Rocmistro wrote:Now, normally that wouldn't bother me...except they already had a skirmish based game to offer. It was called 40k. So for me, when they dropped Fantasy and moved to AoS, which is, more or less, 40k with swords, my response is: what's the point? I already have a skirmish game. So bringing it back around to the OP...AoS offers nothing that 40k doesn't. I'm sure it's not a horrible game....but why bother with the overhead of books, and rules and learning all that and understanding all that when it's effectively the same game?

Now that I absolutely can agree with. Made worse by the fact that 40K already has dudes running around with swords and axes.

jouso wrote:Your own reasons to dislike it doesn't make it less of a game. It has rules, people play it. The supported/commercial/whatever discussion is so 2015.

I didn't say anything about whether I like or dislike it. I honestly haven't bothered checking it out in depth (just seeing some of the heated arguments on the forums about what a spear should do etc put me off further investigation). I can only assume from your reaction that you're a bit touchy on the subject. It is a set of rules and people do play it. I didn't contest either of those points. I even literally said "It's a set of rules..." The point I'm trying to make is that 9th is an internet project with only minor community support in the grand scheme of wargaming. It was set up to try and catch the wave of 8th edition players who were flocking away from AOS in disgust, but all it seems to have caught is a few ripples. Most of the old 8th players seem to have just carried on with 8th, or tried KOW.

Hero hammer gave way to cavalry hammer gave way to a weird meta evolving mess that eventually descended into everyone playing Dark Eldar dodging 40 man units and lobbing broken spells.

WHFB had a major problem that the iconic rank and file regiments, which historically drew most people in, were often crap on the table and the rules (especially the always restrictive charging mechanic) didn't really facilitate them as compared with almost every other unit type. This is a problem because regiments were the main "fantasy" of the game.

If both players agree to just go at each other the system still sort of works, but it can feel very gamey very quickly (i.e. all rules lawyering all the time) and I think this put people off.

AoS is missing something because it doesn't have that fantasy element. You don't have an army - you have a gang. Which isn't as cool.

With that said the rules are reasonable now (after the 2015 train wreck) and I think about buying almost every new army that is released (really wanted a Beastman army back in the day, is this the time to start one? Probably not).

For me the main reason is that my friends/FLGS don't really play AoS. Which makes it a chicken and egg problem.

Tyel be the chicken - cross the road and bring back the egg that is the wonderful beastman - Beasts of Chaos - army. Show them the mighty titanic beasts throwing huge rocks; show them the huge stone that powers your army; the massive flaming bull spell (that is a very nice spell too!).

Today is the day to start - today is the day to begin - today is the day to embrace the BEAST and lead your clan forward for victory, for war, for loot and for the glory of Chaos!

To go back to the military history comments,

If my military history memory is correct, they used rank and file formations still in The Great War (WW1) during certain engagements (and with certain Brigadiers...) when advancing and assaulting etc... They still hadn't adapted to repeat fire weapons/armour etc.

bouncingboredom wrote:

jouso wrote:

bouncingboredom wrote:

9th age isn't really a game, it's a bunch of fan made rules on a forum.

Yet it draws events with hundreds of people (maybe not in the UK, but over here in the continent it does) . It might not be everyone's cup of tea, but it sure has its crowd.

The record (other than the ETC, that's its own beast) is the Polish team championship this July, with 50(!) 5-man teams. Several singles have been held around the 100 mark.

It's still not a proper "game", it's just a set of rules that walk a fine legal line.

How so? Game mechanics are uncopywritable.

 Grimtuff wrote:

bouncingboredom wrote:

jouso wrote:

bouncingboredom wrote:

9th age isn't really a game, it's a bunch of fan made rules on a forum.

Yet it draws events with hundreds of people (maybe not in the UK, but over here in the continent it does) . It might not be everyone's cup of tea, but it sure has its crowd.

The record (other than the ETC, that's its own beast) is the Polish team championship this July, with 50(!) 5-man teams. Several singles have been held around the 100 mark.

It's still not a proper "game", it's just a set of rules that walk a fine legal line.

How so? Game mechanics are uncopywritable.

Not taking into intent... but if playing a GW game and if have to go to "intent" position... you are the "guy" (everyone hates).

I find your signature funny " I play GW games, but [don't circumvent the swear filter - Lorek] paying for the models or stuff that makes them money, just give me games for free..." Hunger for free stuff (cookie monster).

To clarify, a company that makes money off making rules and models (you love) yet won't support cause don't agree with pricing??? So you will support but not with money (cause they don't need that, but with hopes?)

Are you high right now? This is the second rambling post I've seen from you that is also bypassing the swear filter (don't do that. )

You cannot copyright game mechanics. You can only copyright how they're presented.

 Grimtuff wrote:
How so? Game mechanics are uncopywritable.

Not that it matters, but game mechanics can actually be patented, assuming you can prove how yours are sufficiently innovative and distinct etc, etc (e.g. the makers of Scrabble accepted an out of court settlement from a company trying to make a similar game, one of the provisions of the settlement being that they changed some of the rules of how their game worked).

The makers of 9th age have a legal team supporting them. This tells you everything you need to know. If you're not aware of why they have a legal team and why they're so scared of getting a cease and desist order from GW then I suggest you hit Google and do some reading.

bouncingboredom wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
How so? Game mechanics are uncopywritable.

Not that it matters, but game mechanics can actually be patented, assuming you can prove how yours are sufficiently innovative and distinct etc, etc (e.g. the makers of Scrabble accepted an out of court settlement from a company trying to make a similar game, one of the provisions of the settlement being that they changed some of the rules of how their game worked).

Which is what I said, you can copyright how they're presented. Not the mechanics. I can find literally loads of reskinned board games everywhere that are essentially just a more well-known one with a different name.

bouncingboredom wrote:

jouso wrote:Your own reasons to dislike it doesn't make it less of a game. It has rules, people play it. The supported/commercial/whatever discussion is so 2015.

I didn't say anything about whether I like or dislike it. I honestly haven't bothered checking it out in depth (just seeing some of the heated arguments on the forums about what a spear should do etc put me off further investigation). I can only assume from your reaction that you're a bit touchy on the subject. It is a set of rules and people do play it. I didn't contest either of those points. I even literally said "It's a set of rules..." The point I'm trying to make is that 9th is an internet project with only minor community support in the grand scheme of wargaming. It was set up to try and catch the wave of 8th edition players who were flocking away from AOS in disgust, but all it seems to have caught is a few ripples. Most of the old 8th players seem to have just carried on with 8th, or tried KOW.

I wouldn't say having multiple 100+ events (and several 200+) on multiple countries is minor support. 8th gets nowhere near that, and on most places neither does kow (I'd happily be corrected on this, though)

I'd also re-read your posts on the subject before saying anyone's touchy about anything. You clearly have a strong opinion of 9th age as a project, if not as a game, you've made that abundantly clear.

Grimtuff wrote:Which is what I said, you can copyright how they're presented. Not the mechanics. I can find literally loads of reskinned board games everywhere that are essentially just a more well-known one with a different name.

You seemed to have missed the point; you CAN patent (not copyright, that's different) mechanics, providing you can prove they meet certain criteria. You're also missing the point that 9th age have a legal team which they consult and respect on a regular basis. They seek and are being giving legal advice - advice which they follow - for a reason.

jouso wrote:
I wouldn't say having multiple 100+ events (and several 200+) on multiple countries is minor support. 8th gets nowhere near that, and on most places neither does kow (I'd happily be corrected on this, though). I'd also re-read your posts on the subject before saying anyone's touchy about anything. You clearly have a strong opinion of 9th age as a project, if not as a game, you've made that abundantly clear.

From what I can tell having a cusory look around you've somewhat overstated the number of events and the number of players. 9th age seems to be going ok, but not exactly setting the world on fire. I have no really strong opinion of 9th age, I'm basically indifferent to it. I don't play it, I don't follow it, I looked into it at one point so I know a bit about it and that's about it. You're projecting your own opinion of the game (you have strong feelings about it) onto me ("oh he mentioned it, and something negative, he must hate it as much as I love it"). It's a thing, that's how I see 9th age. Sorry dude.

This thread is way off topic - please start a separate thread for discussing copying/protecting game mechanics, etc in the appropriate forum (such as Dakka Discussions).

Feel free to link to it here, but this thread needs to return to the topic (i.e. "Why aren't you playing AoS?").

Thanks all

bouncingboredom wrote:

jouso wrote:
I wouldn't say having multiple 100+ events (and several 200+) on multiple countries is minor support. 8th gets nowhere near that, and on most places neither does kow (I'd happily be corrected on this, though). I'd also re-read your posts on the subject before saying anyone's touchy about anything. You clearly have a strong opinion of 9th age as a project, if not as a game, you've made that abundantly clear.

From what I can tell having a cusory look around you've somewhat overstated the number of events and the number of players. 9th age seems to be going ok, but not exactly setting the world on fire.

I can count at least 7 events this season over the 80 mark in Spain alone. Neither kow (last nationals got exactly 21 people), or 8th gets anything close to that (neither does AoS for that matter). Poland, Germany, Spain, Italy are in the same situation, easy to check through T3.

As per the moderation request I won't follow the discussion on IP, but at least try to get the attendance numbers right.

jouso wrote:
I can count at least 7 events this season over the 80 mark in Spain alone. Neither kow (last nationals got exactly 21 people), or 8th gets anything close to that (neither does AoS for that matter). Poland, Germany, Spain, Italy are in the same situation, easy to check through T3.

Cursory check through T3 (don't have the time or the inclination to sit there for hours going through all the back history) it seems you might be confusing the number of available slots with the number of people that actually show up and there's no way (without going into detailed results) to all how many people are just attending multiple events (i.e. 40 people at one tournament being 40 of the 80 at another tournament). 9th doesn't seem to be doing especially better or worse than any of the other game systems from what I can see. Which is good. Despite your belief that I'm some kind of 9th hater which you appear to have pulled out of thin air, 9th age being successful can only be a good thing for the hobby overall. It certainly can't hurt. Just let's not get ahead of ourselves, it's still essentially just a set of rules on the internet, it's not really a proper game yet.

Now to save the sanity of the Mods, why don't you tell us why you don't play AOS?

Personally, because I don't want to; nothing about it is particularly appealing.

OP

Few reasons:

1) People in my immediate gaming circle play Heresy and are unlikely to be convinced. They are mostly people brought back into Warhammer specifically because of their love of that particular story. Nice models (at far cheaper price) are not enough. It took my mate almost a decade to convince them to come back into the Hobby. But these are by far the group I game with the most so their opinion dictates what we play.

2) People at my local gaming club have disavowed AOS and 8th edition 40k. They mostly dabble in a mix of Heresy, Titanicus, Bolt Action, Drop Zone and a few other games. I stopped going to GW a while back so for pick up games it crosses that out.

3) I tried going to a different club to get pick up games of AOS some time back. It was not to my liking. Quite a few times I ended up showing and nobody was there. The few games I had were quite gamey and basically I didn’t enjoy myself. There was a whole thing where they organised a paid narrative tournament and nobody showed.

4) When I went down for pickup games at GW years back, it tended to be the same people and they all had unpainted armies. Plus they had limited space, scenery and it’s not a comfortable environment to game in. (BTW I recently played a HH game at Warhammer World and my God is that air conditioning a miracle! )

5) Because of the above, Heresy projects take precedence for painting and so I am not in the “let’s play with new stuff” mentality with AOS. I ve had Morathi and some Blood Sisters sitting half painted on my desk basically since the release earlier in the year. To which I then added some Femcast and yeah it’s becoming an issue. Especially since I decided to start a new HH army and push for new terrain for the group.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Avatar 720 wrote:
Personally, because I don't want to; nothing about it is particularly appealing.

I came around to it because I liked the OTT nature of the setting. That this a world where Kratos could run around killing giant monsters and it would not look out of place.

bouncingboredom wrote:

jouso wrote:
I can count at least 7 events this season over the 80 mark in Spain alone. Neither kow (last nationals got exactly 21 people), or 8th gets anything close to that (neither does AoS for that matter). Poland, Germany, Spain, Italy are in the same situation, easy to check through T3.

Cursory check through T3 (don't have the time or the inclination to sit there for hours going through all the back history) it seems you might be confusing the number of available slots with the number of people that actually show up and there's no way (without going into detailed results) to all how many people are just attending multiple events (i.e. 40 people at one tournament being 40 of the 80 at another tournament).

For finished events, it shows exactly who played. Also individual people have their own profile so it shows who goes where. Then there's all the supporting evidence of pics, armylists and results strewn all over the interwebs. If it's a conspiracy to inflate numbers I'd say they're doing it extremely right.

9th doesn't seem to be doing especially better or worse than any of the other game systems from what I can see. Which is good.

That's quite a step down from your original most people kept playing 8th or moved to kow, I'll grant you that.

, it's still essentially just a set of rules on the internet, it's not really a proper game yet.

Your definition of proper is quite narrow then. Is it because it's not commercial? Because it doesn't have its own line of minis? Because you're truly missing out on great games.

Now to save the sanity of the Mods, why don't you tell us why you don't play AOS?

Page 5, go check it if you want.

Totalwar1402 wrote:2) People at my local gaming club have disavowed AOS and 8th edition 40k.

This seems to crop up a lot (at least in AOS case). Was it just a case of people playing the game and not liking it or just flat out rejecting it from that start?

jouso wrote:
For finished events, it shows exactly who played. Also individual people have their own profile so it shows who goes where. Then there's all the supporting evidence of pics, armylists and results strewn all over the interwebs. If it's a conspiracy to inflate numbers I'd say they're doing it extremely right.

Looking around I haven't seen any evidence to suggest 9th age is doing quite as well as you claim

That's quite a step down from your original most people kept playing 8th or moved to kow, I'll grant you that.

You're focusing on tournaments. It's doing ok in terms of tournaments, but that has always been a fraction of the player base. On YouTube and just poking around forums now and again 9th has nowhere near the traction that 8th still has and KOW has.

Your definition of proper is quite narrow then. Is it because it's not commercial? Because it doesn't have its own line of minis?

It's because it's just a set of fan made rules. It's a thing that some ex-8th players play and that some people familiar with tabletop gaming know about.

Page 5, go check it if you want.

I think you missed the rather subtle hint about sticking to the topic at hand. And even then, you said you play it, so you're not really answering the OPs question.

bouncingboredom wrote:

Totalwar1402 wrote:2) People at my local gaming club have disavowed AOS and 8th edition 40k.

This seems to crop up a lot (at least in AOS case). Was it just a case of people playing the game and not liking it or just flat out rejecting it from that start?

jouso wrote:
For finished events, it shows exactly who played. Also individual people have their own profile so it shows who goes where. Then there's all the supporting evidence of pics, armylists and results strewn all over the interwebs. If it's a conspiracy to inflate numbers I'd say they're doing it extremely right.

Looking around I haven't seen any evidence to suggest 9th age is doing quite as well as you claim

That's quite a step down from your original most people kept playing 8th or moved to kow, I'll grant you that.

You're focusing on tournaments. It's doing ok in terms of tournaments, but that has always been a fraction of the player base. On YouTube and just poking around forums now and again 9th has nowhere near the traction that 8th still has and KOW has.

Your definition of proper is quite narrow then. Is it because it's not commercial? Because it doesn't have its own line of minis?

It's because it's just a set of fan made rules. It's a thing that some ex-8th players play and that some people familiar with tabletop gaming know about.

Page 5, go check it if you want.

I think you missed the rather subtle hint about sticking to the topic at hand. And even then, you said you play it, so you're not really answering the OPs question.

Pretty much flat out rejection with AoS and varying rejection with 8th. To summarise:

1) They killed Warhammer Fantasy
2) The story is silly and before it was more mature and complex/interesting. An Empire or Bretonnian player doesn’t really have a way in to AoS with the new armies. You can’t replace a decade of investment in a setting in a single book.
3) They don’t like Stormcast. At all. Since 90 percent of the story is about them this contributes to point 2.
4) The rules are dumbed down and don’t have common sense. (Basically same reason for 8th ed)
5) All AoS games are “one monster and a few squads” so it isn’t a strategic game and too one dimensional.
6) The game is not balanced and fair

There’s a mixture. Some have had nothing to do with AoS. Some have bought models to paint but haven’t considered an army for the above reasons. There was a few weeks where they played Shadespire and talk of getting “the new Warhammer Quest.” But IMO I don’t think they will ever be convinced. Possibly 8th ed 40K but even then.

My reason for not playing AoS is two-fold:

I was a huge Empire player back in Fantasy, and am hoping for some new kits/faction that represents humans in the new realms outside of "Freeguild" which don't play any way to how I used to run them back in Fantasy.

I picked Kharadrons, and while I love the little guys, they just don't have a lot of options, my other friend picked Idoneth, and you can imagine how painstaking it is for this ranged dwarven skyship army to be forced to shoot only the closest thing to them. It's frustrating, and I wish they had more options, more infantry, or ships, or something

bouncingboredom wrote:

That's quite a step down from your original most people kept playing 8th or moved to kow, I'll grant you that.

You're focusing on tournaments. It's doing ok in terms of tournaments, but that has always been a fraction of the player base. On YouTube and just poking around forums now and again 9th has nowhere near the traction that 8th still has and KOW has.

Ahem. Where's your evidence of the bolded part? By number and size of events 9th wins hands down, no contest. Show me yours (and no, casual poking around forums is not enough)

Or just follow your own advice and stick to the topic and move this discussion to a new thread (preferably on a non-AoS section of the forum). Everyone will thank you for that.

Yeah it is kind of a unfair for AoS though, the places where 9th is popular, where places with super dedicted tournament WFB sceen. For example for Poland if you would compare 9th age and AoS, you could get the wrong idea that 9th is the real thing, because it is played in most stores, local events run 50+people and larger events are almos the same size as they were in WFB times.

Am sure that even if someone would want to play 9th in a place like UK, they would struggle to find a place to play. Stores are GW or close to GW, same with clubs, so there are only home games left and it is hard to get more people playing when you play at your home.

Karol wrote:
Yeah it is kind of a unfair for AoS though,

I don't think so. AoS is different enough that you can play both and enjoy both.

The different square-based systems do overlap to a larger degree, IMHO.

That said, the continent has always been very different to the UK in gaming preferences mostly because communities tend to be club-driven rather than shop-driven (and especially GW-shop driven). This has only gotten worse with brick and mortar stores having a harder time every year struggling with the competition from discounted online stores, which has pushed them further in the hands of collectible card and board games which apparently are the ones keeping B&M shops afloat these days outside of the really big cities.

