Yeah but there's plenty of other skaven, orcs, and lizardmen and they didn't touch those ranges. Knights might be the shakiest IP but vampires and goblins aren't exactly solid ground either. Even if GW intentionally misspells them, the other models are still out there for people to use.

People need to wake up regarding rent on the stores. A properly compartmentalized business would not be impacted by that. Independent retailers also pay rent on their stores, yet somehow they magically turn a profit without automatically charging more than MSRP for everything. The idea that the rent on stores somehow drives up model prices is one I don't believe. People have been saying it for years. If you are running the store right, it makes its own money and you don't up the MSRP to compensate for rent and utilities in a different branch of your company. Remember, they can charge more for a model they sell in their stores, than one they sell to a wholesaler. The difference should either be carrying the rent of the storefront, or at least coming close enough to breaking even that the stores are just part of the advertising budget.

As long as I can remember, apologists have liked to blame things like that for GW's prices, but it doesn't bear up to scrutiny. Rent on a storefront is just part of the advertising plan, and if the stores lost so much money that it impacted the manufacturing end (which would take a LOT of money if you think about it) any trained businessman would either close the stores or license them to a 3rd party. The existence of The Disney Store in malls doesn't make the price of Mickey Mouse lunchboxes at K-Mart skyrocket to many times over the cost of other licensed lunchboxes and keep increasing far beyond the pace of inflation. GW has a smaller retail footprint than it used to and its prices are even HIGHER commensurate with inflation from those days. Stop blaming the stores and Games Day and the other such things. The prices are this high for one reason: because you'll pay it.

Regarding the sprues, sometimes destroying product is worth more as a tax write-off than it would cost in effort to sell it. Not saying it was in this case, but it may have been.

I personally think GW is targeting people who are rich enough that they honestly don't notice dollar amounts below a thousand. I'm being serious. The children of the very rich, and single males under 40 who work in certain fields. That's the kind of targeted market research many companies do now. GW's attitude may be, "Why not sell 1 model to a wealthier person instead of selling 5 of the same to a wider audience, if the CBA comes down in favor of overcharging someone who doesn't need the money?". I've thought this for a few years now. I think they are being very selective about their customers nowadays. It would explain a lot. Only someone who sees folding currency the way I see pocket change would be likely to buy their hobby tools for example. They charge easily triple the going rate for all that stuff. I think I saw packs of files at a craft store for 1/10th of what GW charges.

Regarding smaller companies being more competitive: ever heard of Wal-Mart? It's pretty competitive last time I checked. The bigger you are, the more competitive you can be, not less. Economy of scale. GW pays less per pound for resin and plastic and less per gross for boxes and so on. These smaller competitors usually include ex-GW people so it's not like they are outsider innovators or that they are cheaper because they are newbies who lack talent.

At this point, I see it as price gouging based on a business plan and morally justified as "nobody needs any of this stuff anyways". It's not like they're overcharging me on my food and medicine. But they have, through their own actions, mostly lost me as a customer. I used to buy lots of GW stuff, and I still buy lots of miniatures. I think they are going through another extremely short sighted and arrogant phase like they did in the mid 90's. The value of their products went back up, way up in my eyes, in 1999/early 2000's and then started seeping back out of the hobby around 2005. I think we've hit another 1996ish nadir. I take a longterm view of GW.

Jon Lackpenny wrote:
Yeah but there's plenty of other skaven, orcs, and lizardmen and they didn't touch those ranges. Knights might be the shakiest IP but vampires and goblins aren't exactly solid ground either. Even if GW intentionally misspells them, the other models are still out there for people to use.

People need to wake up regarding rent on the stores. A properly compartmentalized business would not be impacted by that. Independent retailers also pay rent on their stores, yet somehow they magically turn a profit without automatically charging more than MSRP for everything. The idea that the rent on stores somehow drives up model prices is one I don't believe. People have been saying it for years. If you are running the store right, it makes its own money and you don't up the MSRP to compensate for rent and utilities in a different branch of your company. Remember, they can charge more for a model they sell in their stores, than one they sell to a wholesaler. The difference should either be carrying the rent of the storefront, or at least coming close enough to breaking even that the stores are just part of the advertising budget.

