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.

Thread locked to merge into main thread here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/655877.page

Thanks!

Hi all. After all that's been said and done, I'm going to have to modify an Alan Partridge quote.

"Can I just shock you? I like Age of Sigmar." Jurassic Park!

I've been browsing the daemon lists and am finding myself way, way more excited about playing AoS with them than I ever was about playing Warhammer. I like the idea that I can simply pick up thirty Plaguebearers, three Beasts and a Great Unclean One and have at it with another player.

I don't care if he brings three Giants and twenty Ogres, or two hundred Skavenslaves. The AoS ethos strips away the furious, beardy competitiveness that has always put me off getting seriously into WH or 40K. Even if I am horribly outnumbered we can make up some spot rules eg it being a last stand, or if I am in the ascendant, we could simply leave the GUO out.

I was not entirely keen on chortling and acting like a daemon of Nurgle as I play, but the prevalence of silly rules is way lower than the hystrionics have implied, and to be honest... lighten up. It would be worth bringing the Masque just so I can dance at my opponent. I'm fully of arthritis, and I will fething dance a jig to distract my opponent even if it makes me look a fool. Who cares about looking a fool? Jason Biggs has been seen by millions of people worldwide with one hand glued to his genitals and the other to a porno, and it hasn't exactly destroyed the universe.

Anyway, it's not like I didn't do the same thing back in the Necromunda days, when I captured my mate's horrifying doomsday warrior Baldrick and sold him into slavery, keeping his melta gun, frag grenades, chainsword and flak armour... I leapt into a kind of twirl that ended with my making the v-sign right in his face. And I only got five credits for the sale.

I think some people need to lighten up and give AoS the chance that few of them seemed to give to Warhammer.

 NoPoet wrote:


I've been browsing the daemon lists and am finding myself way, way more excited about playing AoS with them than I ever was about playing Warhammer. I like the idea that I can simply pick up thirty Plaguebearers, three Beasts and a Great Unclean One and have at it with another player.

I don't care if he brings three Giants and twenty Ogres, or two hundred Skavenslaves. The AoS ethos strips away the furious, beardy competitiveness that has always put me off getting seriously into WH or 40K. Even if I am horribly outnumbered we can make up some spot rules eg it being a last stand, or if I am in the ascendant, we could simply leave the GUO out.

How so? It's just as easy to apply 'furious beardy competitiveness' to aos. Over the top, broken lists exist here too.

Why are these lists ok in aos, but not 40k? Spot rules? Really? Like that's never been done in 40k either...

The problem with AoS is that it relies on the players to make sure they have a fun, competitive match. I am certainly not one for designing broken lists, and would only play once against someone who was maniacal about winning at all costs.

The whole ethos behind GW's games has always been to enjoy yourself and to work together to make sure both players get a good game. I never even heard of "screamerstar" armies until I joined sites like Dakkadakka. I assumed people built armies because they liked the models and the background, not because they needed an invincible unit to take all the uncertainty out of it.

It's like playing Doom with the IDDQD and IDKFA cheats on. It can be fun for a bit, but what is actually being achieved? There's no skill and no development. It's why they're called cheats. And even though the rules technically allow dominant armies of destruction, anyone who goes that route is going outside the design and intent of the game.

Not to detract from the conversation, but I think this thread should be in the AOS General Discussion forum.

 NoPoet wrote:

Spoiler:

Hi all. After all that's been said and done, I'm going to have to modify an Alan Partridge quote.

"Can I just shock you? I like Age of Sigmar."

I've been browsing the daemon lists and am finding myself way, way more excited about playing AoS with them than I ever was about playing Warhammer. I like the idea that I can simply pick up thirty Plaguebearers, three Beasts and a Great Unclean One and have at it with another player.

I don't care if he brings three Giants and twenty Ogres, or two hundred Skavenslaves. The AoS ethos strips away the furious, beardy competitiveness that has always put me off getting seriously into WH or 40K. Even if I am horribly outnumbered we can make up some spot rules eg it being a last stand, or if I am in the ascendant, we could simply leave the GUO out.

I was not entirely keen on chortling and acting like a daemon of Nurgle as I play, but the prevalence of silly rules is way lower than the hystrionics have implied, and to be honest... lighten up. It would be worth bringing the Masque just so I can dance at my opponent. I'm fully of arthritis, and I will fething dance a jig to distract my opponent even if it makes me look a fool. Who cares about looking a fool? Jason Biggs has been seen by millions of people worldwide with one hand glued to his genitals and the other to a porno, and it hasn't exactly destroyed the universe.