Shops that don't make money on miniature wargames will no longer push or support them, so players have to organise themselves in different ways.

It's not just online stores, but also the fact that renting a shop on the highstreet today - in the UK at least - is very difficult and expensive. A lot of stores are closing up and if you look at the highstreets in many towns its full of charity shops; food outlets; clothing and mobile phone shops. With a lot of the clothing outlets often changing hands fairly often.

A lot of stores that have hung on are getting food outlets inside them - either in house or twinning with another company.

Basically the highstreet isn't just in competition with online; but is also under a lot of pressure for the vastly increased overheads that they have to operate with. That in itself shuts down a lot of hobby level stores before they even get started and those that do are often stuck with small retail areas (limited scope to show stuff for sale) and are often pushed out into the marginal areas of the town (which means less footfall and attention but also can mean that, for a game store, its not in the "nice safe" looking bit of the town

Totalwar1402 wrote:Pretty much flat out rejection with AoS and varying rejection with 8th. To summarise:

1) They killed Warhammer Fantasy
2) The story is silly and before it was more mature and complex/interesting. An Empire or Bretonnian player doesn’t really have a way in to AoS with the new armies. You can’t replace a decade of investment in a setting in a single book.
3) They don’t like Stormcast. At all. Since 90 percent of the story is about them this contributes to point 2.
4) The rules are dumbed down and don’t have common sense. (Basically same reason for 8th ed)
5) All AoS games are “one monster and a few squads” so it isn’t a strategic game and too one dimensional.
6) The game is not balanced and fair

There’s a mixture. Some have had nothing to do with AoS. Some have bought models to paint but haven’t considered an army for the above reasons. There was a few weeks where they played Shadespire and talk of getting “the new Warhammer Quest.” But IMO I don’t think they will ever be convinced. Possibly 8th ed 40K but even then.

Yeah, basically the full gamut of typical complaints. The background issue has always perplexed me. Why not mix the game up a bit but still keep the law? Why the need to nuke the whole world just to change the rules, other than the symbolism?

Zontarz wrote:My reason for not playing AoS is two-fold:

I was a huge Empire player back in Fantasy, and am hoping for some new kits/faction that represents humans in the new realms outside of "Freeguild" which don't play any way to how I used to run them back in Fantasy.

I picked Kharadrons, and while I love the little guys, they just don't have a lot of options, my other friend picked Idoneth, and you can imagine how painstaking it is for this ranged dwarven skyship army to be forced to shoot only the closest thing to them. It's frustrating, and I wish they had more options, more infantry, or ships, or something

That's another source of serious perplextion for me. Normally human based races get a lot of attention in most games because there's a natural tendency to gravitate towards the (semi) familiar. Even with Stormcast as the new poster boys it seems odd that humans have sort of fallen by the wayside and that can't help AOS. Possible missed opportunity there to breathe life back into Bretonnians as well, unless they thought those players would gravitate towards the new Sigmarines?.

jouso wrote:Or just follow your own advice and stick to the topic and move this discussion to a new thread (preferably on a non-AoS section of the forum). Everyone will thank you for that.

Erm, you're the one that started having a massive hissy fit over 9th age and keep posting exclusively off topic about it.

I don't really get that argument. How is someone whos army has no rules going to be ok? Now people may have been lieing to me or maybe they were wrong, but at least at my store, and I know there are similar feeling around polish forums, that more then a few armies are just not playable in AoS, and another batch technicly exist, but is so bottom tier it ain't worth to play them. Not sure how true that argument is

I don't think so. AoS is different enough that you can play both and enjoy both.

From what I have expiriance the AoS vs 9th age players situation is kin to football hooligans type of interaction. They aren't killing each other, but I have seen enough of people being donkey-caves to each other, not leting people in to or out of the store. Creating events, then canceling them at the last moment just so the other group of people can't have their event as other weekends are taken up by warmahordes and w40k etc.

Karol you seen to have a REALLY nasty local bunch of players! I don't mean to tar them all with the same brush but the behaviour you are describing seems really out of character with the average gamer group and honestly just screams of standard bullying rather than anything what so ever to do with the game systems or company behind them.

Honestly you've either got a handful of really nasty people who haven't been kicked out or you've got a very toxic gamer society that's grown up in your area.

I'd certainly not expect that in the UK at any club.

Karol wrote:
I don't really get that argument. How is someone whos army has no rules going to be ok? Now people may have been lieing to me or maybe they were wrong, but at least at my store, and I know there are similar feeling around polish forums, that more then a few armies are just not playable in AoS, and another batch technicly exist, but is so bottom tier it ain't worth to play them. Not sure how true that argument is

I don't think so. AoS is different enough that you can play both and enjoy both.

From what I have expiriance the AoS vs 9th age players situation is kin to football hooligans type of interaction. They aren't killing each other, but I have seen enough of people being donkey-caves to each other, not leting people in to or out of the store. Creating events, then canceling them at the last moment just so the other group of people can't have their event as other weekends are taken up by warmahordes and w40k etc.

If you're playing competitively to win tournaments I'd say that is true for the most part.

At the minute I'm not playing AoS because despite building up a sizeable Khorne/Death army, I just can't get into painting them.

Also my FLGS is just...terrible at the minute. It's trying to be a flagship store when it's barely got the space to hold an eight person tournament...

It's mainly a card/board game shop too but even then they're just...so bad. I feel sorry for the two employees who are trying to make it work (one of whom is my best friend), and the co-owner who is (or was, seems like he's burnt out) doing everything while the other co-owner wanted to be the face but put in **** all into promoting the business or helping it expand.

I found another store closer to home too, as soon as I build up a small Beastmen army, I might join in there.

As a 40K player and long-time miniatures wargamer I tried three times to get into Warhammer Fantasy. The first time was with Dwarves circa 2002. The second time was with Chaos circa 2009. The third and final time was again with Chaos in 2014. Each time I collected and painted up an army but found I did not enjoy the gameplay/scene. I played Ancients (and Chainmail) before, so its not like I had never met rank and file games before. There was just something about Fantasy that I couldn't get into.

This evening, I picked up the Getting Started with Warhammer Age of Sigmar magazine. While I enjoyed Felix and Gotrek (Skavenslayer is one of my favourite books), I don't miss the old world. Although I am getting lots of 40K gaming in, I am kinda pumped about AOS. I am not even sure why. The models look cool, and the player base seems a little more casual now.

Wish me luck (hope my wife doesn't figure it out...)!

bouncingboredom wrote:

jouso wrote:Or just follow your own advice and stick to the topic and move this discussion to a new thread (preferably on a non-AoS section of the forum). Everyone will thank you for that.

Erm, you're the one that started having a massive hissy fit over 9th age and keep posting exclusively off topic about it.

Who was the one who started the off-topic pontification about 9th age again? Don't make claims up and you won't need to be corrected.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Wish me luck (hope my wife doesn't figure it out...)!

Better - introduce her to it and see if you can draw her in! More gamers for the gamer god!

Frozocrone wrote:Also my FLGS is just...terrible at the minute. It's trying to be a flagship store when it's barely got the space to hold an eight person tournament...

Interesting that the quality (or lack there of) of gaming environments seems to be more commonlty brought up when talking about AOS, though it's clearly a general problem. I wonder if the way AOS was launched and the type of players that it attracted as its core starting base has caused problems down the line? AOS drew a tremendous amount of criticism for not being "balanced" at the start, so I guess it's plausible that there is something of a divide between people who started in AOS precisely because it was free and open vs people who have come along later attracted by the "balance" introduced with the Generals Handbook, with the end result being a mixing of two very different kinds of players that causes friction?

jouso wrote:
Who was the one who started the off-topic pontification about 9th age again? Don't make claims up and you won't need to be corrected.

Who? Erm, that would be you. I barely mentioned 9th age in a post. It was a passing comment, literally a sentence this short. It was part of a long paragraph related to the discussion at hand. Since then you've gone on tirade after tirade. I'm trying to discuss the thread issue with other people but I keep having to stop to answer your seemingly endless 9th exclusive posts. So there's no claims being made up and nothing that needs "correcting", except maybe your attitude.

bouncingboredom wrote:

Frozocrone wrote:Also my FLGS is just...terrible at the minute. It's trying to be a flagship store when it's barely got the space to hold an eight person tournament...

Interesting that the quality (or lack there of) of gaming environments seems to be more commonlty brought up when talking about AOS, though it's clearly a general problem. I wonder if the way AOS was launched and the type of players that it attracted as its core starting base has caused problems down the line? AOS drew a tremendous amount of criticism for not being "balanced" at the start, so I guess it's plausible that there is something of a divide between people who started in AOS precisely because it was free and open vs people who have come along later attracted by the "balance" introduced with the Generals Handbook, with the end result being a mixing of two very different kinds of players that causes friction?

I would say that the majority of complaints I read about AoS, both in terms of lore and gameplay, are referring to the state of the game at launch/pre-GHB more than the current state of the game. A lot of people were (understandably) upset at the way WHF was replaced (I was one of them), and I think there are still a lot of people unwilling to even look at the game now.

I have not played any games when AoS launched, but people told me that when it started in eastern europe it was dead on arrival. Because of the additional cost and no points.

The GW Hobby is very sensitive to avarge salary in a country, from what I understand people where there is more money are more laid back, tend to house rule stuff and people in places like Poland just can't afford a bad army or bad units, because if they buy those, they won't have money to buy the good stuff, and they can be sure that all people around them are aiming for good armies. This makes the difference between a tournament and non tournament army, in my country, rather hard to notice. Tournament armies have to be painted, and that is more or less the difference.

But the biggest thing was, from what people told me, the no points thing and some strange rules, that made no sense when people described them to me. Games here require structure, because most armies tend to be of the tournament build, or close to that, playing some sort of free for all, when a veteran will always win vs a new players, because he has more models could just not fly here.

Plus people really did like WFB here, they wanted to see it fixed, and made more in to something like warmahordes as balance or rules quality goes. Now if that was foolish or not, I don't know GW history well enough. But that is how people felt around here.

 Overread wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Wish me luck (hope my wife doesn't figure it out...)!

Better - introduce her to it and see if you can draw her in! More gamers for the gamer god!

That would be something...

My eldest son plays 40K and he also likes D&D. He has a collection of random Warhammer Fantasy models that he's picked up. They look good and it looks like they are playable. We'll give it a go with Age of Basementmar for a bit!

To weigh in on the failings of AoS during 1st I would say a lot of people were put off by the so-called beard rules where you had to do silly things like take a knee and spout off a few lines to get bonuses to hit and suchlike. To me, and many others who were probably more commited, it seemed like a slap in the face. GW took away decades of lore and background, effectively ruining whatever head canon people had come up with for their own stories and replaced it with very snide, almost derogatory rules. Was this what GW intended? Most probably not, but that's how it was recieved by the majority of players.

Moving forward, GW now has a Facebook account and actually responds to emails and their sense of humour has matured to the point where they can release funny videos and people enjoy them. Can GW regain the trust of the players? Only time will tell, but for now they seem to making a genuine effort. Hell, they're even pandering to the fem40k crowd with gender representation! If that's not making the effort I don't know what is.

I'd like to play, especially if/when Goblins get an update. My biggest hold up is that some of the games seem to go so fast. I've seen more than one battle report where the game was just a bit longer than the entire pre-game setup. I enjoy long(er) battles, I enjoy getting invested.

I'm not into AOS because i dont know what i want. I have a lot of very old skeletons (old vampires army), got few woods elves without update in AOS, i can build a daemons army without problem (thank 40k). I just waiting until GW give me something i will enjoyed.

bouncingboredom wrote:

jouso wrote:
Who was the one who started the off-topic pontification about 9th age again? Don't make claims up and you won't need to be corrected.

Who? Erm, that would be you. I barely mentioned 9th age in a post. It was a passing comment, literally a sentence this short.

Replied with a similarly short, factual message. You might have just stopped there or stuck to exchanging verifiable facts but chose to go down the rabbit hole instead.

 darkcloak wrote:
To weigh in on the failings of AoS during 1st I would say a lot of people were put off by the so-called beard rules where you had to do silly things like take a knee and spout off a few lines to get bonuses to hit and suchlike. To me, and many others who were probably more commited, it seemed like a slap in the face. GW took away decades of lore and background, effectively ruining whatever head canon people had come up with for their own stories and replaced it with very snide, almost derogatory rules. Was this what GW intended? Most probably not, but that's how it was recieved by the majority of players.

Moving forward, GW now has a Facebook account and actually responds to emails and their sense of humour has matured to the point where they can release funny videos and people enjoy them. Can GW regain the trust of the players? Only time will tell, but for now they seem to making a genuine effort. Hell, they're even pandering to the fem40k crowd with gender representation! If that's not making the effort I don't know what is.

I have never heard of any kind of fem40K crowd. Please enlighten me.

For me along with many youngsters of my generation it was all to do with Tolkien. That was the great pull into both the D&D world and Warhammer Fantasy Battle one. Tolkien was king to a 70's fantasy minded kid. Another great pull was our traditional stories, Myths and Legends which is a great part of our national culture and identity. Everywhere we look in Europe we have myths and story's attached even to the very land we live in which can be seen in Tolkien's works. All of these things were a big part in the formation of Warhammer Fantasy Battle Game.Without these then AOS feels more like SCI-FI then fantasy.

I recently brought into the Soul Wars box set, as I knew somebody who was interested in playing(even begged for me to buy it so they could try the game out)..........but I was wrong. They are now buying into 40K thanks to the newly published magazines.

The funny thing after I brought it the shopkeeper in my local toyshop told me that was only the 2nd copy he had sold since it had been released. Did not fill me with confidence. I did buy quite heavily into AOS when it was first released but will not even consider buying a model from the range now.

If anybody lives in my area and would like to exchange classic 80's Fantasy models for AOS then I will be more then happy for them to pop around or make an offer.

EnTyme wrote:I would say that the majority of complaints I read about AoS, both in terms of lore and gameplay, are referring to the state of the game at launch/pre-GHB more than the current state of the game. A lot of people were (understandably) upset at the way WHF was replaced (I was one of them), and I think there are still a lot of people unwilling to even look at the game now.

I think there's probably something in that, the sense of resentment at what happened. Lesson learned by GW it would seem (at least so far) given the way they've handled themselves since.

darkcloak wrote:To weigh in on the failings of AoS during 1st I would say a lot of people were put off by the so-called beard rules where you had to do silly things like take a knee and spout off a few lines to get bonuses to hit and suchlike. To me, and many others who were probably more commited, it seemed like a slap in the face.

That was one of the things that put me off right off the bat. It just seemed like they were mocking the player base and that AOS wasn't intended to be a serious game.

battyrat wrote:Everywhere we look in Europe we have myths and story's attached even to the very land we live in which can be seen in Tolkien's works. All of these things were a big part in the formation of Warhammer Fantasy Battle Game. Without these then AOS feels more like SCI-FI then fantasy.

I think that's an underrated aspect of WHFB, the fact that it wasn't such a huge leap of the imagination. We all know vaguely about the knights of Camelot, the Holy Roman Empire, Norse mythology/Vikings. And combined with the paralells with Tolkein's work it made the WHFB world seem more familiar in a way. The AOS appears with its realms and just... I dunno. It seems like a waste of good lore.

Their largest mistake with the tongue in cheek rules was that they didn't realize how serious-business a lot of gamers are. What they perceived as some light hearted fun was turned into a flame thrower and fried them to a crisp.

It would have been less of an issue if the non-Legacy forces got the same rules. Like, say, flexing gave Stormcasts some bonus.

The only AOS. Ight I'm working :(

 Just Tony wrote:
It would have been less of an issue if the non-Legacy forces got the same rules. Like, say, flexing gave Stormcasts some bonus.

But they got them. Not as generalized as them, but there were still some cases. The fyreslayers had one that was particularly egregious.

Also, after checking out, since fething when do fyreslayers have a standard bearer hero?

Not playing AOS because they destroyed Warhammer, the 30 years old game of fantaisy battle, the fools !
Not gonna invest in an other fantaisy game, I went full 40k
And AoS seems more high fantasy than Warhammer, and I dislike that

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
It would have been less of an issue if the non-Legacy forces got the same rules. Like, say, flexing gave Stormcasts some bonus.

But they got them. Not as generalized as them, but there were still some cases. The fyreslayers had one that was particularly egregious.

Did any other new faction get them after fyreslayers?

Because the silly rules were one of the things GW quickly realised they didn't belong on a flagship game.

I still think they would have worked back in 5th or thereabouts, the game was much more laid-back at the time.

jouso wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
It would have been less of an issue if the non-Legacy forces got the same rules. Like, say, flexing gave Stormcasts some bonus.

But they got them. Not as generalized as them, but there were still some cases. The fyreslayers had one that was particularly egregious.

Did any other new faction get them after fyreslayers?

Because the silly rules were one of the things GW quickly realised they didn't belong on a flagship game.

I still think they would have worked back in 5th or thereabouts, the game was much more laid-back at the time.

No, at that I think they realized people disliked it, and hit quickly the editing.

My old WHFB army is now 3 or 4 armies. There are too many FAQ/documents needed. I found a file with all of them, i printed it off, it was 150 pages long.

 Dynas wrote:
My old WHFB army is now 3 or 4 armies. There are too many FAQ/documents needed. I found a file with all of them, i printed it off, it was 150 pages long.

Did you print off every single thing for every single army? Also it sounds like you got the designers commentaries in there which are not so much errata/corrections but true Frequently Asked Question answers.

I agree many armies did get broken up, however most of those 3 or 4 armies are still in the same alliance bracket and thus will still be able to make use of each others units under the allies system or if you ran it as a grand alliance order instead of faction army.

Which army is it?

 Overread wrote:

 Dynas wrote:
My old WHFB army is now 3 or 4 armies. There are too many FAQ/documents needed. I found a file with all of them, i printed it off, it was 150 pages long.

Did you print off every single thing for every single army? Also it sounds like you got the designers commentaries in there which are not so much errata/corrections but true Frequently Asked Question answers.

I agree many armies did get broken up, however most of those 3 or 4 armies are still in the same alliance bracket and thus will still be able to make use of each others units under the allies system or if you ran it as a grand alliance order instead of faction army.

Which army is it?

