.
Hell, people who play aren't even that big a majority compared to people who collect cool toys.
This, to me, looks like GW banking on free rules, low buy-in costs, easy learning and an emphasis on play-for-fun gaming bringing them more customers long term than they'll lose in the transition.
I needn't remind some of you how much nicer attending events got after the 7th into 8th rage-quitting of so many neck-beards at once.
This is not to imply all tournament attendees are neck-beards, or that wanting a tightly balanced rule set is a bad thing.
Merely to say that Warhammer Fantasy owes more in origin to roleplaying and fun than it does competition and balance.
And if that's what GW want to encourage you'll see more of me in store.
If you prefer your game tournament focused, well there are products out there for you too. Go forth and prosper.
But maybe try this game too, since it's free and you own the minis anyway eh?

Nicely put. AoS has some positive aspects:

> Fast and easy to play
> Simple to learn and teach
> Cheap buy in (by GW standards)
> and the biggest thing FREE Rules! Who ever thought we could write that in a GW thread?

So from these this game has the potential to hopefully, maybe, bring in some new blood... which is always a good thing.

For me the most negative aspects of the game are:

> The LARPing aspect. While this stuff can be fun, it gets tiresome when forced into every game. Easy enough to just ignore it.
> Measuring from the model - Super annoying and silly as a design mechanic. I'm sure this was some effort to appease the square basers but it is not a good feature. Measuring from the base is superior in every way and easily ruled into games.
> No balancing mechanism. Balance it yourself seems like a ridiculous position for them to take, but then again, it's not like they've ever been bothered to try and balance anything before so the onus may as well be on the community.

From a gaming perspective I'm over the top. I have a couple hundred games in my library and I enjoy studying game design and game theory and regardless of what we may think, the game designer always has something in mind with every thing they do. Sometimes it works and sometimes it falls flat but it does have a specific purpose.

At the end of the day, AoS is a bit of a step backwards in game design as a modern offering. Not a deal breaker but a bit of a disappointment from what is 'the' premier model company. But once again, the rules are FREE! Has that even sunk in yet? I know a lot of long timers may think with the free rules that we've got what we paid for but still, this is them trying to reinvent the game from nothing. WFB was not created in a day or even a year. It evolved over a long period of time to be what it is. So while I'm not really interested to play AoS in it's current incarnation, I am willing to give GW some time to realize their vision. Also, whether it's a hit or not it's likely going to be around for a long time. Look how long EPIC stayed after the much bemoaned transition to 3rd edition. And once again 3rd edition is actually a good game although it failed to capture a large enough following for them to keep supporting the system. So grab some ale and toss some dice, It's going to be a wild ride.

[Path Walker]

AoS is much cleaner than any other game GW have ever come out with, its clear and concise, yes, it expects people to do some socialising, but its to make it the game they want to make, a story driven experience over a competitive ruleset, GW have obviously not been happy with the growing competitive side of the game and have been trying to push it out for a long time now, competitiveness harms recruitment, many a child has left the hobby when humiliatingly battered by an overly competitive opponent.

By striping it of any pretense of balance and asking players to use it as a roleplaying exercise, they've done that. Why would you want to take the piss out of your opponent?

I can't understand what's so difficult to grasp about the idea of respecting your opponent and not playing the game just to beat them.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Your own post has answered so many of your own rhetoricals, Erik.