AoS and the Old World

[sean]

I’m wondering how GW is going to keep them separate and both financially viable? I know there is lots of people who enjoy different things and spending piles of money on minis but in my own biased opinion I don’t see how AoS is going to survive if Old World is any good as a rule set and gets even decent miniature support.

Again obviously this is just my opinion but the setting and lore is more developed, relatable and engaging. It has a closer tie in with the popular Total War and Vermin tide games. Their is a lot of nostalgia for the “good old game” that people remember, while many people have issue with the fundamental structure and game balance of AoS.

I have two large AoS armies but multiple fantasy armies, and I don’t see myself playing AoS other than extremely casually if Old World is a decent rules set and gets good community adoption.


How is everyone else feeling?

[mudwump]

One could argue that they will exist side-by-side like 40K and Horus heresy (I've never played either), but I feel like part of the reason that they co-exist is the cross-compatibility of the models. With AOS and Old World having different bases, there's a lack of compatibility between the two games (unless you magnetize). I hope they both find their place though, as I've spent a lot of money on AOS!

[StepwisePilot]

I think they will need to lean into each games setting for strength.

The Old World is your standard fantasy setting that is easy to digest. AoS is your gonzo fantasy setting that anything can and will happen in.

Due to this, it is my belief that for both to truly do well, they have to hone their focus. The Old World will need to focus on models and stories that people can relate to. Dwarfs grumble in their holds, elves are all high and mighty, empire holds the line against the horrors of the world, etc. AoS on the other hand should focus on models and stories that are truly epic and fantastical. Steampunk sky dwarfs sail the skies, elves live underwater and steal souls, and the fallen souls of mighty warriors are reborn as lighting warrior things.

I do believe that there is a market for both games, and a market for stories set within both worlds. GW will just have to make them distinct.

Or maybe I just rambled on for nothing. What do I know after all?

[dave]

I don't see TOW shutting down AoS any more than HH killed interest in 40k. They are different games with different models, appealing to different people. I think a good chunk of those in love with WHFB are probably still playing it. That's the crowd to look to when it comes to supporting the new version.

I would give TOW a go if I could literally just use my current models with a rectangular movement tray, but I didn't play during fantasy. Honestly I think a good portion of our current AoS crowd either didn't play it at all, or played it so long ago that they would basically be starting a force from scratch anyway.

I am aware of the lore through various video games, but that's not a real compelling aspect for me. But then, I'm not really into playing out historical settings. The lore of AoS has come a long way since 2015, and the story is still moving forward. For me, that is always going to be more interesting than a static setting.

Don't get me wrong, the lore from WHFB is cool, despite being extremely derivative and tropey, but there are better ways to access it than playing a tabletop game.

I hope a community does form that's at least as successful as the one that has sprung up around heresy. But I also think both of those games will continue to be treated like the secondary settings by GW and a good chunk of the playerbase.

Kingston is a small community, so we will see what happens here, but from my own experience, none of my usual opponents have expressed a desire to make TOW their focus on launch.

[sean]

I think the comparison to Heresy is interesting. But Heresy has a very limited number of factions, it’s pretty much just marines which certainly limits its appeal to me, despite the rules looking interesting. But Old World should have just as many factions as AoS. Which was really the initial impetus to my thought on this. Heresy is by its nature niche, while old world is carrying on what was for a long time the flagship game of GW. Are they going to take steps to stop it taking that flag back, or do they see a room for both in the same market?

[Jack Shrapnel]

WHFB was my first miniature game system and I played it pretty much exclusively for several years before branching into 40k. (which then took over lol). There were many things I enjoyed about WHFB a LOT... but really after 6th edition the game spiraled pretty badly, eventually killing the local community. That's why the AOS players are completely different from the WHFB crowd. That crowd left, and other than a couple of us, never even tried AOS. WHFB used to be the dominant game system locally, and that could have continued, but GW completely broke their game and the launch of AOS was... really problematic. Like the first iteration they released was pretty terrible, further chasing away the WHFB players.

So it's not really a game that the current fantasy community was endeared to. So I can see if you have only played AOS why you'd look at WHFB and go "meh".

The lore was great and very fleshed out (they had many years to do so) and lore wise it is really great. The total war games again, super great. The game play however, was pretty bad by the end. And the balance? forget it... unless you were playing one of the top few armies you didn't have a chance other than by fan-made huge point imbalances. That's why Matt Ward was infamous for several years. He literally threw game balance out the window and made the books he wrote just flat out better than anything else!

There's a reason why you see WHFB players still playing using 6th edition to play it... 7th and 8th were a mess. (beginning of 7th was good but that's the edition balance was thrown out partway through).

So will it have cross-appeal? I don't know really. I think locally there will be a few players who are really looking forward to it and will play it. I think the people currently playing AOS will largely stick to that.

I do NOT want to rebase all my fantasy armies to square bases. I just can't see myself doing that again. So if there's a compatible movement tray I'll try the game for sure. My fondness for AOS is really the models and the gameplay which is closer to 40k style, but I really dislike some things about the game play too (priority is unbalanced by design, the GHB rules go WAY too far to skew what works and what doesn't). Again just my opinion.

So TL/DR - I'll try old world probably out of nostalgia, but I'm not jumping in full force and abandoning AOS.

[dave]

40k took that flag long before the old world exploded. I think if GW is going to have to take steps, it will be to make sure TOW remains a viable product beyond the initial hype.

Don't get me wrong, even without seeing any rules, I see the appeal of the setting. But I think you are overestimating how many people are still holding the torch for fantasy that you are. I love my total war sandbox experience, but it's not driving me to want to dump AoS for fantasy in any way.

I hope it's a fun game, and old style rank and flank certainly has an audience. But I don't think it will overlap all that much with the people focused on AoS today. Some people will try both, some people will prefer one over the other, but I would be extremely surprised to see players migrate en mass to the game that mostly starts with old models and in all likelihood will recieve less support.