Dark and high elf armies are like that, but its not just a split, with some of the themes they can make some more expanded options like anvilgard.

I'm not playing yet as I'm waiting for the faction for me, hoping on either moonclan, slaanesh or shadow elves.

I’m unfortunately falling into the Skirmish game camp. I love the look of armies facing off on a big table of sweet scenery but man does it take a long time and give me a headache. Skirmish is more personal, takes a lot less time and only requires a few models to be painted.
Please don’t hate me. *shields face with grot*

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 Dynas wrote:
My old WHFB army is now 3 or 4 armies. There are too many FAQ/documents needed. I found a file with all of them, i printed it off, it was 150 pages long.

Did you print off every single thing for every single army? Also it sounds like you got the designers commentaries in there which are not so much errata/corrections but true Frequently Asked Question answers.

I agree many armies did get broken up, however most of those 3 or 4 armies are still in the same alliance bracket and thus will still be able to make use of each others units under the allies system or if you ran it as a grand alliance order instead of faction army.

Which army is it?

Dark and high elf armies are like that, but its not just a split, with some of the themes they can make some more expanded options like anvilgard.

Aye true and at present on Dark Elves have had any focus through Daughters of Khaine and Idoneth; and Wood Aelves through Sylvanath (though I'd say Wanderers are a large enough plastic range that they will very likely get their own Battletome). High Aelves are rather high and dry at present.

However at the same time the best way to approach those armies is to focus on one of the minifactions and build that up to a viable core force and then splice in some allies. That makes it more manageable to approach as a faction and cuts down on a lot of the bloat. At least for getting started.

 Overread wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 Dynas wrote:
My old WHFB army is now 3 or 4 armies. There are too many FAQ/documents needed. I found a file with all of them, i printed it off, it was 150 pages long.

Did you print off every single thing for every single army? Also it sounds like you got the designers commentaries in there which are not so much errata/corrections but true Frequently Asked Question answers.

I agree many armies did get broken up, however most of those 3 or 4 armies are still in the same alliance bracket and thus will still be able to make use of each others units under the allies system or if you ran it as a grand alliance order instead of faction army.

Which army is it?

Dark and high elf armies are like that, but its not just a split, with some of the themes they can make some more expanded options like anvilgard.

Aye true and at present on Dark Elves have had any focus through Daughters of Khaine and Idoneth; and Wood Aelves through Sylvanath (though I'd say Wanderers are a large enough plastic range that they will very likely get their own Battletome). High Aelves are rather high and dry at present.

However at the same time the best way to approach those armies is to focus on one of the minifactions and build that up to a viable core force and then splice in some allies. That makes it more manageable to approach as a faction and cuts down on a lot of the bloat. At least for getting started.

That's part of the problem with people with past collections. By and large they don't want to get started, they want to play (more or less) their old collections and not feel gimped while trying.

That's not really a problem, that's more about people not wanting to try anything new. I've still got two large armies in Vampire Counts and High Elves and these new factions have given me a chance to try different play styles with the same models. Small, admittedly. But I can now play these smaller factions and get a feel if they're something I want to play and grow into bigger forces.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
That's not really a problem, that's more about people not wanting to try anything new.

In the context of why aren't you playing AoS, sure it is a problem.

For people who've spent a decade and a half putting together a coherent force for it to be split along different armies it certainly can put you off from playing that ruleset.

I still remember when I could no longer play ogres on my empire army overnight, and I was angry enough at the time for a relatively minor change (my budget was way more limited then, of course).

Again, that's personal to you. I was pleased in the idea that my own (large and themed) armies could now play multiple different armies and play styles without having to buy anything new for them. It was fun to have new tricks for old dogs.

Shadespire/Nightvault could also be pulling away a lot of the competitive crowd

It is true here that shadespire has pulled away a lot of the min max guys.

 Overread wrote:

 Dynas wrote:
My old WHFB army is now 3 or 4 armies. There are too many FAQ/documents needed. I found a file with all of them, i printed it off, it was 150 pages long.

Did you print off every single thing for every single army? Also it sounds like you got the designers commentaries in there which are not so much errata/corrections but true Frequently Asked Question answers.

I agree many armies did get broken up, however most of those 3 or 4 armies are still in the same alliance bracket and thus will still be able to make use of each others units under the allies system or if you ran it as a grand alliance order instead of faction army.

Which army is it?

Yes I printed off ALL of them.
I have WHFB Dwarfs - 4 factions now i believe
Empire - also 4 factions
Brets- finally got killed off, though I have been working on converting these guys into multibasing for my Kings of War Brotherhood army.

I dont want to rebase everything on rounds either. I know it says you don't have to but if you go into a tourney setting its probably going to be enforced.

The other issue is I really don't like any of the new armies either. The Fyreslayers are ok, but just over the top Slayers. Im not a big steampunk fan so that nixes the other dwarf faction. Empire has nothing. Stormcast...errr i mean space marine with a hammer don't look cool IMO. I kind of like the Deepkin army. Now 40k, which I came back into at beginning of 8th after not playing since 5th, I had a small barely 2000 pt ultramarine army and like 2500 point nid army. Since 8th started I have picked up 8500 points of Necrons, another 8k of Nids (including Biotitan) another 6k of ultramarines, and a small chunk of AM and 4 knights. Really a bummer because I like the fantasy setting a lot, but the new armies just lack the flavor of the Old World, even with the 2nd ed Lore drop (which did help a bit).

Empire/humans certainly needs some attention from GW as does the dwarves (beyond slayers and steam punk air dwarves).

Rebasing doesn't have to happen, there's some 3rd party companies making square to round conversion attachments out there

I know it says you don't have to but if you go into a tourney setting its probably going to be enforced.

This is true. At least around me. If you want to be a tourney gamer you have to be on rounds. There are ways to use converters to rounds instead of having to cut your models off of squares, but either way at tournaments you'll need to make sure not only you are on rounds but the models that went up in size from 20 to 25mm or 25mm to 32mm are on the right size rounds or someone will scream foul.

I would expect the separation from the old world aesthetic to continue to deepen. For a variety of reasons.

Even at casual level rounds and larger rounds where used are proper and fair. Small square bases can fit together far better so you could be "cheating" by getting more in close combat than normal and trying to measure "as if" they were on the right base size is an exercise in torment and madness.

In our campaigns we still do the play with what your model came with.

Our two bretonnian players are all on squares 100%. I have a unit of plague bearers still on 25mm squares. We have some undead players also on squares.

Its still fun. But casual, and everyone playing knows that in tournaments or against our tournament powergamers we could never get away with that.

auticus wrote:

Its still fun. But casual, and everyone playing knows that in tournaments or against our tournament powergamers we could never get away with that.

A bit of blutac over the appropiate round usually does the trick for everyone but the most hardcore tournament-goers.

Yeah. Its a matter of going through your collection and inventorying everything and going out and buying all the right size bases in the first place.

Especially knowing that what is legal on a base today can easily be put on a bigger base with the next GHB and you'll have to rebuy new base again because GW has no standard and just change base sizes whenever the wind changes over nottingham.

I never played WHFB, but I read a lot of the old gotrek and felix books, and even I was miffed when they blew up the old world. The new setting seems far to abstract for me.

But in terms of the game itself - I have enough trouble with the shooting phase and vulnerable characters in 40k, and from what I understand AoS is even worse in those regards.

Though, i think there is less of an emphasis on shooting, in general.

And while I'm mostly ok with the fixed to-hit in 40k, I think AoS's fixed to-wound is nutz. Wounding anything from a clanrat to a dragon on the same value seems silly.

But I do have a small ironjaws army, and some of my nerd friends seem to really enjoy it, so I aught to try it again sometime.

auticus wrote:
Yeah. Its a matter of going through your collection and inventorying everything and going out and buying all the right size bases in the first place.

Especially knowing that what is legal on a base today can easily be put on a bigger base with the next GHB and you'll have to rebuy new base again because GW has no standard and just change base sizes whenever the wind changes over nottingham.

Did I miss a controversy somewhere? Other than some units going up from 25mm to 32mm, I can't remember GW upping base sizes, and never with a GHB.

The GHB this year put an "official base size" chart in play for matched play (also known as how everyone in the world except for 1% plays)

Which means next year they can adjust it how they see fit.

Most of my chaos army went from 25mm to 32mm bases. All of my warriors, all of my demon infantry (bloodletters, plague bearers, daemonettes), all of my infantry heroes. The only ones spared were my marauders who stay on 25mm. That is a quite sizable chunk of my collection.

Additionally my entire skeleton collection (we'll call them tomb kings) went from 20mm squares to 25mm rounds.

Those are my two primary forces.

Its not going to be a stretch to say that when dark elves get looked at that they also go from 20 to 25mm. They may already be 25mm, I haven't checked the chart though.

Essentially if you have a legacy collection, you will likely have to do some rebasing from what I have seen. The new models especially went from 28mm heroic to 32mm scale and seem to very commonly up the base size from either 20 to 25, or 25 to 32.

It is not a stretch to go base my dark elves on 20mm rounds for example, and then have a release next year put them on 25s.

In general the base size increase is something GW has been rolling out to many armies in 40K and AoS. So its not isolated, it is a pain but at the same time its likely that now they've released an official document the sizes are going to stay the same for a long while as yet. I can't see them retro changing sizes at a whim continually, it would just generate too much bad publicity.

Right now they sort of give their wishy washy "base that it came with" argument, but everyone knows that most casual areas and every tournament is going to go for the official standard sizes by and large.


I see it as a one time annoyance that shouldn't be repeated if ever for most bases.

That said I do appreciate the sanity in that armies that have not been the focus of a big balance update are possibly best left alone for a bit. That said if you've got Dark Elves you can always get a few more Witche Aelves or some snakes and go for some Daughters of Khaine.

I'm in a fortunate position in that i am the event organizer for my area for AOS so I can keep the rebasing to a minimum. Of course any new models I get are on standard bases so eventually I may even have an army that is not using any of my legacy models

That's what I assumed you were referring to, but what makes you think GW is going to start changing base sizes at random with every GHB? That seems awfully cynical, even for you. The only time I've seen them change base sizes (other than this GHB which is basically updating WHFB models to AoS standards) is when the models have a redesign or occasionally when a kit is re-boxed (my Necron infantry units were upped from 25mm to 32mm recently).

Because it seems that every year bases have changed for me for one reason or another.

And when we are talking legacy armies, we are talking new releases which will cause them to put the whole range on new bases.

And when it happens it is really seemingly overnight. Like you'll see a box come out and poof the revamped models for the army you have are now on bigger bases.

auticus wrote:
Because it seems that every year bases have changed for me for one reason or another.

And when we are talking legacy armies, we are talking new releases which will cause them to put the whole range on new bases.

And when it happens it is really seemingly overnight. Like you'll see a box come out and poof the revamped models for the army you have are now on bigger bases.

Really? I don't think anything changed base sizes if they were already on rounds for BoC. Same for Legions or Nighthaunt or SCE. Now if you rebased on what you thought was a good size and guessed wrong (i.e. Gor on 25mm instead of 32's) that's not GW's fault. When they rebox they set the size. And prior to the rebox they hadn't released a size chart.

Thats cool. Those are recent examples. There are many other armies that did change and some of them were pretty sudden. Sudden enough that for me anyway I'm not going to rebase anything existing.

Thats an ok choice for me because until they bring some balance back into the game I'm not going to tournaments anyway, so that won't hurt me to not rebase.

For anything new I'll be using whatever base comes in the box.

Name a unit in AoS that has been thru the reboxing cycle or that's come out since AoS dropped that's base size has changed. To my knowledge zero round bases have been changed.

Like I said, some people might have guessed wrong when they rebased to round from squares but that's not the same thing. You saying they are changing all the time when all that's happening is they are telling you the base size to rebase from squares to. Nothing in the new base size chart (again to my knowledge) changed any existing models that had already been switched from square to rounds.

Every demon foot troop in the game was on 25mm squares or rounds in 40k and is now on 32 mm rounds.

Skeletons went from 20mm to 25mm rounds with no increase in model size. So if you rebased your 20mm squares to 20mm rounds (a lot of people did this) you were hosed.

The base chart came out "officially" three years after the game was released. There was quite a bit of base increase across the board in those three years.

I will PROMISE that there will be base adjustments made as legacy forces get pushed out with new books.

So daemons are the only ones then (does GW even make 20mm rounds?).

 EnTyme wrote:
So daemons are the only ones then (does GW even make 20mm rounds?).

No. Only squares were 20mm. The smallest rounds are 25mm.

No demons aren't the only ones.

Chaos warriors and those things like chaos warriors went from 25 to 32s.

I also have a ton of 4th edition imperial guardsmen on 20mm rounds. They are smaller than the 25s. In fact i still have old chaos terminators on the 20mm rounds and my bitz box has several dozen of the old 20mm rounds. Some have slotta tabs cut into them. Some don't.

Before the basing guide became a thing I know several people that rebased their human armies and their undead armies on the 20mm rounds and when skeletons went to 25mm some people threw a fit because they had to rebase their entire undead collection again.

auticus wrote:
The GHB this year put an "official base size" chart in play for matched play (also known as how everyone in the world except for 1% plays)

Which means next year they can adjust it how they see fit.

Most of my chaos army went from 25mm to 32mm bases. All of my warriors, all of my demon infantry (bloodletters, plague bearers, daemonettes), all of my infantry heroes. The only ones spared were my marauders who stay on 25mm. That is a quite sizable chunk of my collection.

Additionally my entire skeleton collection (we'll call them tomb kings) went from 20mm squares to 25mm rounds.

Those are my two primary forces.

Its not going to be a stretch to say that when dark elves get looked at that they also go from 20 to 25mm. They may already be 25mm, I haven't checked the chart though.

Essentially if you have a legacy collection, you will likely have to do some rebasing from what I have seen. The new models especially went from 28mm heroic to 32mm scale and seem to very commonly up the base size from either 20 to 25, or 25 to 32.

It is not a stretch to go base my dark elves on 20mm rounds for example, and then have a release next year put them on 25s.

Just letting ya know, Daemonettes are still 25s, though 32s would help keep them from falling as much.

auticus wrote:
Every demon foot troop in the game was on 25mm squares or rounds in 40k and is now on 32 mm rounds.

Skeletons went from 20mm to 25mm rounds with no increase in model size. So if you rebased your 20mm squares to 20mm rounds (a lot of people did this) you were hosed.

The base chart came out "officially" three years after the game was released. There was quite a bit of base increase across the board in those three years.

I will PROMISE that there will be base adjustments made as legacy forces get pushed out with new books.

The 3 daemons did bump in size. I didn't realize they had and that is the only thing that has increased after a repack/release since AoS dropped. Skeletons never changed size. They went on the smallest similar base that existed and made by GW. So if you based on them on 25's (closest GW base to a 20mm) then you guess right but they haven't changed since their repack. As for Chaos Warriors they were the first models rereleased with AoS and have been on the same sized base since that repack.

The list came out because they are not requiring rebasing for their competitive events. You didn't NEED to rebase until this year. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

 Hulksmash wrote:


The list came out because they are not requiring rebasing for their competitive events. You didn't NEED to rebase until this year. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

Lots of tournaments did. That's why I never attended any. Long drive + need to rebase was a no-no, my minis stay on their squares.

The new chaos warrior box that I bought back in the spring had them on 32s. They look ridiculously stupid next to the other ones I have that are on 25 squares, so I put them on 25 rounds instead.

Were they boxed wrong? Maybe? My original AOS starter box had everything on 25s and then the second box I saw there were 32s so that first box was boxed wrong. But I still got a box of chaos warriors they wanted me to put on 32 rounds which looked stupid.

You didn't NEED to rebase until this year. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

You still don't NEED to rebase. Unless you are a tournament player. This was true in 2016 and 2017 as well. At least here. You had to have rounds in 2016 at competitive events in my region.

My campaigns were the only ones you didn't need to rebase on, and they took holy hell for that from a handful of the pro-circuit guys but our GW manager has let me continue with keeping the original bases on models because thats the company policy.

I dont see having to rebase my entire collection as a molehill. Its quite a bit of work. Additionally if I want to use a legacy army that are on 20mm bases you already know they'll be on the 25s and then if they pull something like the Blood Warriors on you just don't bother with your older models and buy in to the new ones to save yourself the hassle and time.

Expecting that an official ruling from big tournaments won't be enforced locally is like expecting people to be ok with house rules. Technicly possible, but a dangerous thing to do with something that can cost 700$ up.

Can anyone explain to me why some legacy armies are so unpopular in AoS? The number of dark elf or egyptian undead armies on the polish trade facebook page easily doubles or triples the number of stormcasts being sold. Also unlike with other armies, the people that sell them only do bulk, no single models or single units.

Tomb Kings are currently not even in the game any more except through legacy rules. Meanwhile Dark Elves and a lot of the Elf and human factions are very broken up into subfactions at present and need sorting out by GW in terms of giving them a long lasting future.

AoS is a bit of a mess in that regard and its a big reason I hope that with 40K having got nearly their entire range updated, 2019 is going to be a big year for updating AoS Battletomes.

auticus wrote:
The new chaos warrior box that I bought back in the spring had them on 32s. They look ridiculously stupid next to the other ones I have that are on 25 squares, so I put them on 25 rounds instead.

Were they boxed wrong? Maybe? My original AOS starter box had everything on 25s and then the second box I saw there were 32s so that first box was boxed wrong. But I still got a box of chaos warriors they wanted me to put on 32 rounds which looked stupid.

You didn't NEED to rebase until this year. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

You still don't NEED to rebase. Unless you are a tournament player. This was true in 2016 and 2017 as well. At least here. You had to have rounds in 2016 at competitive events in my region.

My campaigns were the only ones you didn't need to rebase on, and they took holy hell for that from a handful of the pro-circuit guys but our GW manager has let me continue with keeping the original bases on models because thats the company policy.

I dont see having to rebase my entire collection as a molehill. Its quite a bit of work. Additionally if I want to use a legacy army that are on 20mm bases you already know they'll be on the 25s and then if they pull something like the Blood Warriors on you just don't bother with your older models and buy in to the new ones to save yourself the hassle and time.

At what point were Chaos Warriors on 25mm bases? I bought mine shortly after AoS launched and they came with 32mm rounds. And if you're referring to the AoS starter with Bloodbound and Stormcast, it came with 32mm rounds for the Bloodbound (and a 60mm for the Lord of Khorne) and 40mm for the Stormcast.

