Reply To: If you were in charge of GW now

[limburger 21711xp 0]

@greyhunter88 Killteam has a similar problem for certain factions in the 40k universe, but definitely not quite as severe as AoS does. It might explain why the factions in Warhammer Underworld are limited to those with enough ‘elite’ style units to make them viable.

Some factions simply rely on mobs to work.
Did the Beastmen faction book have any of the warband rules for the ‘path to glory’ bit in that book ?

The Gloomspite Gitz book has them and even their warbands get units of 10-15 followers for some of their troop choices.
The ‘path to glory’ system reads like it helps you build an army up to full strenght so the impact of having to build everything at once is reduced.

(yep … I’m starting an AoS army … the gitz got me)

//

Battlefront had Team Yankee (and to a lesser degree their Vietnam game) as a test bed for Flames of War.
Such things are not exactly new in the industry. It’s pretty smart to use a relatively ‘minor’ franchise to test drastic changes before implementing them in the main line. (I think that’s what WoTC should have done for D&D as it could have prevented mistakes … )

As to why AoS is a new setting ?
I think it gave them more options for new stuff.
There never was any real reason for certain factions to fight each other in the old setting.
This may not be a ‘problem’ for competitive games, but it does make life difficult for narrative games.

Using it as the ‘end result’ of the apocalypse in the old world also reduced the cost of entry for their existing fantasy gamers.
A complete new setting would have made competing systems (like Kings of War) an attractive option.

Overall I think AoS has proven to be a success, because they would not have done a v2 of the system.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they released a Mordheim like game for this setting eventually.

The Skirmish rules may be for AoS what Shadow wars was for 40k : a test bed for small warbands skirmish game within the setting.