Anyway, it's not like I didn't do the same thing back in the Necromunda days, when I captured my mate's horrifying doomsday warrior Baldrick and sold him into slavery, keeping his melta gun, frag grenades, chainsword and flak armour... I leapt into a kind of twirl that ended with my making the v-sign right in his face. And I only got five credits for the sale.

I think some people need to lighten up and give AoS the chance that few of them seemed to give to Warhammer.

You, I like you. Here have an exalt as you get it.

 NoPoet wrote:
The problem with AoS is that it relies on the players to make sure they have a fun, competitive match. I am certainly not one for designing broken lists, and would only play once against someone who was maniacal about winning at all costs.

The whole ethos behind GW's games has always been to enjoy yourself and to work together to make sure both players get a good game. I never even heard of "screamerstar" armies until I joined sites like Dakkadakka. I assumed people built armies because they liked the models and the background, not because they needed an invincible unit to take all the uncertainty out of it.

It's like playing Doom with the IDDQD and IDKFA cheats on. It can be fun for a bit, but what is actually being achieved? There's no skill and no development. It's why they're called cheats. And even though the rules technically allow dominant armies of destruction, anyone who goes that route is going outside the design and intent of the game.

You assumed wrong. Maybe they do like the lore, and models behind screamerstar. Who are you to judge? And in any case, there are many more reasons as to'why' people build certain armies. WAAC isn't always a reason. Sometimes powerful fluffy builds are just that. The player isn't necessarily going outside the design, or intent.

Thing is, you are saying you like aos because it requires both players to come to an understanding, and to take the rubbish units instead of good units to get a good game. Thing is, this isn't aos's thing.its not a new thing at all. It's called 'talking to your opponent'.

In other words, the things you like aos for have nothing to do with aos.

You might not like broken lists, and that's fair enough. But where do you draw the line? You talk about playing once against someone desperate to win at all costs. despite what the Internet says, those trolls are rare. The thing is, even with player cooperstion involved, unless you design a mirror match, you won't get that fair game from aos either. Army selection is so open ended, it is extremely difficult to build a fair match up. Now, I'm quite ok with 'no points' - im quite sympathetic to aos trying to do this - we do it in our games too, but there is no underlying structure of 'army design' behind the point-less system and this is a massive problem.

In other words. It's ok to like aos. But like it for legitimate reasons unique to aos, rather than things I can do in any game.

Sorry, didn't see the new forum.

You assumed wrong. Maybe they do like the lore, and models behind screamerstar.

I'm not saying they don't like them, I'm saying anyone who deploys a Screamerstar, in my opinion, is NOT someone who's deploying them for love, they're deploying them to win the game.

I'm not expecting people to take crap units, or not to want to win. I am dead set against people who want to win at any cost, with no regard for their opponent's enjoyment.

Who thinks anyone enjoys playing against a formation that re-rolls ward saves, or has 2+ ward saves and multiple wounds, with fast movement and a dangerous attack?

I once played a game where I took a Tyranid army and my opponent had a vehicle-heavy, Land Speeder-heavy, assault cannon-loaded army against which I stood zero chance. That was ten years ago and I've never played Tyranids since (or played against that opponent). EDIT: That was the final straw, as I'd already played that opponent once or twice before, and he cheesed the hell out of the rules and army selection each time.

If someone takes a formation that is deliberately calculated to be impossible to defeat, then I would most certainly judge that person.

I do agree with Deadnight's point that AoS could prove impossible to balance, and it would be easy to find an opponent who fielded ridiculous armies full of Storm of Magic monsters, but my basic point remains: who would play against someone who flouts the fluff, the spirit of the game and even common sense? Because I wouldn't.

One of my original points is that the players would need to work together to make AoS work. Some can argue this is a weakness, but to me it is almost poetic. Humans are social animals who need each other. AoS, as it stands, provides an opportunity for players to connect with imagination, as they work out what kind of battle they want to fight and what they'll bring to the table.

All of those things the OP mentions he likes about AoS could have been done in Fantasy. You can make a 500 point list to play small games, you can make house rules to fix broken rules, you can bring fun lists.

 NoPoet wrote:


I do agree with Deadnight's point that AoS could prove impossible to balance, and it would be easy to find an opponent who fielded ridiculous armies full of Storm of Magic monsters, but my basic point remains: who would play against someone who flouts the fluff, the spirit of the game and even common sense? Because I wouldn't.