*edit* I re-read your post, and now I see what you're saying. You guessed wrong on what size base the Warriors were going to be on and put them on 25mm rounds. Don't blame GW for that.

Well they were on 25mm squares. They didn't get larger. Thats the crux of the whole issue. Until a faction gets s proper release... you have no idea what size rounds they will finally end up on.

But if you want to use them RIGHT NOW you have to rebase them RIGHT NOW. Which is why I wont' rebase a single model of my existing collection. Nor in 20 years will I ever rebase a model. I put too much time into my models to have to just rebase them in the future when GW decides they need to go to a bigger base size just because.

Which again isn't a problem unless you're going to be going to some tournament which will enforce you to rebase your entire collection to adhere to the new chart. Which I am not ever planning on doing so is a wash anyway.

and to bring this back to where it came from, this started with discussing having to rebase existing squares, to which I stated unless you are playing tournaments its not really a requirement, and then this was said which led us down the current conversation path:

Did I miss a controversy somewhere? Other than some units going up from 25mm to 32mm, I can't remember GW upping base sizes, and never with a GHB.

Indeed there were a numberr of models that went from 25mm squares to 32mm rounds, and from 20mm squares to 25mm rounds, and some people still have 20mm rounds and put their 20mm squares on 20mm rounds and then found out that everything is at a min 25mm rounds. And while it is "no ones' fault but yours for guessing wrong", having to rebase an entire collection is still only a requirement if you are playing in tournaments, and the entire base controversy itself with models going from 25 to 32s or 20 to 25 can be confusing in and of itself for many people who were involved before AOS and have older models, or indeed buy older models like chaos warriors or demons that were boxed pre-AOS and are on 25mm rounds (I still have a closet full of demon infantry boxes with 25mm rounds that I bought in 2016 at my GW store, which was after AOS released and the slaaneshi demon cast to order a few months ago shipped them ... with 25mm rounds. And this was 2018.

Now having gotten them I know if I want to use them in a tournament I should base them on 32s... but lets care to guess how many newer players are going to pick those boxes up and just glue their guys on the base in the box and then be told by someone that they are modeling for advantage and they can get a couple extra guys in combat and they shouldn't be allowed to play until they rebase? (I've heard that exact conversation a good dozen times in the past year)

Several heroes have had base size increases with the base size chart document. Festus the Leechlord still comes with a 32mm base despite the chart calling out a 40mm base for him, for example.

I didn't even realize that lol. My Festus is still on his 25. That would have been fun rebasing to a 32 and then find out he's now illegal and needs redone to a 40.

Especially as a character where we usually spend a lot more time than normal on the hobbying aspect.

Jacksmiles wrote:
Several heroes have had base size increases with the base size chart document. Festus the Leechlord still comes with a 32mm base despite the chart calling out a 40mm base for him, for example.

The base size chart was very random, like all ogors foing to 50mm. GW listened to feedback and changed many bases to the proper ones, but yeah.

Most kits that go from square to round have gonne up a size... (20mm square to 25mm round, 25mm square to 32mm round, etc...) but then heroes have gained an extra step in the chart.

Again, you guessed wrong on the base size, then blamed GW. GW doesn't even make 20mm rounds anymore, so thinking that would be the "correct" size doesn't make sense. You also don't have to look very far to see that nearly every model that was previously on a 25mm square went to a 32mm round. Why? Geometry. On square bases, 25mm refers to the vertices, but on a round, 25mm refers to the diameter. The "diameter" of a square base at its widest point (diagonally) would be just over 35mm. Technically, the base size decreased. (And I thought I'd never need the Pythagorean Theorem). I do agree that hero base sizes don't seem to have any rhyme or reason, though.

Its not consistent in the least. Here's one example.

In a chaos army, we have marauders and we have chaos warriors. Both on 25mm squares.

In AOS marauders are on 25mm rounds and chaos warriors are on 32mm rounds. Neither model increased in size physically.

Now if *all* 25mm squares went to 32mm rounds, that would be something valid. But they didn't. Some of them went up. Some of them stayed the same. Much like hero bases. It is not consistent in the least bit.

Screamers of Tzeentch going to 60mm from 25mm flying bases was an odd choice too. Edit: Although those are the only sizes of flying bases right? Still. That's a huge jump.

auticus wrote:
Its not consistent in the least. Here's one example.

In a chaos army, we have marauders and we have chaos warriors. Both on 25mm squares.

In AOS marauders are on 25mm rounds and chaos warriors are on 32mm rounds. Neither model increased in size physically.

Now if *all* 25mm squares went to 32mm rounds, that would be something valid. But they didn't. Some of them went up. Some of them stayed the same. Much like hero bases. It is not consistent in the least bit.

And what does that have to do with your assumption that GW is going to be wildly changing base sizes with every GHB? As far as I can tell, when a model kit was updated for AoS, they chose a round base size for that kit, and that hasn't changed since (with the one exception being daemon troops). This year, they released a chart for all the models who haven't had an "official" round base size yet and only changed a few when fans (justifiably) complained about some of the base sizes not making sense. On what grounds are you asserting GW is going to be changing base sizes again? This is important because this entire thread is about reasons people might not want to play AoS, so if you're going to make a claim that might discourage someone from playing the game, you need to be able to back it up.

I don’t play Sigmar, because I got squatted (Bretonnia), and then when I decided to get back in, I lost Free People Keyword. And even if I don’t think the system is bad, I’m still feeling burnt. Espacially sense I also play Black Templars, and I lost my codex during Sixth. And during 7th/8th WHFB, steadfast rules made Bretonnia frankly unplayable as intended.

If they rerelease a generic human knight kit, and moved the Bretonnia Range/Keywords back to Free People. I’d think long and hard about coming back. And would likely do so. But the core issue is that I have to rebuild my army from scratch and my bretonnains while better rule wise then they were in late fantasy still feel overcosted. And then the nerfs to Pegasus Knights happened last year, which are my favorite models in the Bretonnia range.

So? Why not? Well because I was badly burnt. I might come back eventually, but I’d need a human knight kit back atleast.

On what grounds are you asserting GW is going to be changing base sizes again?

so if you're going to make a claim that might discourage someone from playing the game, you need to be able to back it up.

Easy. When the GHB dropped with the new base chart, there were items that changed base size (like the heroes).

There is nothing stopping them from adjusting that chart as needed.

They changed base sizes inconsistently on the game dropping. For example marauders and chaos warriors on 25mm squares, the warriors went to 32s.

They have changed base sizes incrementally as kits have been reboxed. Ex: reboxing chaos demon infantry moved them all to 32s from 25s.

They still send models out with the wrong base sizes. Examples being the made to order demonettes this year coming with 25mm bases, so you need to be up on what the bases for all models should be and not assume what comes in the box is correct.

It is not outside of the realm of possibility that the models you have today, even those released post-AOS, will come with bases that are not correct tomorrow and you will be forced to rebase if you are a tournament player. Ex being the stack of demon infantry I have boxed that came with 25mm rounds plus the made to order demonettes I have that came with 25mm rounds all in the post-AOS world sold either at my local GW store or on the website made to order.

It is not outside the realm of possibility if you have models that come from WHFB that your faction when it gets a new book finally will see those models get bumped up in base size , so if you are using legacy models and they are on 25s and you put them on 25s, they could jump to 32s. Or your heroes could jump to whatever GW decides they should jump to as some of them did this year with the new base chart.

If you are using only new models from new factions then you are probably fine. If you think the above is a rare chance, and you don't care, then bless you and I hope your good fortune stays with you.

Additionally some people just don't care about rebasing and will do it and it doesn't bother them. Bless them as well.

Karol wrote:
.

Can anyone explain to me why some legacy armies are so unpopular in AoS? The number of dark elf or egyptian undead armies on the polish trade facebook page easily doubles or triples the number of stormcasts being sold. Also unlike with other armies, the people that sell them only do bulk, no single models or single units.

Do you have a link? Tomb Kings sell for stupid money (like 150 Euro for an unopened battalion box) ushabtis also sell for over what they used to cost when available.

If there are good deals I'd love to have a look.

There were like two full DE armies on targowisko and I have seen some big monsters being sold a few weeks ago.

Legacy armies would be unpopular in AOS simply because they are typically not competitively viable and people understandably don't like playing with an army that has no shot at winning a game in a competitive environment. Second-hand markets are usually always full of armies that are regarded as weak, or armies that just received the nerf-bat from an FAQ or points change.

auticus wrote:
Legacy armies would be unpopular in AOS simply because they are typically not competitively viable and people understandably don't like playing with an army that has no shot at winning a game in a competitive environment. Second-hand markets are usually always full of armies that are regarded as weak, or armies that just received the nerf-bat from an FAQ or points change.

Tournaments are restrictive anyways; even among the handful tourney viable armies there are only a handful of viable builds. A bigger issue for many legacy armies is not being competent even casually; there are only a few non-battletome armies that can show up and not be sub-par in just a casual setting, and those armies do not look like they did in WHFB. The end result is a legacy army, while technically playable, does not make a functional army for many players.

Hopefully 2019 is the year of AoS releases like 2018 was the year of 40K releases; which should fix many battletome lacking armies. Just look at the huge wave of life that the new Beasts of Chaos Battletome has given to a multitude of minor factions that were put together to form the new Beast Herds of Chaos

If they could produce some more books in 2019 and bring a lot of these legacy armies up to par, that would make a huge difference.

auticus wrote:
If they could produce some more books in 2019 and bring a lot of these legacy armies up to par, that would make a huge difference.

I am partly thinking it better if the bulk of the legacy forces get re-envisioned to be more AoS. but I am kinda on the fence on that.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Again, that's personal to you. I was pleased in the idea that my own (large and themed) armies could now play multiple different armies and play styles without having to buy anything new for them. It was fun to have new tricks for old dogs.

Except that for example high elves splitting into many doesn't really give coherent army. 3-4 choice per army does not interesting army make.

Karol wrote:
There were like two full DE armies on targowisko and I have seen some big monsters being sold a few weeks ago.

Don't care much about DE but if there are cheap TK for sale I'd take as many as I could.

tneva82 wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Again, that's personal to you. I was pleased in the idea that my own (large and themed) armies could now play multiple different armies and play styles without having to buy anything new for them. It was fun to have new tricks for old dogs.

Except that for example high elves splitting into many doesn't really give coherent army. 3-4 choice per army does not interesting army make.

To you, maybe. My High Elves are 85% Chrace themed. The idea of breaking down the army to 3-4 choices was actually very interesting tactically, having to play up the armies strengths and really having to work around their weaknesses.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Again, that's personal to you. I was pleased in the idea that my own (large and themed) armies could now play multiple different armies and play styles without having to buy anything new for them. It was fun to have new tricks for old dogs.

Except that for example high elves splitting into many doesn't really give coherent army. 3-4 choice per army does not interesting army make.

To you, maybe. My High Elves are 85% Chrace themed. The idea of breaking down the army to 3-4 choices was actually very interesting tactically, having to play up the armies strengths and really having to work around their weaknesses.

Funny you mention that. Do I add to my army lion warriors or do I add to my army lion charriots. What a choice! What an AMAZING choice! Whopping two units.

Even my chrace themed high elves had more variety than that...

Dial it back a bit, it makes it irritating to try and talk to you otherwise.

But like I said, your choice. I actually ran the Lion Rangers list a few times now and yes it is limited. But it is also very tactical. I really enjoyed having to actually think about all possibilities and how I can counter my opponent with the list at hand. I would suggest you try it a few times before complaining and then come back with an informed opinion.

Honestly factions with only 2 models in them are just waiting for updates of some kind. The only viable way to run many of them is as either allies to a larger faction or as a Grand Alliance group where you pick from a wide spread of units without faction abilities.

Otherwise if you love them by all means go for the, but its very clear that its not the way GW intends to market their armies long term. 2 models isn't much diversity when you consider that you've at least got to take battleline and then are limited to only 1/4 allies to add any variety.

 Geemoney wrote:
I don't think the game is very fun. My experience with Iron Jawz is charge everything and then lose because all the other armies are better then yours in combat.

That's my main problem with it.

I love the models, I think the factions are cool, I enjoy the new setting and the lore, however I don't particularly enjoy the game or how some armies look and function on the tabletop (more like gangs of models buffing each other than armies).

I gave it an honest shot for a good while (over 2 years!), but it didn't win me over sadly. I really wanted to like it!

During WFB 8th edition I had already jumped into KoW for my fantasy fix. So it would take a lot for AoS to convert me over. I have tried it and just found it lacking, it isn't due to a simple system as I am a big fan of Dragon Rampant; which could be argued is a simpler system.

I like some of the newer models, but I think what puts me off is the high fantasy aspect. I really like fantasy, more than I do sci-fi for miniature and board gaming. It could be the over the top high fantasy that puts me off, my age demographic grew up on LotR, not M:TG, Pokémon, and Yu-Gi-Oh. I much prefer a subtle fantasy that is firmly based in the Medieval time period.

Thats definitely a common issue that I hear locally. The high fantasy akin to magic the gathering vs the lower fantasy ala LOTR.

But they also support LOTR as a game system so they have both their uber high heavy metal fantasy and their low LOTR fantasy systems.

Since when did JRR Tolkien become "low" fantasy?

gaks got talking trees and undead armies! Low fantasy my shiny white patooshie.

 darkcloak wrote:
Since when did JRR Tolkien become "low" fantasy?

gaks got talking trees and undead armies! Low fantasy my shiny white patooshie.

No one said it was low fantasy, but rather a subtle less over the top fantasy. AoS looks to be inspired by things like M:TG. Where everything is powerful looking and lifted from a 80's heavy metal album artwork.

LotR is more about the measure of the character, inner strength, while also being in a world with magic, it just happens to be less about spectacle.

Tolkien's magics are low end in that most of the mages are not actually throwing that much magic around, Gandalf hardly casts many spells and only does so when he really must (he's more likely to cast spells whilst blowing smoke rings than he is to cast them in battles). There's only one dragon of note in all the lands, one balrog, a giant spider and a few others. Even when the Ents march to war they say its probably their last time to do so as their race is slowly ebbing away.

Elves leave the shores of Middle Earth almost down to the last handful who remain; and they don't come to war on the side of humans; whilst Dwarves are a shattered race, not totally so, but they are not in the best of condition.


It's reasonably low fantasy when you compare it to something like Malazan, DnD or a lot of other more epic high fantasy stories of today. I think Lord of the Rings sort of sneaks around being labelled as "low fantasy" because its such a massive gateway book into fantasy itself for many and also a huge cornerstone of many inspirations and derivative works.



Also keeping in mind that low and high are only rough measures used to give a feel for the level of magic in a story and that there are multiple ways to interpret it

Lord of the Rings is what most would consider low-magic high-fantasy. Magic is hard to come by and powerful, and the world is significantly different from ours. The Old World setting would be high-magic high-fantasy (though several of the stories like Gotrek and Felix probably fall into the low-fantasy category). The best classification of Age of Sigmar would be epic fantasy (the more recent developments are actually moving closer to high-fantasy). It takes a lot of cues from Norse mythology. Most of the novels and short stories that have come out-though, focus more on the "common man", so I would classify them more as high-fantasy.

 darkcloak wrote:
Since when did JRR Tolkien become "low" fantasy?

gaks got talking trees and undead armies! Low fantasy my shiny white patooshie.

By that metric, is Conan the Barbarian high fantasy?

High and low are only rough guides at best and some series manage to combine both, Game of Thrones starts out exceptionally low fantasy and yet builds up; Robin Hobb's Farseer world is quite similar, though it starts a little further up, but by the end is heading into full high fantasy.

Some can even be deceptive, Dragonriders of Pern can appear to be quite high fantasy and yet technically its a sci-fi story. Meanwhile Discworld is, in my view, one of the few going from a high fantasy to low fantasy age!

Put another way... one is set in a world very similar to ours, has relateable inhabitants, and has physics etc that are close to what we would understand.

The other comes straight from magic the gathering, or final fantasy, and the worlds are wholly alien, the styles wholly alien, and magic is as common as iron.

Call them whatever you wish.

Personally I think AoS is best described as HM Fantasy - Heavy Metal fantasy

 Overread wrote:
Personally I think AoS is best described as HM Fantasy - Heavy Metal fantasy

I think that is definitely more on point, heavy metal fantasy

 Overread wrote:
Personally I think AoS is best described as HM Fantasy - Heavy Metal fantasy

Wouldn't that be Heavy Plastic Fantasy? eh?

 Charistoph wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Personally I think AoS is best described as HM Fantasy - Heavy Metal fantasy

Wouldn't that be Heavy Plastic Fantasy? eh?

You can take the metal from the model but you can't take the metal from the mould its cast from. With fire and heat and metal is AoS forged unto the battlefields!

 Overread wrote:
Personally I think AoS is best described as HM Fantasy - Heavy Metal fantasy

Easily recognizable attributes are high pitched vocals and fabulous hair of the leading singer.

Just because someone said "low fantasy" doesn't mean it in a derogatory way. So saying Lord of the Rings is low fantasy compared to Age of Sigmar high fantasy doesn't mean AoS is better than LotR.

The way I took it is that AoS is so much in your face comic book like while LotR is more subtle and real life like.

It's like Heavy Metal and Classical mucis. Both are great. Both are the same (music), yet different (how it's presented).

Both can be in your face and both can be subtle. One is more in your face the other is more subtle.

Personally I am finding it just as rewarding to play games with friends that use the setting and minis, but with different rules. I'm just not a fan of all the rules material and how it's presented. There are other indie rulesets out there that I find just as rewarding.

Heavy metal indeed. I need to make some Rob Halford slaanesh demons and a stage.

I tried AoS back when it first came out, and it just seemed like a collection of terrible rules and horrible design. Off the top of my head:

- There were no point values, so my friend and I had to just shove a load of stuff on the table and hope our forces ended up remotely balanced.

- I was using Vampire Counts (or whatever pretentious name they're calling themselves these days), and trying to navigate that many models was an exercise in pulling teeth.

- The turn system meant that one of us could get two turns in a row. Because I always love flipping a coin each turn to see whether one player gets to win the game.

- The system wherein models measure to other models (rather than to each other's bases) is quite possible the worst piece of game design I have ever witnessed.

- Seriously, making charge and pile-in moves for 40 Ghouls and 80 Skeletons is the least fun I have ever had in something purporting to be a game.


Now, I appreciate that the rules may have changed since then, so have any of the above been addressed?