As long as I can remember, apologists have liked to blame things like that for GW's prices, but it doesn't bear up to scrutiny. Rent on a storefront is just part of the advertising plan, and if the stores lost so much money that it impacted the manufacturing end (which would take a LOT of money if you think about it) any trained businessman would either close the stores or license them to a 3rd party. The existence of The Disney Store in malls doesn't make the price of Mickey Mouse lunchboxes at K-Mart skyrocket to many times over the cost of other licensed lunchboxes and keep increasing far beyond the pace of inflation. GW has a smaller retail footprint than it used to and its prices are even HIGHER commensurate with inflation from those days. Stop blaming the stores and Games Day and the other such things. The prices are this high for one reason: because you'll pay it.

Regarding the sprues, sometimes destroying product is worth more as a tax write-off than it would cost in effort to sell it. Not saying it was in this case, but it may have been.

I personally think GW is targeting people who are rich enough that they honestly don't notice dollar amounts below a thousand. I'm being serious. The children of the very rich, and single males under 40 who work in certain fields. That's the kind of targeted market research many companies do now. GW's attitude may be, "Why not sell 1 model to a wealthier person instead of selling 5 of the same to a wider audience, if the CBA comes down in favor of overcharging someone who doesn't need the money?". I've thought this for a few years now. I think they are being very selective about their customers nowadays. It would explain a lot. Only someone who sees folding currency the way I see pocket change would be likely to buy their hobby tools for example. They charge easily triple the going rate for all that stuff. I think I saw packs of files at a craft store for 1/10th of what GW charges.

Regarding smaller companies being more competitive: ever heard of Wal-Mart? It's pretty competitive last time I checked. The bigger you are, the more competitive you can be, not less. Economy of scale. GW pays less per pound for resin and plastic and less per gross for boxes and so on. These smaller competitors usually include ex-GW people so it's not like they are outsider innovators or that they are cheaper because they are newbies who lack talent.

At this point, I see it as price gouging based on a business plan and morally justified as "nobody needs any of this stuff anyways". It's not like they're overcharging me on my food and medicine. But they have, through their own actions, mostly lost me as a customer. I used to buy lots of GW stuff, and I still buy lots of miniatures. I think they are going through another extremely short sighted and arrogant phase like they did in the mid 90's. The value of their products went back up, way up in my eyes, in 1999/early 2000's and then started seeping back out of the hobby around 2005. I think we've hit another 1996ish nadir. I take a longterm view of GW.

Well you got a lot more history with them as me. I have the found the Bretonnians and Warhammer Fanatsy due to Total War: Warhammer. Eventhough I know about 40k for years now.

I do think that you are right when you say that they are selective towards their audience, just looking at the obvious, who did they target AoS....

I do know that most of the companies have GW staff in them, but what I meant is more like they more competetive with their prices. Fex: First I thought that the new metal dwarfs from mantic are expnsive, then I saw that they are metal and look at Sisters of Battle prices. Soon I realised they are okayish. This what I meant by being competiteve you would something big to happen at GW to make them lower they prices.

In that way you are correct then, the smaller companies are being more competitive. Which is odd, given their relative economic disadvantages. But logic and GW have never gone hand in hand. Like that time they discontinued Land Raider tanks for like 6 years or so but kept printing the stats for them.

Anyways. To get back on track. To be improved/salvaged/saved, I would basically need two things. A real army building system and rules for ranked up units.

I'm not interested in moving units of 20+, one model at a time across the table and agonizing over the placement of each figure to maximize my rolling. What a time-waster. So ranking up is absolutely a necessity. Either bring back ranks, or make it a game of 15 or so models per side.

