Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

-

 Bottle wrote:

 Vermis wrote:
Have you played anything else? Something a bit more back-and-forth than IGOUGO?

Oooh! Sounds like AoS with its interesting activation mechanic in the combat phase and the initiative roll off for each battle round!

I find it so weird that people defend or even like this. In my mind it is purely bad game design, subjectively because I dislike so much randomness but objectively it's even worse as a player can end up sitting their through 2 of the opponent's turns, simply removing models and downright bored while he waits twice as long for his turn.

-

KoW is the spiritual successor to warhammer written by the godfather himself.

AoS is some cobbled together rubbish that i woukdnt even cakl a wargame

 Peregrine wrote:

So people in the UK are literally playing AoS as-written? No point system? No balance of any kind? It's perfectly legal to fill your entire deployment zone with the most powerful character models (if you can afford to buy them), or bring literal auto-win armies?

They will be at the events at WHW, but they've just been events rather than tournaments from what I can tell.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Nope. AoS plays far more like WFB than KoW.

And that's much of the problem. AoS would be a *far* superior game if the units were designed like KoW, with the occasional generic special rule sprinkled here and there.

As KK notes, GW failed badly, by not going far enough in streamlining AoS.

Nope!

Age Of Random Rules plays like two kids with a pile of minis pushing them at each other and rolling dice.

In the sense of manuevering large forces on a battlefield, Kings of War plays a lot more like Warhammer than Age of Stockholders does.

But with better rules than Warhammer has seen in several editions.

And with the magical ability to have an entire evening of games without any rules arguments.

And an actual attempt at balance. (Age of Sigmar does not even make a token attempt at balance.)

Yep, Kings of War is obviously the worst choice for Americans to make....

I also suspect that you overstate the popularity of Ninth Age in Europe....

The Auld Grump - who started switching to Kings of War during 7th edition Warhamer.

I looked into KoW 1st edition, but sadly nobody around here knows or cares (it's either WMH or 40k) so nobody was interested, but it looks like a wargame done like other wargames, in that it's base size a la historical gaming. You don't need individual models, you can do "diorama" type bases like you see in most (all?) historical rulessets. That's a bonus to me, also the rules (1st edition) seemed pretty balanced and flexible.

AoS just looks odd. It's a GW game done in a GW style, meant to be played in the GW way so it's something that collectors/hobbyists can whip up when they get together to oggle their pretty GW miniatures. And that to me isn't a real game at all or a good game.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Nope. AoS plays far more like WFB than KoW.

And that's much of the problem. AoS would be a *far* superior game if the units were designed like KoW, with the occasional generic special rule sprinkled here and there.

As KK notes, GW failed badly, by not going far enough in streamlining AoS.

Nope!

Age Of Random Rules plays like two kids with a pile of minis pushing them at each other and rolling dice.

In the sense of manuevering large forces on a battlefield, Kings of War plays a lot more like Warhammer than Age of Stockholders does.

But with better rules than Warhammer has seen in several editions.

And with the magical ability to have an entire evening of games without any rules arguments.

And an actual attempt at balance. (Age of Sigmar does not even make a token attempt at balance.)

Yep, Kings of War is obviously the worst choice for Americans to make....

I also suspect that you overstate the popularity of Ninth Age in Europe....

The Auld Grump - who started switching to Kings of War during 7th edition Warhamer.

Kings of gak Models

Kings of Blandness

Kings of Almost

Tiny legs of War

Wannabes of War

Oh man this is the best!

Peregrine, do you consider tournament style the only way to play?

Vermis, the tactics, mechanics, and synergy are all part of the journey regardless of whether you are playing to win or to build a narrative.

There's an old saying that the object of a game is to win, but the point of a game is to have fun. Some people see AOS that way, but I don't. I think they've made the object having fun...and maybe missing the point.

Honestly, I'm pretty much done defending AOS, though. I've always preferred a more cooperative, narrative, RPGish approach to board games and wargames, an approach where AOS isn't terminally flawed. For wargamers, coming from the other direction, it's poison of the soul.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Peregrine, do you consider tournament style the only way to play?

No, of course not. In fact, I've made it very clear that AoS is also terrible as a non-tournament game.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I've always preferred a more cooperative, narrative, RPGish approach to board games and wargames, an approach where AOS isn't terminally flawed.