Also, I used to play Vampire Counts and actually converted a Ghoul King to have Wings (Flying Horror was one of my favourite vampire powers). However, I went on the GW site the other day and I couldn't even find the rules for a Ghoul King on foot. Do they even still exist? And, if so, is my Winged guy still valid?

 vipoid wrote:
I tried AoS back when it first came out, and it just seemed like a collection of terrible rules and horrible design. Off the top of my head:

- There were no point values, so my friend and I had to just shove a load of stuff on the table and hope our forces ended up remotely balanced.

- I was using Vampire Counts (or whatever pretentious name they're calling themselves these days), and trying to navigate that many models was an exercise in pulling teeth.

- The turn system meant that one of us could get two turns in a row. Because I always love flipping a coin each turn to see whether one player gets to win the game.

- The system wherein models measure to other models (rather than to each other's bases) is quite possible the worst piece of game design I have ever witnessed.

- Seriously, making charge and pile-in moves for 40 Ghouls and 80 Skeletons is the least fun I have ever had in something purporting to be a game.


Now, I appreciate that the rules may have changed since then, so have any of the above been addressed?


Also, I used to play Vampire Counts and actually converted a Ghoul King to have Wings (Flying Horror was one of my favourite vampire powers). However, I went on the GW site the other day and I couldn't even find the rules for a Ghoul King on foot. Do they even still exist? And, if so, is my Winged guy still valid?

There are rules for a King on foot but not I think a flying one :( and no real artefacts to make it work

http://whfb.lexicanum.com/wiki/Abhorrant_Ghoul_King

http://whfb.lexicanum.com/wiki/Flesh-Eater_Courts

 Mr Morden wrote:

There are rules for a King on foot but not I think a flying one :( and no real artefacts to make it work

Thanks for the links but that's disappointing, to say the least.



Well, already my favourite model is invalid. I guess we've already found another answer for the thread's title.

AoS has formal rules and points now, just like 40K.

The long term plan is that each faction will have a Battletome (Codex) within which are their faction traits, abilities, spell lores, warscrolls, battalions (formations) and points for matched play as well as the allies they can take (limited in points and count and also limited on faction).


Currently there is still a little bit of a mess. Soulblight and Flesheater Courts would be where vampires are located now (split across both) and they can take each others forces as allies. Flesheater Courts have their very own Battletome* so that would be the ideal starting point for them.
Other places for warscrolls and points (eg soulblight)

1) On the store page in the downloads section for each unit
2) On Lexicanum as linked above.
3) Their points are all in the free Warscroll builder here
https://www.warhammer-community.com/warscroll-builder/


The doubleturn is still part of the game, but is no longer an auto win/lose mechanic. Indeed I see rare complaints about it in general from those who actively play the game. It's still a point of contention for some, but its not utterly broken (or at least its not enough of an issue to generate vast pages of threads complaining about it in AoS groups)

Otherwise the rules have tightened up a lot and many enjoy the game. It's lost the rank and file aspect, but you've gained in that now you can play on more dense terrain tabletops. Plus they've introduced new things like the Endless Spells; spells that you pay for like models and which, when cast, appear on the table as an actual model. There's Malign Sorcery, whcih is a boxed set which has rules and models for all Endless Spells barring the Balewind Vortex. In addition most factions will get their own unique Endless Spells (in time).


Errata and FAQ
https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/age_of_sigmar_flesh-eater_courts_errata_en-1.pdf

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/age_of_sigmar_flesh-eater_courts_designers_commentary_en.pdf

So, to be clear, if I have a unit of 80 skeletons, I still have to move them and do pile-in moves with them as individual models? (i.e. no movement trays)

Also, you mentioned Allies, but how do these work in AoS? It will be rather annoying if I'm going to be penalised for the crime of playing what used to be a single army.

Yes each model moves on its own, but you can still use a movement tray if you want. You might use it early on and then move off the tray once you're getting into close combat or into tighter terrain features. But yes if you take a hoard army you're moving hoard models that's how it is.

As for allies its runs on a few levels
1) Faction traits and abilities. Each faction has its own traits and abilities. If you run a Faction Flesh Eater Courts you get those abilities for your army. These can be quite significant abilities and often very desirable. So there's an instant bonus to running mono-faction.

2) Within a faction you can also take allies from select other forces within the Grand Alliance that they are part of. This can include any army, but varies army to army. Eg Stormcast can ally with any army in Order, but Daughters of Khaine are limited to just the old Dark Elf based factions.
You are also limited to 1 in 4 units and on points, so at 2K points you can only take 400 in allied units.

Note even if you take allies you still get your faction traits and abilities, but they might not all work on your allied units (it relies on keywords - eg an ability might be for all Stormcast units, so any allies might not get any bonus).


3) You can run a Grand Alliance army with any alliance models -as they'd all have the same key word. But doing so means that you are limited to the Grand Alliance artifacts, traits and abilities (listed in the big rule book). This is often done for armies that are still without a battletome and might be quite shattered, but which old collections make viable.
You'd also miss out on spell lores as Wizards can only use spells defined in their Alliance Battletome - so allied wizards can't use a school of magic and can only use the magical abilities on their warscroll.



So in general allies are part of the game, but they are well curtailed to be a flavour not a must have.

I have to be honest, everything I'm hearing is making me think I made the right decision by abandoning Age of Sigmar.

Honestly I'd say go read the Flesh Courts Battletome in your local store and try a demo game or two. Sometimes things sound worse in words than they are in reality.

The only major issue AoS has at present is that it is still in transition from the Kirby Era mess at launch to a more structured current era setup - which should be all the faster now that GW isn't having to pump out 40K codex every month

 vipoid wrote:
I have to be honest, everything I'm hearing is making me think I made the right decision by abandoning Age of Sigmar.

I hope you did not expect to hear anything positive in a thread about why AoS sucks?

 Overread wrote:
Honestly I'd say go read the Flesh Courts Battletome in your local store and try a demo game or two. Sometimes things sound worse in words than they are in reality.

You say that some things are worse in words, but you're ignoring the fact that I already tried this game.

Moving 80 skeletons when they're not allowed to stay on a movement tray isn't a case of 'it sounds bad in words' it's a case of 'this is absolutely obnoxious to play'. I literally tried this very thing when AoS first came out and it was one of the things that made me despise it.

Furthermore, one of the things I brought up was that I can't actually use my Winged Ghoul King. How the hell will playing change that? Does playing enough games of AoS unlock the option to take Wings on him?

Finally, you're saying to play Flesh Eater Courts. Okay... what about the rest of my army? As far as I can see, Flesh Eater Courts don't include Necromancers, Vampires, Wraiths, Banshees, Skeletons, Grave Guard, Zombies, Corpse Carts etc. Do I now get to keep 2/3 of my army on the shelf because I didn't have the foresight to know GW would split it into 3+ different factions several years down the line?

- There were no point values, so my friend and I had to just shove a load of stuff on the table and hope our forces ended up remotely balanced.

Points aren't making 40k or AOS balanced. They are just a structure you use to build armies within. The main goal of listbuilding is breaking balance anyway.

The doubleturn is still part of the game, but is no longer an auto win/lose mechanic. Indeed I see rare complaints about it in general from those who actively play the game.

The double-turn is as potent as it always was. There are rare complaints these days simply because its been around for so long that people have accepted it as part of the game now and those that really hate it don't play the game so you don't hear their complaints. In the games I play in, the double-turn is still responsible for most of the conclusions of our games, particularly combined with spamming mortal wounds. If you can bring 40+ mortal wounds to the table and get them in position to go off, it is a rare army that can survive two of that to the face in a row. Game wise the biggest issues that I encounter are the balance being very poor where guys will build a tournament list and then run roughshod over guys trying to use their legacy army that doesn't have an updated book yet. Even the armies that have books can also be middle of the road compared to a few of the armies.

I'd like to point out here though that that is not new with Age of Sigmar. That is how WHFB and 40k have operated since the beginning of time.

Now as to movement trays, nothing stops you from putting your units in movement trays and using them that way. Its just that it will come to apoint where they will need to abandon the movement tray once combat gets going and whether or not that is a plus or negative will depend on you. I lean more towards your opinion that it can be a little obnoxious, and really prefer Age of Sigmar with low model count simply because it takes a LONG time to shuffle forward a lot of models one by one. I truly miss ranked up armies simply because moving a few elements in movement trays is a lot more convenient. Not a death knell to the game but it is a tiny bit annoying.

Your ghoul king can still be used. Its just that... the split up of the army and the way the rules are are not clear and can be very confusing. It is a regular thing that I have to explain on the weekly in our campaign.

You'd play a Legion of Nagash army and ally in your ghoul king. However if he doesn't have the fly option then indeed he no longer flies. Unless you are playing in a group that lets you houserule, but I understand how toxic people and groups can get with that word being used so that will depend on your own personal situation.

 vipoid wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Honestly I'd say go read the Flesh Courts Battletome in your local store and try a demo game or two. Sometimes things sound worse in words than they are in reality.

You say that some things are worse in words, but you're ignoring the fact that I already tried this game.

Moving 80 skeletons when they're not allowed to stay on a movement tray isn't a case of 'it sounds bad in words' it's a case of 'this is absolutely obnoxious to play'. I literally tried this very thing when AoS first came out and it was one of the things that made me despise it.

Furthermore, one of the things I brought up was that I can't actually use my Winged Ghoul King. How the hell will playing change that? Does playing enough games of AoS unlock the option to take Wings on him?

Finally, you're saying to play Flesh Eater Courts. Okay... what about the rest of my army? As far as I can see, Flesh Eater Courts don't include Necromancers, Vampires, Wraiths, Banshees, Skeletons, Grave Guard, Zombies, Corpse Carts etc. Do I now get to keep 2/3 of my army on the shelf because I didn't have the foresight to know GW would split it into 3+ different factions several years down the line?

Like I said the game at launch and the game now are two totally separate entities.They are worlds apart from each other. Which is why I suggested going to play. I agree that the game at launch was a disaster and a mess, but its changed a lot since then.

The Vampires were split yes, I said Flesheater Courts had a Battletome (ergo they are more up to date) but that Soulblight was another key part with the vampires within it and that chances are you'd probably take one half and then ally the other in or go for a grand alliance death army. I'm not best versed in Death and how it works balance/game wise so I can't really say anything specific on that beyond the general.

Spiky Norman - well that depends on if people read the title and opening post or just the title and make assumptions

For an undead army you can play them as either Flesh Eater Courts, Legions of Nagash, or Death. There are also realm artifacts that allow your ghoul king to fly, AND it make him faster. Hell sometimes a cool conversion is all you really need. I'm making a female lord of Chaos by proxying a new harpy model from Daughters of Khaine. The Chaos Lord doesn't have wings, but mine will. Will she actually fly? Probably not, but I might put an artefact on her to allow her to fly form time to time, other times she will be slowly moving up those 5" she gets.

Carnith wrote:
For an undead army you can play them as either Flesh Eater Courts, Legions of Nagash, or Death. There are also realm artifacts that allow your ghoul king to fly, AND it make him faster. Hell sometimes a cool conversion is all you really need. I'm making a female lord of Chaos by proxying a new harpy model from Daughters of Khaine. The Chaos Lord doesn't have wings, but mine will. Will she actually fly? Probably not, but I might put an artefact on her to allow her to fly form time to time, other times she will be slowly moving up those 5" she gets.

I want to make a winged Shadowblade Assassin since I figure half the time I use the I'll be putting them in a group of Khinerai flying onto the battlefield - so give her wings even though stat wise the assassin has no wings at all. Purely for flavour of the army.

 Overread wrote:

Like I said the game at launch and the game now are two totally separate entities.They are worlds apart from each other. Which is why I suggested going to play. I agree that the game at launch was a disaster and a mess, but its changed a lot since then.

The Vampires were split yes, I said Flesheater Courts had a Battletome (ergo they are more up to date) but that Soulblight was another key part with the vampires within it and that chances are you'd probably take one half and then ally the other in or go for a grand alliance death army. I'm not best versed in Death and how it works balance/game wise so I can't really say anything specific on that beyond the general.

I'm hearing that the game has improved, but it still seems like my army is boned before I even start.


Alright, I've got one more question. Let's say I pick a Vampire Lord as my general (since my Winged Ghoul King model is now worthless), is there any way I can actually protect him? Aside from just having him be so far back as to be worthless. I'll admit that I've only had a quick look at the rules, but I can't see anything that would stop the enemy targetting him even if he's behind a legion of skeletons, so long as they can see a square nanometer of his shoulder. And I could be wrong, but 5 wounds and a 4+ save (and no ward save or FNP) seems insanely squishy for a Vampire Lord who can no longer hide in units.

Am I missing something?

 Just Tony wrote:

 darkcloak wrote:
Since when did JRR Tolkien become "low" fantasy?

gaks got talking trees and undead armies! Low fantasy my shiny white patooshie.

By that metric, is Conan the Barbarian high fantasy?

Um, that's totally out to lunch, mate. Haha, Lunchmate. That idea is so silly you could dip it in Cheez.

If we are talking about traditional 'high' and 'low' fantasy where HF is the realm of magic, mythical creatures and suchlike and LF is more mundane, realistic and whatnot, then by that metric Conan would actually be low fantasy.

Conan, as originally written by Robert E. Howard is very much the story of an uncompromising man facing the harsh realities of his world. There is magic and myth involved but it is portrayed as rare. It's involvement in the story serves as a catalyst for change which the main character must react to. Conan does not use a magic sword or ride a dragon. Low Fantasy.

Peregrin Took and Meriadoc Brandybuck ride to the Ent Moot on the shoulder of a giant sentient tree. An Ent. Tolkien created an entire language for use by a race of Elves. Also, The Silmarillion is kind of a thing. High Fantasy.

I think TV may have spoiled a few things for people over the years. Seriously, go read all of Tolkien's stuff if you haven't already. As well as original REH penned Conan. Hour of the Dragon in particular stands out as the first and only novel actually written by Robert himself.


Now back to the topic at hand. No, I don't Rend -2 is better than Damage 3 on a lesser Rend.

Carnith wrote:
For an undead army you can play them as either Flesh Eater Courts, Legions of Nagash, or Death.

How does this work, then?

Does one of those let me use all the stuff from the old Vampire Counts army without incurring penalties for it?

Carnith wrote:
There are also realm artifacts that allow your ghoul king to fly, AND it make him faster.

What are realm artefacts then?

I'm not entirely sure what your undead collection consists of, but if it doesn't include any of the new ghosts, you have 2 main choices: Legions of Nagash or Flesh-eater courts. If you chose a legions of Nagash list, you essentially use all of the old VC army, except for the strigoi bloodline... If you select Flesh-eater courts, you essentially only select strigoi stuff, varghulfs, ghouls etc. You can still add small amounts in cross factions, but they are considered allies. Just a sidenote: you never incure penalties in AoS for mixing things, you do get bonuses (a lot sometimes) for sticking with themed armies.



If you have an old "generic" VC army, you can pretty much make a whole host of decent Legions of Nagash lists these days. Your options would be:

- Grand host of Nagash: You can take whatever you want, but your army will typically include lots of skeletons, grave guard, maybe some of the new morghasts and possibly even Nagash. This faction tends to buff your "bone units" to insane heights and excels at attrition warfare. This can include any mortarch and you have to select this if you take Nagash himself.
- Legion of Sacrament: you can include anything you want, but you get bonuses to spell casting, so logically, you'll want to include lots of wizards (vampires or necromancers) to make the most out of your bonuses. This is Arkan the black's legion.
- Legion of Night: you can take whatever you want, but this is an army that relies on ambush tactics, so you'll want to use fast flying units that can drop in via the flanks and use their speed well. This would be Manfred's legion.
- Legion of Blood: you can take whatever you want, but this army gets a boost to vampire units, so you'll want to include more of those to make the most of your bonuses. This is Neferatta's legion.

Should you have an old VC army that was knee deep in strigoi bloodline (so lots of ghouls, crypt horrors, ghoul kings on foot/terror gheist etc), you are probably better off with a Flesh-eater court army.




Every faction that I mentioned gets their own command traits (same as in 40k essentially, if you are familiar with that) and gets to select 1 (or more, if you invest points in battalions) artifact from their army. You can however make one of the mortal realms your home realm. If you do so, you get to select the artifact from a list of artifact that are "common" for your realm. If you REALLY want your ghoul king on foot to fly, you can by making the realm of metal the home world of you death army, and then giving the ghoul king the "hydroxskin cloak", allowing him to fly (and actually potentially cause D3 mortal wounds if he flies over a unit)

Note that realm stuff is broken into two categories:

1) Army Realm - where your army comes from one of the specific realms and thus can use artifacts from that realm. This has no effect on the Battle realm.

2) Battle Realm - this is where the game is played and adds to the terrain rules for the game. This gives you and your opponent access to a new spell, new realm commands (both in addition to your armies normal options) and also can have realmscape effects on the battlefield. This might influence armies or terrain in the game.
If you use the Realm settings in the Malign Sorcery book you also get access to an entire new spell lore specific to each realm (both players get the same)
In addition some endless spells have a boosted form in certain realms.


Note that both realms for your army and realms as a battle feature are optional extras, so agree with your opponent before use.

Oh, in case you don't know how allies work: up to 20% of your army can be from an allied subfaction.

This means a standard 2k list can have a max of 400p of allies. In case of your FEC units, you could include a Ghoul king on terrorgheist (400p), but not one on a zombie dragon (440p). Or 2 ghoul kings on foot (280p).

Those ghoul kings tend to be able to summon a few extra troops in when he rallies them around him, your GKoTG could summon in 3 crypt horrors (or flayers, which are winged horrors), or your 2 Ghoul kings could summon 2 units of 10 ghouls, but those summons would cost you command points (similar to 40k, except you only generate 1 CP per turn in AoS). Thjose summoned units do not cost you regular points, and do not cause you to lose any allegiance abilities during the game.

So unless you REALLY had a super specific army you wanted to recreate from an old VC army, you should be just fine in current AoS, as Legions of Nagash (and the new beastman book) did a really good job of taking an "old WHFB army" and converting it to AoS2. They are competitive, and you almost have to go and look for combos that aren't possible in the new book.