Points based lists in AoS honestly make me hesitant. I think maybe a formation based system would work better: pick one from column A, two from column B, sort of a thing. But people like points values. I would need to see points per model instead of points per 16 models though. That is just so grainy and low resolution, its hard to collect models to that list.

Jon Lackpenny wrote:
Anyways. To get back on track. To be improved/salvaged/saved, I would basically need two things. A real army building system and rules for ranked up units.

I'm not interested in moving units of 20+, one model at a time across the table and agonizing over the placement of each figure to maximize my rolling. What a time-waster. So ranking up is absolutely a necessity. Either bring back ranks, or make it a game of 15 or so models per side.

Points based lists in AoS honestly make me hesitant. I think maybe a formation based system would work better: pick one from column A, two from column B, sort of a thing. But people like points values. I would need to see points per model instead of points per 16 models though. That is just so grainy and low resolution, its hard to collect models to that list.

Would be better, but I guess we wont see this. Due to the fact the removing rank and file was the fix for fun gameplay and easier entry for 40k players.

Formation based system ... and picking one from column A ... two from column B...

Can you explain a bit? That's how I would describe the GHB point lists. But you dislike GHB. So you must mean something different.

Suggestions accumulated so far, summarized below:

~~~~~~~

Age of Skirmish :: an outline for improvements to AoS


Terrain Effect Rules
..... # disadvantageous to ranked [?] formations
..... # skirmishers less [or not?] affected


Formations / Orderly Movement
..... # all can hit or all can shoot
..... # new kinds and shapes of formation trays
..... # needs rules for ranked up units
..... # keep skirmisher movement for all units for generals who like it


Balancing Magical Summoning
..... # counter with mundane signaling resulting in reinforcements
..... # additional means of blocking the magic of summoning
..... # summoning limited to a pool of troops based on a point value (i.e. GHB )


Point Values
..... # point values for individual models needed
..... # balanced army building system
..... # formation[?] based points[?] system

I personally think removing rank and file was some dumb MBA's way to cut costs that quarter and justify his or her bonus at GW. That or the sculptors being way too Matrixy in their style, the models wouldn't rank up well anymore. The scale creep has been making it hard to rank the models up so finally they just threw out that idea altogether.

As far as non-points army composition goes there's a few ways to go about it. Since AoS is liable to wind up a tiny skirmish game anyhow (not by GW but by the fans) it could work sorta like in that old Bret vs. Wood Elf scenario from WD. The Brets got I think 15 models total, to pick from a list. 1 general. 0-2 Errant knights. 0-3 Mounted yeomen. 0-5 archers. 0-5 spearmen. Etc. The wood elves got like 20 guys chosen from a similar list. 1 General. 0-2 dryads. etc. etc. etc. Maybe do something like that.

I honestly see AoS working best with like, 5 to 30 models per side, tops. From the little I've experimented with its rules.

Tertius wrote:
Suggestions accumulated so far, summarized below:

~~~~~~~

Age of Skirmish :: an outline for improvements to AoS


Terrain Effect Rules
..... # disadvantageous to ranked [?] formations
..... # skirmishers less [or not?] affected


Formations / Orderly Movement
..... # all can hit or all can shoot
..... # new kinds and shapes of formation trays
..... # needs rules for ranked up units
..... # keep skirmisher movement for all units for generals who like it


Balancing Magical Summoning
..... # counter with mundane signaling resulting in reinforcements
..... # additional means of blocking the magic of summoning
..... # summoning limited to a pool of troops based on a point value (i.e. GHB )


Point Values
..... # point values for individual models needed
..... # balanced army building system
..... # formation[?] based points[?] system

Not sure how much you guys have actually played AoS, but a lot of your "formation" issues arent really issues in the game. The rules for not moving through other figures, requirement to pile in toward the closest enemy model and the like actually reward the use of formations. Without a return to the five wide rectangles of doom of WHFB.

Clumsily deployed units are actually at a disadvantage, and putting in a rule that all the models in a formation can always roll to hit despite weapon range removes the need for thoughtful deployment.