Except for the fact that there are plenty of other fantasy skirmish games that do cooperative, narrative, and RPGish approaches far better than AoS does.

 infinite_array wrote:
Except for the fact that there are plenty of other fantasy skirmish games that do cooperative, narrative, and RPGish approaches far better than AoS does.

Yeah, I really don't get why anyone would say that AoS is great for RPG-style gaming. Where's the ability to have your character(s) grow as you continue the story? Where's the ability to work together with your fellow players instead of just slaughtering them until you achieve the game objectives? AoS doesn't have RPG elements built into the rules, it's just so inexcusably bad that the only way to even attempt to play it is to come up with a story first so that you limit the amount of rule abuse people can get away with.

Well. Now that we have all been fully informed what terrible games AoS, KoW and WHoFB are, I would like to suggest that the OP takes a look at the rather jolly Hordes Of The Things fantasy rules.

 kodos wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

3. Ninth Age - this is where Europe is going. It's a fan-write of WFB, a true successor to WFB8, with complex rules but somewhat simplified units.
[...]
However, none of this really matters. If you play, you will simply play whatever your friends play.

Agree with the last point, but there is not only 9th Age in Europe. We have also WarhammerCE, FluffHammer, Warhammer Darkness Edition, and KoW. No one can say which System will make it in the end.
9th Age is doing their Beta test at the moment and they are talking about a 10th Age now of being the real goal because 9th will just be a FAQ Edition to have something ready for the ETC (at least this is what some people which are involed in the project are saying).

The others are older because they started their work during Warhammer EndTimes and have finished rules and army lists. But because they were not hyped by the ETC players they are more or less unknown outside their local groups.

I get that there are loads of others (you could even play Chainmail), but they really don't matter any more. ETC unanimously backed and committed to Ninth, so that will be the winner, because it will have the highest profile games and events around it. Personally, I'm really curious to see when DoW get their list - I'm really looking forward to it.

To get back to rules discussion, the alternate activation of units in melee is one of the better rules in AoS.

The IGOUGO with initiative rolls each turn is one of the worst, though, because it sets up the possibility of one side getting two whole turns at a crucial point of the battle before the other side can reply.

Kaptajn Congoboy wrote:
I fear the 9th age (etc) initiatives Europe is working with will be difficult to maintain in the long run,

Considering how much effort goes into maintaining FAQs and such for Tournaments, I can't see Ninth being very much different. ETC does this little dance every year, and they've been going strong for several years. Their governance is quite good. I have a lot of faith that Ninth being the "house" ruleset for ETC is going to keep it alive for a very long time.
____

 Vermis wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:There are 3 choices

Hey! Is this thing on?

Overall, Americans are doing the stupidest thing, abandoning GW out of pique, and hoping Mantic will save them (Mantic won't, BTW).

Not that I necessarily disagree, but why not?

If you play, you will simply play whatever your friends play.

Why is everyone here always the guy that goes along with what their friends are doing? Why don't those friends who steer the gaming choices ever post here?

Dude, the open mic was hot, and I just wandered up.

Mantic needs to make their own Fantasy game, and divorce from GW. Yes, it's good that their game was broadly compatible with WFB, but it can't be WFB. People expecting KoW to support all of GW's myriad WFB whatnots are bound to be disappointed. Right now, Mantic is in this wierd place of trying to put a twist on GW's WFB Armies so they can capture all of the disgruntled ex-GW players, but that just doesn't work from a long term business standpoint, because it just becomes a lot of work to sell a single rulebook & armybook, without any follow-on minis sales.

If he were the Alpha telling the Betas what to play, he wouldn't be asking the question!

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

ETC unanimously backed and committed to Ninth, so that will be the winner, because it will have the highest profile games and events around it. .

No.
This is only relevant for those who want to play there. The rest ignores it
Like before, the ETC Warhammer restriction and FAQ's were not used outside the ETC in most countries and then only for qualifying/training events.
9th Age has some tournaments here, but not more than 8. edition warhammer or Kings of War.

Maybe this will change when there are more than just beta rules, but for the moment most not ETC players ignore it.