 Elmir wrote:
I'm not entirely sure what your undead collection consists of, but if it doesn't include any of the new ghosts, you have 2 main choices: Legions of Nagash or Flesh-eater courts. If you chose a legions of Nagash list, you essentially use all of the old VC army, except for the strigoi bloodline... If you select Flesh-eater courts, you essentially only select strigoi stuff, varghulfs, ghouls etc. You can still add small amounts in cross factions, but they are considered allies. Just a sidenote: you never incure penalties in AoS for mixing things, you do get bonuses (a lot sometimes) for sticking with themed armies.

If you have an old "generic" VC army, you can pretty much make a whole host of decent Legions of Nagash lists these days. Your options would be:

- Grand host of Nagash: You can take whatever you want, but your army will typically include lots of skeletons, grave guard, maybe some of the new morghasts and possibly even Nagash. This faction tends to buff your "bone units" to insane heights and excels at attrition warfare. This can include any mortarch and you have to select this if you take Nagash himself.
- Legion of Sacrament: you can include anything you want, but you get bonuses to spell casting, so logically, you'll want to include lots of wizards (vampires or necromancers) to make the most out of your bonuses. This is Arkan the black's legion.
- Legion of Night: you can take whatever you want, but this is an army that relies on ambush tactics, so you'll want to use fast flying units that can drop in via the flanks and use their speed well. This would be Manfred's legion.
- Legion of Blood: you can take whatever you want, but this army gets a boost to vampire units, so you'll want to include more of those to make the most of your bonuses. This is Neferatta's legion.

Should you have an old VC army that was knee deep in strigoi bloodline (so lots of ghouls, crypt horrors, ghoul kings on foot/terror gheist etc), you are probably better off with a Flesh-eater court army

Well, this is the whole issue. My army was a mix of Ghoul and non-Ghoul stuff.

If memory serves, I've got:
- Several Vampires/Vampire Lords
- A Strigoi Ghoul King
- 2 Necromancers
- 3 Wraiths
- 2 Banshees
- 40 Grave Guard
- ~100 Skeletons
- 50 Ghouls
- 9 Crypt Horrors
- 10 Dire Wolves
- 1 Varghulf
- Corpse Cart
- Terrorgheist

 Elmir wrote:
Every faction that I mentioned gets their own command traits (same as in 40k essentially, if you are familiar with that) and gets to select 1 (or more, if you invest points in battalions) artifact from their army. You can however make one of the mortal realms your home realm. If you do so, you get to select the artifact from a list of artifact that are "common" for your realm. If you REALLY want your ghoul king on foot to fly, you can by making the realm of metal the home world of you death army, and then giving the ghoul king the "hydroxskin cloak", allowing him to fly (and actually potentially cause D3 mortal wounds if he flies over a unit)

Well, that could work.

 Overread wrote:
Note that both realms for your army and realms as a battle feature are optional extras, so agree with your opponent before use.

Oh.

Yep - though realm stuff will vary club to club; some clubs its pretty much auto include without asking; others its ask before. It depends on the attitude of those playing really.


Endless Spells are mostly default auto include; Realm stuff varies and not everyone plays on a realm battlefield every time either, but most are pretty accepting of its use in general.

 vipoid wrote:

Well, this is the whole issue. My army was a mix of Ghoul and non-Ghoul stuff.

If memory serves, I've got:
- Several Vampires/Vampire Lords
- A Strigoi Ghoul King
- 2 Necromancers
- 3 Wraiths
- 2 Banshees
- 40 Grave Guard
- ~100 Skeletons
- 50 Ghouls
- 9 Crypt Horrors
- 10 Dire Wolves
- 1 Varghulf
- Corpse Cart
- Terrorgheist

.

Oh... Well... I would NOT worry about being screwed over with that large a collection. You handily have enough there to mix and match from both allegiances in AoS tbh (in most current formats). Unless you are only into battles that include your entire collection (which would make many other people default back to their Grand alliance aka very few bonuses).

You could easily field several decent 2000p builds with that collection in AoS2. Two blocks of 40 skeletons and a block of 30 grave guard is a super solid core for any legion, but especially so for Grand host of Nagash. Just toss in a few support characters like the necromancers and some vampires and you should have a super solid foundation for 2k LoN.

Your 50 ghouls and 9 crypt horrors and Vargulf are a solid core for FEC as well, although you probably want to buy an extra box of the horrors to make a few characters out of it, as the FEC really do require lots of heroes for support. The terrorgheist can be used by both FEC and LoN, so you get some good overlap out of that one.

 Elmir wrote:

Oh... Well... I would NOT worry about being screwed over with that large a collection. You handily have enough there to mix and match from both allegiances in AoS tbh (in most current formats). Unless you are only into battles that include your entire collection (which would make many other people default back to their Grand alliance aka very few bonuses).

Not my entire collection, but it would be nice if I could use Ghoul stuff and skeleton/vampire/necromancer/wraith stuff in the same army.

 Elmir wrote:

You could easily field several decent 2000p builds with that collection in AoS2. Two blocks of 40 skeletons and a block of 30 grave guard is a super solid core for any legion, but especially so for Grand host of Nagash. Just toss in a few support characters like the necromancers and some vampires and you should have a super solid foundation for 2k LoN.

Hmm, so what about something like this:

Vampire Lord (Chalice, Wings)
Vampire Lord (Chalice)
Necromancer
Necromancer
Tomb Banshee
Cairn Wraith
30 Grave Guard
40 Skeleton Warriors
40 Skeleton Warriors
Corpse Cart (Lodestone)
Terrorgheist

Would that work?

Also, as I mentioned earlier, I'd like to use a Vampire as my general but they look incredibly squishy (5 wounds and a 4+ save with no special defences). Given that blocking LoS to him is going to be all but impossible, is there any way to stop my opponent from sniping him with spells or ranged weapons the moment he gets anywhere near the front line?

 Elmir wrote:

Your 50 ghouls and 9 crypt horrors and Vargulf are a solid core for FEC as well, although you probably want to buy an extra box of the horrors to make a few characters out of it, as the FEC really do require lots of heroes for support. The terrorgheist can be used by both FEC and LoN, so you get some good overlap out of that one.

I just checked and I haven't got anywhere near enough for a 2000pt Flesh Eater Courts army.

And for the record, this is just one reason why I don't want my ghoul stuff to be stuck on their own.

That list could work, but sniping is indeed a danger in it... Keeping your general alive is very important. A lot of people go for the more durable Vampire lord on Zombie Dragon because of it.

Also, you'd need to run your list as Grand host of Nagash, or you would not have 3 battle line units. A fix could be to squeeze in 5 dire wolves in lieu of for instance, a wraith, banshee or the second necromancer.

If you were to go that route, you could go for a heavy spellcasting Legion of Sacrament list (would work well with a corpecart with lodestone for a +2) and it unlocks the best artifact to prevent shooting sniping (giving a further -1 to snipe heroes or even -2 (for a total of -3) if you are further than 8" away.

I think you could have a lot of fun with that list. Especially if you scratch build 2 items that could function as a spell portal. for this army as well.

 Elmir wrote:
That list could work, but sniping is indeed a danger in it... Keeping your general alive is very important. A lot of people go for the more durable Vampire lord on Zombie Dragon because of it.

Ugh. I have to be brutally honest - it seems every time I find something to like about new Age of Sigmar, it's immediately countered by something obnoxious.

So Vampire Lords want to be in or near combat, but they have garbage defence stats and can't hide in any meaningful way? Thanks GW, I'm so glad I picked this army for it's strong HQs.

 Elmir wrote:

Also, you'd need to run your list as Grand host of Nagash, or you would not have 3 battle line units. A fix could be to squeeze in 5 dire wolves in lieu of for instance, a wraith, banshee or the second necromancer.

Now I'm confused. I thought you suggested running Legion of Nagash in the first place. Is it not good after all?

 Elmir wrote:

If you were to go that route, you could go for a heavy spellcasting Legion of Sacrament list (would work well with a corpecart with lodestone for a +2) and it unlocks the best artifact to prevent shooting sniping (giving a further -1 to snipe heroes or even -2 (for a total of -3) if you are further than 8" away.

That's a shame, I was rather hoping to take the Terrorgheist Mantle.

What if I gave up on the Vampire Lords and made a Necromancer my General. Would that be any better?

 Elmir wrote:
I think you could have a lot of fun with that list. Especially if you scratch build 2 items that could function as a spell portal. for this army as well.

What does a spell portal do?


Thanks for all your help, btw. Sorry for being a bit dejected but it just seems that a lot of the reasons for my initially buying into Vampire Counts have now been stripped away.

To be honest Vipoid I don't think you'll enjoy AoS. I'm not saying this in a bad thing, just... I don't think you'll find the mecahnics apealing. I think you love customization, and AoS just doesn't let hitself to that. The tactics are also lacking in the game.

I play it. It is not my favourite game, but I play with fun people so its all good. I can use my fantasy collection and even somethings like the new Beast of Chaos Battletome inspire me to collect new armies.

vipoid honestly I'd say try to get to a GW store and try some things out. You might be able to read a store copy of a battletome and some other material which make make some things a bit easier. Right now you're getting bits here and there from us, which you're using for form half ideas based on half the info. I think if you've all the info right in front of you you'd find it much more gratifying and rewarding.

I do agree that your army might not be the same one that you bought into in some ways; however I'd say go in with as open a mind as you can. You might well find that within the new changes are things that you do enjoy for different reasons.

 Galas wrote:
To be honest Vipoid I don't think you'll enjoy AoS. I'm not saying this in a bad thing, just... I don't think you'll find the mecahnics apealing. I think you love customization, and AoS just doesn't let hitself to that. The tactics are also lacking in the game.

You might well be right. You're certainly not wrong about my liking customisation (but I want to use it to model actual mechanical effects - e.g. I might well model wings on a model in place of a Jump Pack, but I don't want to just stick wings on a model that has no means of flight). And, outside of artefacts (which I'm wary of since their longevity tends to be fickle), it seems there's little customisation to be had now.

I could maybe work with just using artefacts, but then it seems I'm locked into a specific artefact from a specific subfaction if I want my General to stay alive, or else I have to invest in a 'centrepiece' General that I don't want and won't enjoy using. I don't know, it's just disheartening to see vampire lords being barely better defensively than the flimsy casters of any other race.

 Galas wrote:

I play it. It is not my favourite game, but I play with fun people so its all good. I can use my fantasy collection and even somethings like the new Beast of Chaos Battletome inspire me to collect new armies.

Well, the reason I was looking at Age of Sigmar again is because some people in my group have started playing it. I might try a game and see how it goes, if only because it saddens me to see my army collecting dust on the shelf.

I can't see myself getting into it, but maybe I'll end up playing the occasional game.

Thanks for your advice.

 Overread wrote:
vipoid honestly I'd say try to get to a GW store and try some things out. You might be able to read a store copy of a battletome and some other material which make make some things a bit easier. Right now you're getting bits here and there from us, which you're using for form half ideas based on half the info. I think if you've all the info right in front of you you'd find it much more gratifying and rewarding.

I do agree that your army might not be the same one that you bought into in some ways; however I'd say go in with as open a mind as you can. You might well find that within the new changes are things that you do enjoy for different reasons.

I don't know if I'll be able to get to a GW store any time soon, but I'll see if I can get a game at my club next time I'm able to go.

 vipoid wrote:


Ugh. I have to be brutally honest - it seems every time I find something to like about new Age of Sigmar, it's immediately countered by something obnoxious.

So Vampire Lords want to be in or near combat, but they have garbage defence stats and can't hide in any meaningful way? Thanks GW, I'm so glad I picked this army for it's strong HQs.


Now I'm confused. I thought you suggested running Legion of Nagash in the first place. Is it not good after all?


That's a shame, I was rather hoping to take the Terrorgheist Mantle.

What if I gave up on the Vampire Lords and made a Necromancer my General. Would that be any better?


What does a spell portal do?


Thanks for all your help, btw. Sorry for being a bit dejected but it just seems that a lot of the reasons for my initially buying into Vampire Counts have now been stripped away.

Well, first things first: In general, Vampires are quite strong compared to most other heroes in the game. The combination of very capable in combat, fast (even without wings modelled, you can always make a vampire fly: bursting into a cloud of bats, moving as a mist, that sort of oldschool vampire stuff) is something a lot of armies would envy. But he's not exactly as tough as a monster would be.... The fact that they resurrect dead (summonable) models automatically makes them excellent aura heroes, so Vampire lords really are incredibly strong for a hero: but there's only so far an infantry hero can go.

All heroes get protected against shooting if there's a friendly unit nearby (a -1 to hit), but it's no longer a virtual immunity like old WHFB was. Legion of sacrament can give you near immunity from shooting via one of their artifacts (total of -3 to hit) though, so that's why I suggested that might be an option to consider IF you are really worried about hero sniping via shooting. Unfortunately, if you opt for that, you won't get Grave Guard as a battleline unit, so a small alteration to your list would be needed.

A necromancer is also a fine choice for a general, who's better protected against shooting. You could still use terrorgheist mantle if you really are keen on trying it. Experiment with it, because you would not be making too drastic a change to your list and you do have all the models at hand. See what floats your boat better.

A spell portal is something new in AoS 2: it's a spell you can cast that puts actual models on the tabletop and acts as a "conduit" for your spells, greatly extending their range. It's always a good addition if you decided you like legion of Sacrament!

These are fairly easy to scratch build though, as long as you have 2 things to represent the nexus. Aos2 got a whole host of these physical manifestations of spells on the table top. Google Malign sorcery, it adds a ton of great dynamics to the game.

PS: the translation of the old Vampire counts is still quite good in Legions of Nagash. They have strong heroes who keep your army from falling apart, but they can get killed... Things in AoS die/get taken out of action a lot... But if your heroes do manage to stay alive, your opponent is in a world of pain, because the army can regenerate so quickly if the heroes make it through. Also, if you look up how gravesties work, you can do some amazingly sneaky things to outmaneuver your opponent.

If Legions of Nagash (VCs) as they currently are, had the type of character protection old WHFB had, the game would be next to unwinnable for your opponent. If your general is still alive, you can make him resurrect entire units that have been destroyed... That ability is so powerful, it still triggers some people here on the boards to no end...

 Elmir wrote:

Well, first things first: In general, Vampires are quite strong compared to most other heroes in the game. The combination of very capable in combat, fast (even without wings modelled, you can always make a vampire fly: bursting into a cloud of bats, moving as a mist, that sort of oldschool vampire stuff) is something a lot of armies would envy. But he's not exactly as tough as a monster would be.... The fact that they resurrect dead (summonable) models automatically makes them excellent aura heroes, so Vampire lords really are incredibly strong for a hero: but there's only so far an infantry hero can go.

Hmm, okay. So how exactly do you use them? It seems like they want to be in combat (to use their sword and get The Hunger), but at the same time want to be out of harm's way.

Do you have to restrict yourself to going after very weak targets with them?

Also, good point regarding the various methods of flight. I might still try to make a vampire model with wings, though, because I like winged models.

 Elmir wrote:

All heroes get protected against shooting if there's a friendly unit nearby (a -1 to hit), but it's no longer a virtual immunity like old WHFB was.

Ah, that's useful to know. I think I must have been looking at an older version of the rules before (since that rule wasn't mentioned).

 Elmir wrote:
Legion of sacrament can give you near immunity from shooting via one of their artifacts (total of -3 to hit) though, so that's why I suggested that might be an option to consider IF you are really worried about hero sniping via shooting. Unfortunately, if you opt for that, you won't get Grave Guard as a battleline unit, so a small alteration to your list would be needed.

Hmm, I think I'll stick with Host of Nagash for now. If my heroes start getting sniped, I'll change so that I can take the Shroud.

 Elmir wrote:

A necromancer is also a fine choice for a general, who's better protected against shooting. You could still use terrorgheist mantle if you really are keen on trying it. Experiment with it, because you would not be making too drastic a change to your list and you do have all the models at hand. See what floats your boat better.

Out of interest, do you happen to know whether the Deathforged Chain is any good on a Vampire Lord?

I ask since it seems to be the only way to heal him without putting him in more danger.

 Elmir wrote:

A spell portal is something new in AoS 2: it's a spell you can cast that puts actual models on the tabletop and acts as a "conduit" for your spells, greatly extending their range. It's always a good addition if you decided you like legion of Sacrament!

Spoiler:

These are fairly easy to scratch build though, as long as you have 2 things to represent the nexus. Aos2 got a whole host of these physical manifestations of spells on the table top. Google Malign sorcery, it adds a ton of great dynamics to the game.

Interesting. Okay, I'll give that a look. Cheers.

 Elmir wrote:

PS: the translation of the old Vampire counts is still quite good in Legions of Nagash. They have strong heroes who keep your army from falling apart, but they can get killed... Things in AoS die/get taken out of action a lot... But if your heroes do manage to stay alive, your opponent is in a world of pain, because the army can regenerate so quickly if the heroes make it through. Also, if you look up how gravesties work, you can do some amazingly sneaky things to outmaneuver your opponent.

So, with regard to heroes, is it generally better to prioritise defence/healing over offence (where possible in terms of Command Traits and Artefacts), since it's seemingly the rank&file troops who do the damage now?

 Elmir wrote:

If Legions of Nagash (VCs) as they currently are, had the type of character protection old WHFB had, the game would be next to unwinnable for your opponent. If your general is still alive, you can make him resurrect entire units that have been destroyed... That ability is so powerful, it still triggers some people here on the boards to no end...

xD

You're probably right. I expect it will just take quite a bit of getting used to for someone like me, who's used to his HQs doing most of the actual killing.


Thanks for all your help. You've made me quite interested in trying the AoS Vampire Counts.

A good point touched on here is that armies no longer get their faction specific rules unless they take the correct 'formations'.

As a Skaven player I find it to be horse gak that my Skaven no longer gain better morale through numbers, unless I buy some Stormvermin. Its basically a massive and hard hitting nerfbat to the face as the morale phase (or battlewhatevernow) sees my units crumble unto dust.

darkcloak wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 darkcloak wrote:
Since when did JRR Tolkien become "low" fantasy?

gaks got talking trees and undead armies! Low fantasy my shiny white patooshie.

By that metric, is Conan the Barbarian high fantasy?

Um, that's totally out to lunch, mate. Haha, Lunchmate. That idea is so silly you could dip it in Cheez.

If we are talking about traditional 'high' and 'low' fantasy where HF is the realm of magic, mythical creatures and suchlike and LF is more mundane, realistic and whatnot, then by that metric Conan would actually be low fantasy.