One of my original points is that the players would need to work together to make AoS work. Some can argue this is a weakness, but to me it is almost poetic. Humans are social animals who need each other. AoS, as it stands, provides an opportunity for players to connect with imagination, as they work out what kind of battle they want to fight and what they'll bring to the table.

How is that any different from any other game though?

Going back to your op, You exclaimed that you were a fan of aos because it somehow magically strips away all the beardy competitiveness from games that turned you off While and 40k. Except that, no it doesn't. It's still there.

Gw didn't have to tell you how to not play the guy with the beardy army if you didn't want to. You always could refuse. In any game.

What's stopping you pushing for this attitude in those other games as well? Come across broken stuff - well, don't play it.

As sympathetic as I am to aos' point-less system, and as much as I will defend the narrative/themed scenario driven approach to gaming, which is really the only good way of playing aos, the simpe fact is that aos is not a very good 'engine' to run those narrative/themed scenarios.

You are looking for an 'attitude' in players, not a game. Don't confuse the two.

Deadnight wrote:
Thing is, you are saying you like aos because it requires both players to come to an understanding, and to take the rubbish units instead of good units to get a good game. Thing is, this isn't aos's thing.its not a new thing at all. It's called 'talking to your opponent'.

In other words, the things you like aos for have nothing to do with aos.

You might not like broken lists, and that's fair enough. But where do you draw the line? You talk about playing once against someone desperate to win at all costs. despite what the Internet says, those trolls are rare. The thing is, even with player cooperstion involved, unless you design a mirror match, you won't get that fair game from aos either. Army selection is so open ended, it is extremely difficult to build a fair match up. Now, I'm quite ok with 'no points' - im quite sympathetic to aos trying to do this - we do it in our games too, but there is no underlying structure of 'army design' behind the point-less system and this is a massive problem.

In other words. It's ok to like aos. But like it for legitimate reasons unique to aos, rather than things I can do in any game.

You're right, but so is NoPoet.

In any game, you can make things fair by cooperating with your opponent and making the game better. What is unique about AoS are the following:

1. Because there's no point system, you MUST figure it out with your opponent, and you can't justify an army by saying "It's X points, the rules says its all good"
2. The game actively shuns people who like point-based listbuilding, so you're going to encounter fewer people who like point-based listbuidling

Essentially, any army that's overpowered will only overwhelm you once. Because once that happens, you'll just tell your opponent in figuring out armies, and then your opponent must either tone down their army, or play someone else.

Of course, this happens in 40k, too. But what's different is the culture. In 40k, if you won't play against Decurion, people will think you're a whiner, a noob, or both. In AoS, if you think that whatever combo is super powerful and your army can't handle it, that's part of the game.

AoS basically says, "The armies are balanced when your opponent THINKS it is. If you don't have a meeting of the minds, you shouldn't play."

This attitude is inherently offensive to some people, namely the crowd who thinks that two strangers should be able to meet blind and compete with armies to see who is the better general. It is attractive to people who never want to meet such people.

It's also offensive to people who think that building a better (more efficient) army is part of wargaming. In AoS, you're "punished" for making your army more efficient, because it just means your opponent gets to take more stuff to compensate for your list-building skill (or Google Netlisting-Fu).

Frankly, we play our 40k scenarios a lot like AoS. Sometimes, it's 1500 points vs. 2200 points, because the 1500 points is just a way better 1500 points, or the terrain dictates tremendous advantages. Or because the 2200 points is a really crappy stuff. Or because the 1500 points has a win condition that's achievable beyond "run around" or "kill stuff". The points don't REALLY matter, because when we play, a good deathstar is worth more than its points, and a weak infantry or gun line is worth less than its points, or favorable terrain conditions is worth something, all in a non-specific way -- just a recognition that the other person needs to get more or less stuff to compensate. The lists are still fun to build though, and the points are still useful as a starting point.

 Accolade wrote:
Not to detract from the conversation, but I think this thread should be in the AOS General Discussion forum.

It should actually be in the thread created for speaking your opinion of AoS.

That thread should be split into "I like AOS" and "I hate AOS". It's totally fething useless right now.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
That thread should be split into "I like AOS" and "I hate AOS". It's totally fething useless right now.