PS: This is only about the German/Austrian scene which I know best

 infinite_array wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I've always preferred a more cooperative, narrative, RPGish approach to board games and wargames, an approach where AOS isn't terminally flawed.

Except for the fact that there are plenty of other fantasy skirmish games that do cooperative, narrative, and RPGish approaches far better than AoS does.

Are you talking about obscure rulesets I've never heard of or which I would have to buy independently from a starter box of minis?

Still, I'm interested. Please tell me which games are cooperative, narrative and easy to learn.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To get back to rules discussion, the alternate activation of units in melee is one of the better rules in AoS.

The IGOUGO with initiative rolls each turn is one of the worst, though, because it sets up the possibility of one side getting two whole turns at a crucial point of the battle before the other side can reply.

Actually, the random Initiative for Igo-Ugo is secretly one of the better features of AoS, very much akin to the alternate activiation of melee units. The initiative reversal mitigates the advantage of going first because there should eventually be a double turn to balance it. The other thing is that it brings strategic uncertainty into the game, which becomes a risk-reward thing at a high level. Personally, I think that the player who went second should win the ties, to have more double turns.

Look at the following sequence:
AB - AB - AB - AB - AB - AB.
Strict alternation, and A always acts first. There is a clear, and persistent tempo benefit to being player A, with the same downside for player B. Especially in a game in which forces attrit.

Now consider this sequence:
AB-BA - AB-BA - AB-BA
This is a reversing alternation, a 2-player serpentine. Here the advantage to being player A is not as great, as B is the first to get doubled turns.

Honestly, though, if we're serious about balancing, and having a fixed sequence, then it should be Thue-Morse alternation:
AB-BA - BA-AB - BA-AB (AB-BA)
This is (mathematically) the fairest way to even out the tempo, and it superscales the AB-BA pattern .

However, most people don't follow the math, so dicing is a good first step, and more in line with GW random.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Are you talking about obscure rulesets I've never heard of or which I would have to buy independently from a starter box of minis?

Oh hey, that's cool - movable goalposts! What a useful feature.

Still, I'm interested. Please tell me which games are cooperative, narrative and easy to learn.

Frostgrave, Open Combat, Otherworld, and Song of Blades and Heroes come to mind pretty quickly.

Of course, if you want to play in the Warhammer Fantasy World, there's always Mordheim.

And if you're like other AoS supporters and your definition of "easy to learn" rules means you can count the pages of core rules on one hand, then there's One Page Fantasy for bigger games, and One Page Skirmish for smaller games. Both of which, when including the full campaign rules, are four pages. Simple enough, right?

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Nope. AoS plays far more like WFB than KoW.

And that's much of the problem. AoS would be a *far* superior game if the units were designed like KoW, with the occasional generic special rule sprinkled here and there.

As KK notes, GW failed badly, by not going far enough in streamlining AoS.

Nope!

Age Of Random Rules plays like two kids with a pile of minis pushing them at each other and rolling dice.

In the sense of manuevering large forces on a battlefield, Kings of War plays a lot more like Warhammer than Age of Stockholders does.

But with better rules than Warhammer has seen in several editions.

And with the magical ability to have an entire evening of games without any rules arguments.

And an actual attempt at balance. (Age of Sigmar does not even make a token attempt at balance.)

Yep, Kings of War is obviously the worst choice for Americans to make....

I also suspect that you overstate the popularity of Ninth Age in Europe....

The Auld Grump - who started switching to Kings of War during 7th edition Warhamer.

 Mymearan wrote:

Kings of gak Models

Kings of Blandness

Kings of Almost

Tiny legs of War

Wannabes of War

Oh man this is the best!

Nope - not the best.

But still a million times better, in my opinion, than Age of Stinkmore.

You see, Mantic has no real problem with folks using other companies' models with their rules - but GW does.

So insulting Mantic's models gains little to no traction. (And there are some lines of Mantic figures that I like better than the corresponding GW line - Undead in particular.)

Likewise, Mantic's rules are largely setting independent - so insulting the setting... matters not a whit.

And it seems that many, many people are willing to use non-Mantic models with the Kings of War rules - enough that Mantic is publishing a book to make it easier for folks to port over their existing armies.