Conan, as originally written by Robert E. Howard is very much the story of an uncompromising man facing the harsh realities of his world. There is magic and myth involved but it is portrayed as rare. It's involvement in the story serves as a catalyst for change which the main character must react to. Conan does not use a magic sword or ride a dragon. Low Fantasy.

Peregrin Took and Meriadoc Brandybuck ride to the Ent Moot on the shoulder of a giant sentient tree. An Ent. Tolkien created an entire language for use by a race of Elves. Also, The Silmarillion is kind of a thing. High Fantasy.

I think TV may have spoiled a few things for people over the years. Seriously, go read all of Tolkien's stuff if you haven't already. As well as original REH penned Conan. Hour of the Dragon in particular stands out as the first and only novel actually written by Robert himself.


Now back to the topic at hand. No, I don't Rend -2 is better than Damage 3 on a lesser Rend.

Conan has had Dragons, wizards, GODS, and worse. It's just as high fantasy as LOTR. OR LOTR is just as low fantasy as Conan. If we use "anything fantastical" as the benchmark for "high fantasy", then EVERYTHING damn near is high fantasy.

*withdrawn

 vipoid wrote:

 Elmir wrote:

Well, first things first: In general, Vampires are quite strong compared to most other heroes in the game. The combination of very capable in combat, fast (even without wings modelled, you can always make a vampire fly: bursting into a cloud of bats, moving as a mist, that sort of oldschool vampire stuff) is something a lot of armies would envy. But he's not exactly as tough as a monster would be.... The fact that they resurrect dead (summonable) models automatically makes them excellent aura heroes, so Vampire lords really are incredibly strong for a hero: but there's only so far an infantry hero can go.

Hmm, okay. So how exactly do you use them? It seems like they want to be in combat (to use their sword and get The Hunger), but at the same time want to be out of harm's way.

Do you have to restrict yourself to going after very weak targets with them?

Also, good point regarding the various methods of flight. I might still try to make a vampire model with wings, though, because I like winged models.

 Elmir wrote:

All heroes get protected against shooting if there's a friendly unit nearby (a -1 to hit), but it's no longer a virtual immunity like old WHFB was.

Ah, that's useful to know. I think I must have been looking at an older version of the rules before (since that rule wasn't mentioned).

 Elmir wrote:
Legion of sacrament can give you near immunity from shooting via one of their artifacts (total of -3 to hit) though, so that's why I suggested that might be an option to consider IF you are really worried about hero sniping via shooting. Unfortunately, if you opt for that, you won't get Grave Guard as a battleline unit, so a small alteration to your list would be needed.

Hmm, I think I'll stick with Host of Nagash for now. If my heroes start getting sniped, I'll change so that I can take the Shroud.

 Elmir wrote:

A necromancer is also a fine choice for a general, who's better protected against shooting. You could still use terrorgheist mantle if you really are keen on trying it. Experiment with it, because you would not be making too drastic a change to your list and you do have all the models at hand. See what floats your boat better.

Out of interest, do you happen to know whether the Deathforged Chain is any good on a Vampire Lord?

I ask since it seems to be the only way to heal him without putting him in more danger.

 Elmir wrote:

A spell portal is something new in AoS 2: it's a spell you can cast that puts actual models on the tabletop and acts as a "conduit" for your spells, greatly extending their range. It's always a good addition if you decided you like legion of Sacrament!

Spoiler:

These are fairly easy to scratch build though, as long as you have 2 things to represent the nexus. Aos2 got a whole host of these physical manifestations of spells on the table top. Google Malign sorcery, it adds a ton of great dynamics to the game.

Interesting. Okay, I'll give that a look. Cheers.

 Elmir wrote:

PS: the translation of the old Vampire counts is still quite good in Legions of Nagash. They have strong heroes who keep your army from falling apart, but they can get killed... Things in AoS die/get taken out of action a lot... But if your heroes do manage to stay alive, your opponent is in a world of pain, because the army can regenerate so quickly if the heroes make it through. Also, if you look up how gravesties work, you can do some amazingly sneaky things to outmaneuver your opponent.

So, with regard to heroes, is it generally better to prioritise defence/healing over offence (where possible in terms of Command Traits and Artefacts), since it's seemingly the rank&file troops who do the damage now?

 Elmir wrote:

If Legions of Nagash (VCs) as they currently are, had the type of character protection old WHFB had, the game would be next to unwinnable for your opponent. If your general is still alive, you can make him resurrect entire units that have been destroyed... That ability is so powerful, it still triggers some people here on the boards to no end...

xD

You're probably right. I expect it will just take quite a bit of getting used to for someone like me, who's used to his HQs doing most of the actual killing.


Thanks for all your help. You've made me quite interested in trying the AoS Vampire Counts.

So something else to mention. Legions love their heroes, a lot. People hate your heroes, a lot. What a Legion army can do is that heroes have the ability to return models to a group that have lost numbers. This is a d3 for the number they add. A legions army also gets 4 grave yards to place around, they each select 1 unit, and they could theoretically all pick the same one, for d3 models each. This can make a skeleton squad that got hit had to ressurect 10-12 skeletons back. Also legions generals can ressurrect a unit that has been taken out of action back into play.

Also from the new edition, if any model you have has a command ability, it can use it even if it's not the general. The general only gets a command trait, and for generic command abilities, gets a longer range.

Also from what you have, if you decided to not do a legions or a flesh eater army, you can be a death army. Death has its own traits and artefacts, but you lose out on graveyards for legions, or delusions for flesh eater courts.

 master of ordinance wrote:
A good point touched on here is that armies no longer get their faction specific rules unless they take the correct 'formations'.

Eeeh...No, it isn't a point. Some are locked unto needing battallions, yes, but as of today most of the factions get their alleigance abilities free of any charge. And this is not counting the alleigances of the grand alliances themselves (in which case everyone gets faction rules) or the Firestorm ones (in which case everyone bar a very select handful has army rules)

As a Skaven player I find it to be horse gak that my Skaven no longer gain better morale through numbers, unless I buy some Stormvermin. Its basically a massive and hard hitting nerfbat to the face as the morale phase (or battlewhatevernow) sees my units crumble unto dust.

Proxy the stormvermin? Play as Pestilens or Skryre? Use command abilities or the crown of conquest to bypass battleshock alltogether?

With all due respect, your units crumble to dust due to your refusal to use any options, even the latter two (the command ability and CoC) which you have available from the getgo.

 Just Tony wrote:

darkcloak wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 darkcloak wrote:
Since when did JRR Tolkien become "low" fantasy?

gaks got talking trees and undead armies! Low fantasy my shiny white patooshie.

By that metric, is Conan the Barbarian high fantasy?

Um, that's totally out to lunch, mate. Haha, Lunchmate. That idea is so silly you could dip it in Cheez.

If we are talking about traditional 'high' and 'low' fantasy where HF is the realm of magic, mythical creatures and suchlike and LF is more mundane, realistic and whatnot, then by that metric Conan would actually be low fantasy.

Conan, as originally written by Robert E. Howard is very much the story of an uncompromising man facing the harsh realities of his world. There is magic and myth involved but it is portrayed as rare. It's involvement in the story serves as a catalyst for change which the main character must react to. Conan does not use a magic sword or ride a dragon. Low Fantasy.

Peregrin Took and Meriadoc Brandybuck ride to the Ent Moot on the shoulder of a giant sentient tree. An Ent. Tolkien created an entire language for use by a race of Elves. Also, The Silmarillion is kind of a thing. High Fantasy.

I think TV may have spoiled a few things for people over the years. Seriously, go read all of Tolkien's stuff if you haven't already. As well as original REH penned Conan. Hour of the Dragon in particular stands out as the first and only novel actually written by Robert himself.


Now back to the topic at hand. No, I don't Rend -2 is better than Damage 3 on a lesser Rend.

Conan has had Dragons, wizards, GODS, and worse. It's just as high fantasy as LOTR. OR LOTR is just as low fantasy as Conan. If we use "anything fantastical" as the benchmark for "high fantasy", then EVERYTHING damn near is high fantasy.

Both LOTR and Conan are high fantasy.

For example, Game of Thrones is high fantasy too, but the world it is divided. Westeros would be low fantasy (You have literally no magic or creatures or stranger things until the Mountain becomes a zombi, but you have dragons as background, the sense of mistery, etc...). The north of the wall would be high fantasy, as it is the east with the dragons and the far-east with the magic and all of that.

Some disagree with that, though. Look above at the person arguing that Conan IS low fantasy. I actually agree with him, but I feel that LOTR is also low fantasy. It's still grounded in enough reality to not seem... completely unbelievable. Whereas you look at the WOW sort of thing, or the Mortal Realms in AOS, where the unbelievable outweighs the believable, and to me you cross that threshold into high fantasy. High fantasy, to me, is basically Sci Fi without the science. Star Wars would be more high fantasy to me than Sci Fi, for instance. Krull? That'd be a tough one. I'm thinking more high fantasy simply because of the sheer amount of unbelievable elements and very little in the "grounded in reality" department.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EnTyme wrote:
*withdrawn

Now you have me curious...

I always saw low fantasy as something rooted in reality or our world, so I always considered LOTR and Conan Low Fantasy.

I consider high fantasy the outlandish magic the gathering stuff.

Tolkien's works run from incredibly high fantasy during the first age and before (demi-gods warring over Arda, monstrous creatures such as dragons, with one particular example almost as big as a mountain range, werewolves, at least one example of a vampire) running to the war of the ring which is decidedly low fantasy with magic being low and fantastic creatures being much less prevalent. It's a sliding scale.

Conan I'd definitely agree being a low fantasy.

We have a consensus, it seems. At that mark, I'd definitely throw WFB in as low fantasy, with AOS as high fantasy.

AoS might even make it to Epic if you consider that in the Lore one Realm has a dragon that is so big its like a second sun. In fact the whole Realm structure I think pushes it from high to epic.

That said Epic, High, Low are only rough terms.

 Just Tony wrote:
We have a consensus, it seems. At that mark, I'd definitely throw WFB in as low fantasy, with AOS as high fantasy.

No, WHF has always been high fantasy. With a lot fantasic creatures, very prolific magic (literal storms of it), myriad of races, literal portals to hell on the north and south poles etc. It's not grounded in the slightest. AoS is epic fantasy, cranking it up even higher.

I played Age of Sigmar for a bit as part of a path to glory campaign as the Fyreslayers. I enjoyed the system and found it a fine game, but ultimately dropped it and sold my Fyreslayers. I think some of the reasons for this would be because I didn't really feel the fyreslayer army speak to me. In fact none of the armies in AOS really appeal to me and make me want to play them. I also did not like the double turn system at all and gameplay wise it was the #1 thing that kept me away from liking all parts of the game.

As is I could see myself getting back into it only if there was an army I really liked and drew me in, but as is there is nothing of the sort.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Tolkien's works run from incredibly high fantasy during the first age and before (demi-gods warring over Arda, monstrous creatures such as dragons, with one particular example almost as big as a mountain range, werewolves, at least one example of a vampire) running to the war of the ring which is decidedly low fantasy with magic being low and fantastic creatures being much less prevalent. It's a sliding scale.

Conan I'd definitely agree being a low fantasy.

I have to say Just Tony said it perfectly. While Tolkien had the demi gods warring over arda, monstrous creatures, that is "all in myth" just like religions of today. So when we actually read all the stories Tolkien put out, they are really believable. That is why LotR is low fantasy. Again it doesn't mean it's less, but it's more "grounded" and real life, believable as Just Tony said.

If LotR is high fantasy then it would be unbelievable and fake. For me, in my opinion when I have read Lord of the Rings, while I knew magic and gods were fake, Tolkien has made it believable and I can see this being real. Even Peter Jackson (agree or disagree with his vision) made LotR seem real as well, just like Tolkien did. Even with the Balrog. It was believable and didn't look like a fake deamon or demon or what not and not out of place like it was in a Age of Sigmar setting.

To me saying LotR is high fantasy, is a disservice. It's calling it fake and unbelievable.

Again, not saying you are wrong, just my opinion.

 vipoid wrote:


Hmm, okay. So how exactly do you use them? It seems like they want to be in combat (to use their sword and get The Hunger), but at the same time want to be out of harm's way.

Do you have to restrict yourself to going after very weak targets with them?

Also, good point regarding the various methods of flight. I might still try to make a vampire model with wings, though, because I like winged models.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________


Out of interest, do you happen to know whether the Deathforged Chain is any good on a Vampire Lord?

I ask since it seems to be the only way to heal him without putting him in more danger.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

So, with regard to heroes, is it generally better to prioritise defence/healing over offence (where possible in terms of Command Traits and Artefacts), since it's seemingly the rank&file troops who do the damage now?

My vampires usually have flying, and I do send them into combat, usually AFTER my skeletons hordes pin the enemy into place. You can only pile in to the closest enemy model, so learning how to do good placement is key with these guys. I seldom use a VL (without a zombie dragon) as the general though. I take the coven throne, VLoZD or mortarchs as generals, as the general really is a key figure in the army. But I wouldn't go out buying anything new and just see if AoS2 is more to your liking.

I do tend to use that to fly over to enemy support heroes, as vampires have a good shot at taking them out. Remember: in the charge phase, you get to roll 2D6 and wait how much you roll to decide what to charge... You do not have to declare a target beforehand. A good roll can turn these guys into really good assassins. My vampires are also not afraid to leg it out of there and make retreat moves if needed. But waiting until the grunts clamp down an enemy before engaging (making your VL more of a "scalpel" rather than a hammer) is my preferred method of using them. My vampires often find themselves in the middle of my own blocks of troops because of the flexibility that fly provides and it screens them well from enemy assassination attempts.

Running a lighter "foot/horse" general with 5-6 wounds is always inherently dangerous as LoN, but... you can get more overlapping auras and more troop regeneration through it, so there is an upside. It can work, but shooting armies are it's Achilles heel.... Trying to make him survivable is going to be hard. That one wound item, isn't going to do much to help him.
-The Gryph-feather charm (realm of Beasts), has an item that always gives your opponent -1 to hit (both range and melee), for -2 on shooting and gives you another 1" Move.
- Ignax's Scales (realm of metal) give your a 4+ ignore on mortal wounds (followed by your natural 6+ (any) wound ignore as an undead character.
- The Ragged cloack (realm of Death) is a once per battle use that makes your character untargetable during an enemy shooting phase.
Those would be my top picks for defensive items if the shooting phase, with Gryph-feather charm being my nr1 pick.

And finally: yes, your troops can do a lot of heavy lifting in AoS2, where the heroes provide good support. It's not that black/white, but there are 2 very valid, powerfull ways to play LoN (both scoring top 10 spots at the latest facehammer GT btw):

A) Lots of smaller support heroes that buff your big block of troops, with a single strong character as general (VLoZD in his case). One list went in hard with a big block of 30 Grave Guard, 15 black knights and them some smaller units to fill in battlelines/cap objectives. He just speed buffed the cav/big block and just send them into suicide waves to grind opponents into the dust, while he kept regenning his own troops through his VLoZD who he played very conservatively

B) A full monster mash of insanely powerful vampires in a list that has: Neferrata, 2 VLoZD, 1 bloodseeker palanquin and 3x5 dogs (it's the royal court of Neferatta). No troops whatsoever to see you through, just 4 insanely strong vampires tossed in your opponents direction at frightening high speed and smash the enemies apart.

Legions of Nagash is an insanely versatile and fun book, without any new models and it should serve as an example for other armies that they want to "translate" from WHFB.

Read what i wrote again. LotR, the Third age and the War of the Ring is low fantasy. Silmarillion, the first and second ages are high fantasy slowly moving into low as time passes.

You need to remember some of the characters and events that happened. Such as when Melkor first walked Arda his form was that of a living mountain, walking through the world. or Ancalagon the black, a dragon so huge (and was still not fully grown at this point) that when Eärendil slew him, his falling body crushed the fortress of Angband and the entire mountain range with it. It's a sliding scale and that's a big point. As with the closing of the third age, magic and the fantastical was ending.

I cannot remember if I posted in this thread or not, but suffice it to say I love the aesthetic of this game. But there are two glaring things that have kept me back.

The first is that figuring out factions is a nightmare for this game. Some of the sections on the webstore have 1 model listed in them. What do you even do with a 1 model army?? The second issue is that with the new factions getting released, it's really hard to pick one and start. I love the Sea Elves, the Snake Elves and the Nighthaunt, even the new Stromcast models look good. But I am constantly wondering, what's next, should I wait? It's a hard life. :(

 Togusa wrote:

The first is that figuring out factions is a nightmare for this game. Some of the sections on the webstore have 1 model listed in them. What do you even do with a 1 model army??

Any AoS fan would agree with you that the store needs a clean up and that GW really needs to focus on AoS to get it up to speed.

Factions with only one or two models, to my eye, are very hard to impossible to run pure, and hard to run as a core army as many will lack even traits in the Generals Handbook. However they do exist as a nice allied unit. Something that can compliment one or more other armies without being specifically tied to them - yes an allied unit might not get a faction trait, but they can bring something else to the table on their own that can benefit select allied forces.


Also we've seen that since the 1.0 and 2.0 releases, GW is far more keen to keep models around rather than retire them. Finecast is still iffy, but I would wager any model in plastic (or clearly any that is half of a duel kit where the other half the kit is used by another main faction) is bound to remain and likely will be cleaned up by being moved into a latter full army release. As we saw with the recent Beasts of Chaos army.


Currently safest best are armies with Battletomes, you can be sure that they are safe and will continue to be supported. Armies without its hit and miss, though some logical conclusions can be made - Armies with traits in the Generals Handbook and a decent number of models are more likely to stick around - Darkling Covens would be one I'd expect to say, whilst something like Shadowblades might get rolled into another army (though that can be hard to say - Daughters of Khaine wasn't a "big" faction and yet now they are a key main faction)

I don't know if battle tome armies are that safe. Some people here played stormcasts, they are, I think, the marines of age of sigmar, and they had whole collections made no longer working or legal. Some dude was left with only the heros being worth taking after the switch, a ton of people here were very salty about it. And AoS ain't so popular here to begin with, so it didn't help.

Plus there is stuff some guys told me about AoS, some of the old armies are kept, even have rules, but GW didn't give points costs to the models. So suddenly they huge WFB collections, huge from my point of view, are worth nothing, because no one will play a game without points.

Far as I know the only full armies with nothing are Tomb Kings and Bretonnia - however some chunks of dwarves are also missing and likely a few others too.