Yeah, I've given up on it, because you might as well just have a Love It and Hate It button and let people click

On a broader note, strong contrast is good: it gives people a clear reason to choose, or not choose a product. The quintessential question to answering whether Age of Sigmar is golden or not is simply how many people enjoy that type of game.

My current estimate for how long people will dislike AoS is once every single legacy unit has been retired/replaced at a minimum.

It's new and different. But unlike "different company's gaming system" new and different, there isn't an option to play one or both as a current gaming system - so there is also a loss involved for players already invested.
I'm confident that WFB will continue as long as there is a community that wants it to be there, but I am personally hoping that in a year's time, AoS has proven to be the success GW want it to be.

I am not a child. I am not mentally deficient. I am not a blinkered fanboy. I can fully appreciate the negative points people have toward AoS, but for my friends & I, we like it. Prefer it, even.

AoS reinvigorated me about the hobby. Warhammer had been stale for a long time. Big change was needed. They could have dropped the line altogether but did an entire sendoff to the Old World and made sure old players could still play the new system. They didn't have to do either.

Round bases are awesome. I always thought 40K looked better than Fantasy, but I'm not a scifi guy. Models on round bases look so much nicer.

To that last point though, I don't think AoS will ever be as big as 40K simply because scifi is a bigger market than fantasy across the board.

I think the new lore is exciting and I like the drip feed formula. I feel less restricted with this system and can see myself picking up a box here and there of pretty much any new army, as I don't have to justify making a larger investment with one force to hit a points limit.

I'm looking forward to new releases and seeing people paint up the new models.

I'm hoping the boards can calm down so we can actually discuss the game without the bitterness.

AOS finally got me to play with my fantasy characters I collected. It is a refreshing break from 40k and the first tabletop game my wife was willing to try... she loves it too!

I always wanted to play tomb kings. With AOS I found an army lot with settra, Khalida, a catapult, a squad of archers, a squad of tomb guard, and two chariots for under $100. I added a squad of ushtabi (always loved them even as a 40k player).

My wife wanted high elves and my brother wanted skaven. I found a cheap $80 box of island of blood and bam! Two armies for $40 each.

Cheap to get into and I have a great skirmish force! Love AOS.

RoperPG wrote:
My current estimate for how long people will dislike AoS is once every single legacy unit has been retired/replaced at a minimum.

It's new and different. But unlike "different company's gaming system" new and different, there isn't an option to play one or both as a current gaming system - so there is also a loss involved for players already invested.
I'm confident that WFB will continue as long as there is a community that wants it to be there, but I am personally hoping that in a year's time, AoS has proven to be the success GW want it to be.

I am not a child. I am not mentally deficient. I am not a blinkered fanboy. I can fully appreciate the negative points people have toward AoS, but for my friends & I, we like it. Prefer it, even.

Look at what they did with Wood Elves so far. It's the only faction they've touched existing models of, so it's all we can go by. Nothing invalidated.... they've even repackaged the GD F**K*** finecast model, lol. And they lowered the prices of the troops.

The option to play the current system is to do just that. Incidentally, I was by the GW store the other day, and there's a sign saying WH 8e will be on sale til September (and they had a lot of 8e books). Is that the case elsewhere too?

Played my first game. Had a blast and can`t wait to play again!

Played a few games now with my tk's and finally able to have a full mounted force of chariots and horsemen as a legitimate army they dont hit that hard but it looks really good on the tt. I'm really liking AoS and my 2 lads are playing as well it a win all round for me.

Everyone's got valid points; the only people whose opinions I disregard are those who stopped playing Warhammer previously, and now complain that Warhammer has gone, because those people are part of the reason Warhammer got flushed. (I guess I am part of it too, because I've got the models but never played it.)

All I can say is, I am FAR less scared about getting into a game where I can take whatever models I want and only has four pages of rules, with all the other rules included in the unit's profiles.

I guess any game has its beards.

I loved Warhammer, but I am actually excited about AoS. Even if the new unit names are all ridiculous

 Talys wrote:

AoS basically says, "The armies are balanced when your opponent THINKS it is. If you don't have a meeting of the minds, you shouldn't play."

This attitude is inherently offensive to some people, namely the crowd who thinks that two strangers should be able to meet blind and compete with armies to see who is the better general. It is attractive to people who never want to meet such people.

Testify, and have an exalt - I think you have nailed it on the head here.

All of this has happened in wargaming before, and all of it will happen again - but AoS _encourages_ this style of play and is a deliberate step back from the raw competitiveness.