For what it si worth, GW really does not like folks using their models for other games - going so far as to send letters to game stores as far back as the nineteen nineties. (The local game store that received the letter promptly sent a letter back telling GW to go pound sand - once the models are sold there is no law that prevents folks from using them as they see fit - and plenty of laws stating that they CAN use them as they see fit.)

Heck, GW, in the past, has complained when folks have used GW miniatures to play other GW games! (In White Dwarf - when folks were using Empire troops in Mordheim, and vise versa.)

But if you like plaing 'Age of Gak Rules' (to paraphrase your own reply) then go ahead and play - just because I think that they are a poor excuse used by GW for abandoning any pretense of rules development and balance does not mean that you can't enjoy the poorly written thing.

The point is to have fun.

Hell, I enjoyed the heck out of both The U.S. Marines vs. The Invasion of the Cheap Plastic Dinosaurs and Clay-o-Rama. (USMCvsTICPD was a game played with bags of cheap plastic toy soldiers and dinosaurs. Clay-O-Rama was wargaming rules for Play Doh.)

There, don't you feel better, now?

The Auld Grump - though, come to think of it, both of those games had better balance than Age of Sigmar... (They both had points rules for balance.)

*EDIT* Hmm, screwed the format up while trying to make this less pointed....

Meanwhile - The rules for Clay-O-Rama.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To get back to rules discussion, the alternate activation of units in melee is one of the better rules in AoS.

The IGOUGO with initiative rolls each turn is one of the worst, though, because it sets up the possibility of one side getting two whole turns at a crucial point of the battle before the other side can reply.

Actually, the random Initiative for Igo-Ugo is secretly one of the better features of AoS, very much akin to the alternate activiation of melee units. The initiative reversal mitigates the advantage of going first because there should eventually be a double turn to balance it. The other thing is that it brings strategic uncertainty into the game, which becomes a risk-reward thing at a high level. Personally, I think that the player who went second should win the ties, to have more double turns.

Look at the following sequence:
AB - AB - AB - AB - AB - AB.
Strict alternation, and A always acts first. There is a clear, and persistent tempo benefit to being player A, with the same downside for player B. Especially in a game in which forces attrit.

Now consider this sequence:
AB-BA - AB-BA - AB-BA
This is a reversing alternation, a 2-player serpentine. Here the advantage to being player A is not as great, as B is the first to get doubled turns.

Honestly, though, if we're serious about balancing, and having a fixed sequence, then it should be Thue-Morse alternation:
AB-BA - BA-AB - BA-AB (AB-BA)
This is (mathematically) the fairest way to even out the tempo, and it superscales the AB-BA pattern .

However, most people don't follow the math, so dicing is a good first step, and more in line with GW random.

One of the scariest initiative systems that I have ever seen in a wargame was in Soldier's Companion for Space: 1889.

The game used a stat called Coolness Under Fire.

Both sides would roll for initiative, and add their Coolness - the side that won would take all the phases in their turn - movement, shooting, and melee.

Then both sides would roll initiative, and add their Coolness.... So a veteran army, with a high Coolness, would go more often than an army comprised of Green troops - and could roll right over a much larger force.

I actually liked the system - veteran British troops could roll right over the Martian natives, but each Crown troop lost made the difference in numbers an ever present danger....

The Auld Grump

If the aim of the game is to have fun then why do you feel it necessary to piss on someone else's chips?

Warmaster is bestest Fantasy battle anyway.

 notprop wrote:
If the aim of the game is to have fun then why do you feel it necessary to piss on someone else's chips?

Warmaster is bestest Fantasy battle anyway.

Pffft... you only say that because it's fun to play..... (I have a friend that still has and plays Battle Masters... and know a sizable group that still plays Battlesystem by TSR.)

I actually quite like Warmaster - and wish that more folks in my area still played it.

If I can find the figures, they would work just fine for Kings of War - there are a fair number of folks experimenting with variant scales. (Successful experiments, at that.)

The Auld Grump

Overall, Americans are doing the stupidest thing, abandoning GW out of pique, and hoping Mantic will save them (Mantic won't, BTW).

I'm sorry, but that statement is plain full of crap, and is an obvious argument-bait, as well.