I wouldnt have a problem with movement trays for ease of movement of large units but if it resulted in any "close the door" movement of WHFB I would want nothing of it.

Not sure what you mean by mundane signaling as a counter for summoning. But the limited summoning pool based on paying points for a unit you choose to summon works nicely. I think of it like deepstriking reserves.

Cant summoning spells be unbound?

I personally dont have a beef about point values for groups of figures on a warscroll rather than individual models. Even in a competitive sense, leaders never count as "hidden" within a unit. I think you will find that a few trebuchet shots to the head are a great equalizer.

Not entirely sure how balanced the GHB point system is, but I have never felt at a disadvantage with my Bretonnians. And as far as the new armies vs a compendium force go, the Bretonnian army is quite competitive.

I would love to explore opening up new units of course. In my group we have an understanding that compendium armies can borrow from others without needing additional battleline units. For instance I will be building a wood elf hunting pack with a waywatcher as hounds with a bretonnian counts as huntsman.

I would like to see a spell representative of each school of magic from WHFB added back into the game for a bit of fluff. But thats really about it.

I usually play historicals, but there is very little I dont like in AoS.

Well measuring from the model has got to go in my opinion. Two knights with lances shouldn't work differently because of their poses. I needed to put my couched lances in back to hit through the gaps so to speak. Silliness.

Jon Lackpenny wrote:
Well measuring from the model has got to go in my opinion. Two knights with lances shouldn't work differently because of their poses. I needed to put my couched lances in back to hit through the gaps so to speak. Silliness.

I would agree, we nicked that out right away. Hadnt used it so honestly I hadnt thought of it.

So you are telling me that ranking up doesn't disadvantage a player in AoS? That's interesting. One of the things I love about Dragon Rampant is, units that are formed up, or deployed 40k style, all interact the same way. So my knights can be in wedges, my spearmen in blocks, and my skirmishers can, well, skirmish. My opponent can do something totally different and the game will still play just fine.

Jon Lackpenny wrote:
So you are telling me that ranking up doesn't disadvantage a player in AoS? That's interesting. One of the things I love about Dragon Rampant is, units that are formed up, or deployed 40k style, all interact the same way. So my knights can be in wedges, my spearmen in blocks, and my skirmishers can, well, skirmish. My opponent can do something totally different and the game will still play just fine.

Spear armed infantry have to be within two inches of the enemy to attack. To get the most of your units models with 25mm rounds attacking they have to be tight uo against the front rank to get to do so. You would be hard pressed to do so without a formation of some kind. Any models behind the second rank would only serve as possible casualties and numbers since they arent in range to strike.

Generally we have found units becoming wider and less deep than in WHFB where the five wide rectangle ruled the day.

There are no templates in AoS so dispersion doesnt matter.

With the way models block friendly movement combined with consolidation movement in close combats having to be towards the NEAREST enemy model, it is easy to get a unit congested enough where a champion as well as a decent amount of a unit cannot get close enough to the enemy to attack.

I have never played dragon rampant, but I would agree that AoS lets my units do the same.

That's interesting...

In DR a unit either fights or it doesn't. If say, the corners clip, both units roll all of their attacks. In for a penny, in for a pound of flesh. Which means that my square based spearmen on a movement tray can happily fight old metal Dungeons and Dragons orcs that were based on roundwashers.

One you get reduced to half strength, the units lose a lot of attacks and such. Unlike Kings of War, you remove models to keep track of casualties as the game goes on.

Sadly, last night the club wanted to try out some sort of boardgame instead of fighting for possession of a green felt field. So I am still at my first game of DR. It is the rules set I am painting any new fantastical armies to though. The sizing of the armies is just right for a collection in my opinion. Right around the size Warhammer armies were before the points values bottomed out.

I'll paint some additional units for KoW/Oldhammer but armies cut from whole cloth will be for DR. It's enough to feel like an army without taking years to paint. They will also then be about the right size of army for Oldhammer.