I enjoy list-building and points play as much as the next bloke, and we are still playing 8e (and 40k continues strong). But coming to AoS was like a big weight coming off your back - all of a sudden, all the list-tuning, beardiness, looking for advantage during the game was gone. I am not ready to turn my back on that style of play, but having another option positively encouraged gets a big thumbs up from me.

Of course, the old-timer historical players will be out there, chortling under their beards while muttering something about having always played in this style...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NoPoet wrote:


All I can say is, I am FAR less scared about getting into a game where I can take whatever models I want and only has four pages of rules, with all the other rules included in the unit's profiles.

I tell you something else that has disappeared - the arguments.

Even after several years of playing 8e, we still get the occasional rule wrong, still have a debate about how things should be done, still need to hit the rulebook to dig up the evidence.

In AoS... nothing. With just 4 pages of rules and the encouragement to be looser in the gaming style, we have not had one disagreement.

Yet

Will they really? Most historical people I have ever known tend to play excessively over complicated rule sets and demand only accurate scenarios and forces present.

Which is the opposite.

Balanced when the opponents think it is?
How about 40k? Is it balanced? No it's not.

Skullhammer wrote:
Played a few games now with my tk's and finally able to have a full mounted force of chariots and horsemen as a legitimate army they dont hit that hard but it looks really good on the tt. I'm really liking AoS and my 2 lads are playing as well it a win all round for me.

Psh, Chariots do hit hard. 5 of them (only 4 could attack) pretty much killed Durthuu in one turn.

But that's off topic. I am excited about a lot of the TK units becoming good as well, especially Horsemen. I wanted a reason to field them, and now I have that.

Demandread wrote:
Will they really? Most historical people I have ever known tend to play excessively over complicated rule sets and demand only accurate scenarios and forces present.

Which is the opposite.

Yeah, you can get the epaulette counters among the historical crowd

 krodarklorr wrote:

Skullhammer wrote:
Played a few games now with my tk's and finally able to have a full mounted force of chariots and horsemen as a legitimate army they dont hit that hard but it looks really good on the tt. I'm really liking AoS and my 2 lads are playing as well it a win all round for me.

Psh, Chariots do hit hard. 5 of them (only 4 could attack) pretty much killed Durthuu in one turn.

But that's off topic. I am excited about a lot of the TK units becoming good as well, especially Horsemen. I wanted a reason to field them, and now I have that.

not the way i roll but yes they do and i can finally ignor the % limits which opens up the options.

Another difference between AoS and Warhammer: Not one person has told me my army list that I mentioned earlier is worthless, or anti-fluff, or unrealistic, etc.

You post an army like that in the Warhammer threads and it'll be like "Yeah, drop the Slaanesh daemons and take a Herald of Khorne and three Bloodcrushers".

I'm willing to concede that a lot of people wont know how AoS works yet as they wont have read the rules or the warscrolls (even though some such people are declaiming AoS and its rules to be a foul nugget from the Games Workshop's bumhole).. And there's no telling how good that army would be since the possibilities of what an opponent could bring are unlimited.

But I don't recall anyone ever saying warhammer has unlimited possibilities. There are only units you use, and units you don't... Not if you want a tournament list or a competitive list.

Example: Stormvermin have better armour, better weapons and better stats than Clanrats, but cost 2.5 points more. They are not considered competitive in tournament armies. In AoS, those Stormvermin suddenly become a very serious threat, far more so than crappy Clanrats or Slaves.

 NoPoet wrote:
Another difference between AoS and Warhammer: Not one person has told me my army list that I mentioned earlier is worthless, or anti-fluff, or unrealistic, etc.

Well...

Example: Stormvermin have better armour, better weapons and better stats than Clanrats, but cost 2.5 points more. They are not considered competitive in tournament armies. In AoS, those Stormvermin suddenly become a very serious threat, far more so than crappy Clanrats or Slaves.

Doesn't that mean your Clanrats and Slaves are worthless, since you can just take as many Stormvermin as you want without needing to worry about restrictions?

Some people have beaten wife syndrome. Oh my game doesn't have to be balanced for fun. Really its our job to make it fun.

GW doesn't own you, you have other choices,any with the same models you own. And if everyone that was unhappy left, they would be forced to change for the better. But why should they when there are so many willing to put up with their sub standard crap because GW

Yes I am very Exited about AoS.
It looks like a lot of fun to play without all of the stress of WHFB or WH40k