I am to believe that I am being inherently stupid (like all Americans, obviously, because Europeans are "better") and at fault because when Warhammer Fantasy was changed to a mechanical format completely different from the reason I was playing Warhammer Fantasy, I became interested in a game that offered the "feel" that I wanted? That's insane.

Exactly how are the "Europeans" doing anything different, by making their own non-AoS rules to continue to play Warhammer models with, than people buying Kings of War to play with Warhammer models. GW models, non-GW rules in both cases.

You might as well look down on people who still like to play 2nd edition Warhammer 40K instead of 7th as "stupid", because they want something mechanically different in the universe/genre they like.

As for Mantic being doomed to fail us, Kings of War may be bland (I fully admit that I'm not a huge fan of how other than different special rules and some Nerve changes, most armies have pretty analogous units to each other) in some ways, but at least unlike GW rules, it works without the giant tomes of Errata and FAQ, usually issued two days after the release date (showing that all those flaws were fully known about before the public rules grognards even got a chance to find them). While there is a small amount of errata so far, Kings of War works better right out of the door than nearly anything I can think of from GW, and I have been with GW games for nearly 20 years.

And insulting the blandness of setting is a result of players who have always enjoyed being spoon-fed their games, especially younger ones (to risk insulting younger games, it's true). The majority of rulesets out there that are widely known by the gaming community as "good", like Song of Blades and Heroes/Gruntz/etc, and especially about 90% of 15mm gaming, do not have linked settings or starter sets, or sometimes not even "official" figures by the same company that puts out the rules.

And yes, Grump, I have gotten my wife to play Battlemasters over the years. My son is just under a year old, and in a couple years, it will be his first indoctrination to wargaming. .

 AegisGrimm wrote:

Overall, Americans are doing the stupidest thing, abandoning GW out of pique, and hoping Mantic will save them (Mantic won't, BTW).

I'm sorry, but that statement is plain full of crap, and is an obvious argument-bait, as well.

Nomoreso that the Anti-AoS people on this site...

Edited by RiTides - Rule #1

I'll largely reiterate the things I said about AoS at the time of release:


There is no convincing evidence that AoS is anything but a low effort product, lacking in any depth, creativity or originality.

The basic rules have no emergent complexity, instead piling on heaps of individual special rules for almost every unit, barely reward any player interaction or decision making in favour of random dice rolls and homogenising the core statlines, have laughably vague deployment and victory conditions, and are full of holes and exploits that were discovered within hours of them being seen, such that it's possible to autowin the game, or make it thoroughly unenjoyable for both sides entirely by accident, since there's nothing to help players choose comparable forces, and different players will have a different idea of what a fun game is, since fun is subjective. Pick-up games, the kind that some wargames communities rely on (particularly in the US, as I understand) are all but impossible, since there is no guideline for what is a fair matchup and thus it is difficult to determine the reason for a win or a loss, making learning and improving one's play equally difficult. The idea that it has been deliberately designed for "narrative" or "just for fun" play is unsupported, sounding instead like vague excusess, as well as being outright wrong given that a balanced, clear and concise ruleset serves narrative play far better than a vague mess.

AoS is also not a co-operative game, and claiming it as one is a weak excuse for the game being practically non-functional without substantial modification and pre-game comprimise - the kind that even its staunchest defenders admit to doing. A wargame, where two opposing armies fight to achieve a predetermined victory condition, is not co-operative. A co-operative game has all players working toward the same goal against the game itself (such as Pandemic, for example). An RPG can be considered a co-operative experience, since the player goals are far more loose and centred around in-depth, character-focused storytelling. AoS is clearly not an RPG, either, since it does not share these traits.

The suggestion that Warhammer had to change in this way because it wasn't profitable enough in it's existing form is flawed, considering the reasons for that lack of spending - high price/low value boxes, detrimentally complex and random rules, and a high model count requirement are the prevailing criticisms. Instead of addressing those issues with WHFB, or publishing a smaller scale game alongside it (or both) GW decided to deliberately exclude customers in favour of trying to create a theoretical 'new niche' , and threw away the few strong factors the game still had - i.e. it's well developed lore and characters, and its relative ubiquity. The new background is vapid and childish in comparison to the Warhammer World, and at best reads like fan fiction. Terrible naming schema and whiter-than-white good guys who can't die are a tedium, porting Space Marines practically wholesale into a Fantasy setting (pretending that the new Sigmarite faction is anything else is disingenuous) is beyond lazy, and the 'legacy' army rules read like an insult, an expression of the contempt GW has for veterans by making the old armies one big joke, a series of jibes at the 'manchildren' they believe those customers to be, and a thinly veiled effort to try and exclude those forces in favour of the new, AoS-specific ones.

Implying that those who criticise "aren't the target market' doesn't make any sense, given that GW don't advertise outside their tiny niche-within-a-niche, that veteran players - the ones they greatly annoyed with the change - are the biggest source of word of mouth, and that any prospective wargamer will very quickly be put off by a game so lacking in substance, or even an attempt (much less a successful one) at balance to prevent the rules being abused. Having to finish a product to make it useable is not a feature, and I'd be compelled to ask why anyone would spend the time to do so (particularly the new players that this reboot is intended to recruit) What is there about AoS over other wargames that is going to appeal to them? Having to work out what's balanced against what is not going to appeal in the face of so many other games that are ready to play (without limiting players to 'starter scenarios' or 'quick-start' rules only) out of the box.

Let us also not forget the most damning evidence: that GW representatives at conventions over the course of the last six months have not been offering demo games, which makes one wonder if even they know how poorly it will stand up if shown directly alongside so many other miniature and board games.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:

Overall, Americans are doing the stupidest thing, abandoning GW out of pique, and hoping Mantic will save them (Mantic won't, BTW).

I'm sorry, but that statement is plain full of crap, and is an obvious argument-bait, as well.

Nomoreso that the constant stream of gak coming from the Anti-AoS morons on this site...

But you have a good deal less evidence supporting your claim.

Given that everything that I have heard about the sales of AoS has been... shall we say, less than a shining beacon of excellence.

People that do not like AoS are not morons - they have very good reasons for disliking the game.

It's nice that you can enjoy the thing - but do not confuse your liking the game with it being a good game.

I like Clay-O-Rama.

I do not pretend that Clay-O-Rama is a good game - just that it is a fun game for me when I have a can of Play Doh and a few bottles of beer.

You, on the other hand, are making the claim that everybody that does not dance to GW's tune and enjoy AoS, or does not turn to a fan made attempt to keep the abandoned Warhammer alive, are somehow lacking in intelligence, while you call those that turn to an active commercial product 'morons'.

Need I spell out how that makes me view your own intelligence?

A lot of people have good reason to think of Age of Sigmar as Age of Steaming Pile - the game may be fun, but the writers have made zero attempt at balance, and there is very little by way of depth to the game.

I think that the core difference may be that some people actually want a wargame, not just an excuse to push figures around, roll dice, and make 'pew pew' noises. (Yes, I know than many people do ignore the silly rules that show up on the scrolls - but the fact remains that GW did put that silliness on the scrolls.)

I entered wargaming through historical miniatures - I do not need 'special' rules for each and every model on the table - and find that they detract from the game.

The Auld Grump

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:

Overall, Americans are doing the stupidest thing, abandoning GW out of pique, and hoping Mantic will save them (Mantic won't, BTW).

I'm sorry, but that statement is plain full of crap, and is an obvious argument-bait, as well.

Nomoreso that the constant stream of gak coming from the Anti-AoS morons on this site...

Negative, unconstructive things are not justified just because other people are doing them.

The superhero deep down in me likes the aestetic of the Stormcast, but honestly I would rather field them as Ogres/Basileans in KoW if I could find a group. I think it'd be really cool.

To call AOS a "cooperative" game is inaccurate. It's still player vs player where one has to win in the end.

If you want a truely narrative and cooperative fantasy game, go to Kingdom of Death. That actually is cooperative and highly narrative. Not simple though.
AOS is a competitive game that maybe you and some like minded friends can make into something resembling a story, but it's like trying to pretend Justin Beiber is heavy metal.

Other co-operative narrative games include:

Longstreet (ACW mass battles)
7TV (60s style Spy Fi skirmish)
Fistful of Kung Fu (Hong Kong action movie skirmish)
Dragon Rampant (Mediaeval based fantasy skirmish)
Ronin (Japanese ganbara film skirmish)
Doctor Who (the Crooked Dice skirmish game)