That said Stormcast were certainly not destroyed as you say - yes they have reached a point where they are suffering bloat (stormcast have as many model listings as some whole grand alliances at present); which can result in some newer things being better than some old. But they've not legally lost a single model in their range; plus AoS doesn't have the same weapon setup that 40K has. They will never suffer something like what Tyranids do when GW can invalidate specific weapon model choices - the stormcast are still legal - perhaps some are not considered the top-tier in the meta any more - but they are still viable.

Well I don't play AoS, so I don't know what those two armies are, But I know dark elf players weren't happy about the last rules update.

As the SCE goes, I can not give specifics either. I know one guy had his army just stop working, as all units got a points hike and some rules were changed making the whole army concept stupid, and two other people had their armies just replaced by indentical but better options. In their own words, every non hero unit they had got worse, and most of them got replaced by better and more efficient new units. Now I don't know what armies they played, but like with everything people do not buy bad armies here, so it is not like they would lie.

I also know that a dwarf dude that had a huge army of orange dwarfs, had his army killed over night. One day it was a good army, another it stoped existing because of points and mechannics changes.

Stuff like that is bloody scary. No one wants to hear that there is a good chance that, unless they buy an army right after a rules shift, they may have 1 month max to buy the whole thing, if they want to get a few months of gaming in. And it is not like AoS is much cheaper then w40k, or cheaper at all.

No idea how AoS army costs go vs WFB army cost. Maybe WFB was so crazy high cost to entry that something like 700$ seems cheap. I mean when I hear that a stormcast army has to start with a 150$ dragon, followed by 6-7 boxs of infantry and 4-5 heros that each cost like a 2/3 of a box of infantry it seems rather high. But again WFB could have been higher, so people may feel like AoS is cheap, if they had to play under WFB rules.

I think you're only hearing the views of the competitive end of the meta who are likely aiming for only one or two very specific power builds that they've focused on building.

Stormcast haven't lost any models, their armies are still 100% legal and playable. Now I will agree there has been some creep internally within their own battletome, but they've not invalidated their armies. Heck the dragon you mention is one of the earlier models in their range. And you don't need it to get started - only if you're building that specific build.

Ah that makes so much more sense. You have a tournament powerlisting meta. Yes the powerlisting meta does change once or twice a year because GW releases a generals handbook which changes point values (which turns undercost OP units into overcost useless units and vice versa) and then an FAQ (which will change a rule or two and close OP loop holes that people build around) so the meta constantly changes.

If you are into tournament games and riding the most OP lists, you'll have to change your army on the regular.

Indeed and it should be noted that often the "best meta list" isn't always the best. A lot can depend on the player as well and omany times a play has scored well and won with lists that are considered "not top" until they are proven in a competitive environment.

 Elmir wrote:

My vampires usually have flying, and I do send them into combat, usually AFTER my skeletons hordes pin the enemy into place. You can only pile in to the closest enemy model, so learning how to do good placement is key with these guys. I seldom use a VL (without a zombie dragon) as the general though. I take the coven throne, VLoZD or mortarchs as generals, as the general really is a key figure in the army. But I wouldn't go out buying anything new and just see if AoS2 is more to your liking.

This is kind of my concern, to be honest. Even if I could afford to go out and buy one of the big models, they just don't appeal to me in the way the foot characters do.

If I was forced to pick one, I guess I'd go with the Coven Throne, as I've no interest in special characters and the dragon-mounted vampires just look goofy to me (the dragon is fine, but there's just something silly-looking about the way the vampire is sitting on it).

 Elmir wrote:

I do tend to use that to fly over to enemy support heroes, as vampires have a good shot at taking them out. Remember: in the charge phase, you get to roll 2D6 and wait how much you roll to decide what to charge... You do not have to declare a target beforehand. A good roll can turn these guys into really good assassins. My vampires are also not afraid to leg it out of there and make retreat moves if needed. But waiting until the grunts clamp down an enemy before engaging (making your VL more of a "scalpel" rather than a hammer) is my preferred method of using them. My vampires often find themselves in the middle of my own blocks of troops because of the flexibility that fly provides and it screens them well from enemy assassination attempts.

Okay, I'll bear that in mind.

 Elmir wrote:

Running a lighter "foot/horse" general with 5-6 wounds is always inherently dangerous as LoN, but... you can get more overlapping auras and more troop regeneration through it, so there is an upside. It can work, but shooting armies are it's Achilles heel.... Trying to make him survivable is going to be hard.

See, this is the sort of thing I was concerned about going into Age of Sigmar. It seems like the game is full of false-choice stuff - e.g. I can technically make any hero my general, but if I choose anything other than a 'centrepiece' model, it will just get blown to bits (because cannons and bows are apparently excellent sniper weapons).

 Elmir wrote:

And finally: yes, your troops can do a lot of heavy lifting in AoS2, where the heroes provide good support. It's not that black/white, but there are 2 very valid, powerfull ways to play LoN (both scoring top 10 spots at the latest facehammer GT btw):

A) Lots of smaller support heroes that buff your big block of troops, with a single strong character as general (VLoZD in his case). One list went in hard with a big block of 30 Grave Guard, 15 black knights and them some smaller units to fill in battlelines/cap objectives. He just speed buffed the cav/big block and just send them into suicide waves to grind opponents into the dust, while he kept regenning his own troops through his VLoZD who he played very conservatively

B) A full monster mash of insanely powerful vampires in a list that has: Neferrata, 2 VLoZD, 1 bloodseeker palanquin and 3x5 dogs (it's the royal court of Neferatta). No troops whatsoever to see you through, just 4 insanely strong vampires tossed in your opponents direction at frightening high speed and smash the enemies apart.

Legions of Nagash is an insanely versatile and fun book, without any new models and it should serve as an example for other armies that they want to "translate" from WHFB.

At least as far as heroes are concerned, I think we may disagree on what counts as 'insanely versatile'. It seems like my choice boils down to 'A vampire on a dragon' or 'A named vampire on a dragon'.

I'm probably just an old fuddy-duddy, but I really find myself missing the days when, if you had a vampire mounted on a dragon, the vampire was by far the more dangerous of the two.

See, this is the sort of thing I was concerned about going into Age of Sigmar. It seems like the game is full of false-choice stuff - e.g. I can technically make any hero my general, but if I choose anything other than a 'centrepiece' model, it will just get blown to bits (because cannons and bows are apparently excellent sniper weapons).

Indeed. Foot heroes are typically trivial to kill. If your opponent wants them dead and has ranged attacks, it will be dead. Which is why you'll rarely see generals running about on foot, and the heroes that are on foot you'll see people take in duplicate or triplicate for redundancy so that it takes more than killing one to lose whatever buff they are built around.

A vampire on dragon or any character on the mount is not like the old days where it was blender lord vampire riding a 300 point flying bus to get him into contact. Its all one model now with all of its health and abilities and attacks wrapped up into one entity.

auticus wrote:
Indeed. Foot heroes are typically trivial to kill. If your opponent wants them dead and has ranged attacks, it will be dead. Which is why you'll rarely see generals running about on foot, and the heroes that are on foot you'll see people take in duplicate or triplicate for redundancy so that it takes more than killing one to lose whatever buff they are built around.

As someone who loves his vampires on foot, that's rather disheartening to say the least..

It seems like my options are boiling down to: play a strong army that I have no interest in OR have an army I like the look of, but which is worthless on the table because my opponent can effortlessly snipe all my heroes until I'm left wit nothing but unsupported chaff.

auticus wrote:
A vampire on dragon or any character on the mount is not like the old days where it was blender lord vampire riding a 300 point flying bus to get him into contact. Its all one model now with all of its health and abilities and attacks wrapped up into one entity.

But what that actually means is that an infantry-sized vampire, standing behind a dozen ranks of infantry, can be effortlessly sniped if the enemy can see a square millimetre of his cloak; however, a vampire sitting fully-exposed on top of a dragon is somehow impossible to snipe without pouring in enough firepower to kill the entire dragon as well. It just seems like a really immersion-breaking and hamfisted way of forcing players to buy the big, fancy models.

There are plenty of heroes and leaders which are not on big mounts which do perfectly fine in the game. Yes the enemy is going to snipe for them, some of those single standing heroes have good health and armour and can be as tough as mounted ones.

But in general the enemy is going to snipe for anything powerful that they can hit. AoS runs with more terrain than fantasy of old so there should be more line of sight blocking terrain on the table and have it a bit denser too. Because you no longer have formation movement the terrain can be more detailed because now you've not got to factor in having to wheel and turn every unit that isn't a monster or hero.

 Overread wrote:
There are plenty of heroes and leaders which are not on big mounts which do perfectly fine in the game.

Okay...

So are any of them in the army actually I want to play? Or are you arguing that there are good foot-heroes in the game somewhere, not in the army I'm actually using?

 Overread wrote:
some of those single standing heroes have good health and armour and can be as tough as mounted ones.

Oh, wonderful. So as I look at the foot-vampire models I spent hours painting, which have now been reduced to Goths with brittle bone disease, I can at least take solace in the fact that other armies have it better.

 Overread wrote:

But in general the enemy is going to snipe for anything powerful that they can hit. AoS runs with more terrain than fantasy of old so there should be more line of sight blocking terrain on the table and have it a bit denser too. Because you no longer have formation movement the terrain can be more detailed because now you've not got to factor in having to wheel and turn every unit that isn't a monster or hero.

Joy.

Well people sniped for leaders in fantasy too - any time the enemy can kill a key unit or model they are going to go for it no matter the game - that's just strategy games.

As for vampire specifics I can't say since I don't play them, but perhaps read:
https://www.tga.community/forums/topic/18228-aos-2-flesh-eater-courts-discussion/

https://www.tga.community/forums/topic/18232-aos-2-soulblight-discussion/

Those might give you more pointers and direction specific to the undead vampire groups; perhaps even post over there with your concerns and ideas for more specific vampire related feedback. Of course Flesh Eater Courts are more popular as they've got a battletome and are thus more current (ergo more posts).

 Overread wrote:
Well people sniped for leaders in fantasy too - any time the enemy can kill a key unit or model they are going to go for it no matter the game - that's just strategy games.

Only with very specific spells and oddities like HLR.

Other than that a ward save on top of a 2+ look out sir meant leaders were safe until engaged in combat.

Actually with non-vampire characters you generally didn't bother with a ward save at all.

 Overread wrote:
Well people sniped for leaders in fantasy too - any time the enemy can kill a key unit or model they are going to go for it no matter the game - that's just strategy games.

They did, but at least in old Fantasy Vampires were actually tough. They had good stats (important for resisting most sniping spells), could easily get a 3+/4++ save, and most effects that could potentially snipe them could be deflected to a member of their unit on a 2+ (with Look Out Sir).

Now, toughness is no longer a thing, and their wounds and save are both pitiful.

Also, I'm not denying the strategic value in sniping enemy characters. I'm saying that the ease with which it is possible is utterly ridiculous. Even if we ignore the fact that vampires now have bones made of crackers, imagine trying to snipe someone - who you can barely even see - through a crowd of people. It would be nigh impossible even for a trained sniper using a modern rifle, yet apparently even the lowliest footsoldier in AoS is able to do this with bows and cannons. Unless the character in question is sitting on a dragon in plain sight, at which point their magic sniping skills evaporate entirely.

 Overread wrote:

As for vampire specifics I can't say since I don't play them, but perhaps read:
https://www.tga.community/forums/topic/18228-aos-2-flesh-eater-courts-discussion/

https://www.tga.community/forums/topic/18232-aos-2-soulblight-discussion/

Those might give you more pointers and direction specific to the undead vampire groups; perhaps even post over there with your concerns and ideas for more specific vampire related feedback. Of course Flesh Eater Courts are more popular as they've got a battletome and are thus more current (ergo more posts).

Cheers, I'll give those a look.

I'd say the biggest issue with foot troops is simply that true line of sight makes it impossible to hide them or give them cover behind screens of troops, which is what you'd do in other games.

Again, try having a game with your general with that magic item that gives your opponent another -1 to hit.

If you are at -2 to hit, you typically needn't worry about the shooting that much anymore. It's not like it'll be impossible to kill him, but if your opponents are shooting at -2, the effectiveness takes such a nosedive, that they are typically overextending to remove a 140p model from the table. Also, any shooting that has cool effects on a 6+ roll, can never trigger on a character who's standing next to a unit as well. That alone made a huge difference in "small hero survivability".

And to come back to Auticus' last point: if LoN was able to make their small heroes "untargetable" reliably, the army (and quite a few other characters in the game) would be BROKEN AF. My opponents weep enough as it is when I nullify a full turn of damage through my resurrection abilities.

Do not fall for the internet trap that something (or even a full list) is either useless or the best thing evah! Running lots of foot vampires has it's upsides, for sure! But it might not be the best army in the meta to go crack skulls with. I'm just trying to be real here and be nuanced in how I approach things.

Ask yourself what you want out of your gaming experience:

A) A relax game that you could play for free (you got tons of models for it after all) and will be able to hold it's own just fine against quite a few lists out there. You'll be absolutely fine in most games unless you constantly end up against hardcore top-tier lists... (That's also a problem you could have that is not exclusive to AoS btw, this is true for any "nerd game" that has a competitive edge to it).


B) Chase the absolute top tier lists in competitive meta. Don't bother with this option if you aren't willing to completely revise your list (and buy new stuff) every 6 months to stay ahead of the curve... Somebody already explained how GHB works right now.

A footsoldier vampire lists could definitely work, but probably not if your aim is to mix with the type B crowd.

Very accurate assessment!

If my 100% Khorne Warherd army can work in a casual meta sprlinked with some competitive lists (Seraphon, the new SC Chamber, Freeguild spamming the guys with the guns, etc...), a Legion of Nagash army with a couple of vampires on foot can work too.

 Elmir wrote:
Again, try having a game with your general with that magic item that gives your opponent another -1 to hit.

If you are at -2 to hit, you typically needn't worry about the shooting that much anymore. It's not like it'll be impossible to kill him, but if your opponents are shooting at -2, the effectiveness takes such a nosedive, that they are typically overextending to remove a 140p model from the table.

But, unless I'm missing something, that item only protects one character. Won't my opponent just snipe the other 4 instead?

Also, this comes back to my issue of false choice. Supposedly there are a few dozen artefacts to choose from. However, the moment I choose one that looks fun (in this case the Terrorgheist Mantle), the game might as well sound a buzzer and shout 'NIRRRR, wrong option. Choose again.'

 Elmir wrote:
Also, any shooting that has cool effects on a 6+ roll, can never trigger on a character who's standing next to a unit as well. That alone made a huge difference in "small hero survivability".

I'll have to take your word for it.

 Elmir wrote:

And to come back to Auticus' last point: if LoN was able to make their small heroes "untargetable" reliably, the army (and quite a few other characters in the game) would be BROKEN AF. My opponents weep enough as it is when I nullify a full turn of damage through my resurrection abilities.

I'm not asking that they be untargettable. I'm saying that bows and cannons shouldn't be significantly better at sniping than modern sniper rifles.

 Elmir wrote:

Do not fall for the internet trap that something (or even a full list) is either useless or the best thing evah! Running lots of foot vampires has it's upsides, for sure! But it might not be the best army in the meta to go crack skulls with. I'm just trying to be real here and be nuanced in how I approach things.

I get that, but I'm also trying to be pragmatic about Age of Sigmar. I've already been forced to cut about 1/3 of my army altogether, it would be nice if I could have something left that I might actually enjoy playing. Yet at every turn it feels like I'm forced to choose between options that are fun and options that are functional.

 Elmir wrote:

Ask yourself what you want out of your gaming experience:

A) A relax game that you could play for free (you got tons of models for it after all) and will be able to hold it's own just fine against quite a few lists out there. You'll be absolutely fine in most games unless you constantly end up against hardcore top-tier lists... (That's also a problem you could have that is not exclusive to AoS btw, this is true for any "nerd game" that has a competitive edge to it).


B) Chase the absolute top tier lists in competitive meta. Don't bother with this option if you aren't willing to completely revise your list (and buy new stuff) every 6 months to stay ahead of the curve... Somebody already explained how GHB works right now.

A footsoldier vampire lists could definitely work, but probably not if your aim is to mix with the type B crowd.

Well, 'A' would probably be ideal. But this is the thing - I don't get to dictate the meta. If my group happens to like playing more competitive lists, then I'll have to do the same or accept that every game is a guaranteed loss before either of us have even deployed.

Well, 'A' would probably be ideal. But this is the thing - I don't get to dictate the meta. If my group happens to like playing more competitive lists, then I'll have to do the same or accept that every game is a guaranteed loss before either of us have even deployed.

This is the basis of a lot of what I post that are complaints about the game. Indeed like whfb before it, and 40k has always been, the game is a minefield of false choices.

The degree of which will depend entirely on your group. If they are not running competitive lists, you have more viable choices. If they want to run powerlists, your selection of viable combinations is drastically smaller and basically writes itself for you regardless of if you like the models or not.

auticus wrote:
Ah that makes so much more sense. You have a tournament powerlisting meta. Yes the powerlisting meta does change once or twice a year because GW releases a generals handbook which changes point values (which turns undercost OP units into overcost useless units and vice versa) and then an FAQ (which will change a rule or two and close OP loop holes that people build around) so the meta constantly changes.

If you are into tournament games and riding the most OP lists, you'll have to change your army on the regular.

But from what I understand, some armies are like w40k ones, so they have one build. And if that gets nerfed the whole faction stops being playable. The dwarf player here had that problem, from what I understand, his army went up in points by a lot, and there is no cheap version of his army, plus he is missing out of some mechanics he tried to explain to me, but I don't fully get. It was like summoning units, that had models, but the models don't have stats and work like spells etc.

My brothers friend played a non tournament army of stormcasts.His army wasn't good before the new edition, but the new edition made his army even worse. He can't get in to melee from deep strike like he could before, a bit like BA in w40k, and his main unit got points hikes, no speed buffs and there exists a new unit that is cheaper, better, cast spells and I think have better stats. Although he may be over reacting with how good the new stuff is. But I don't think he lies, he really was upset when the new rules came.


How big is the gap between different faction casual lists in AoS. Is the gap huge, like in w40k. Where a casual eldar army can beat other factions tournament armies. Or is the power curve more flat?

You're going to get different answers from different people.

The tournament powerlister guys I run into all claim the game is in a great place right now because at the top end of the powerlisting scale, there is more diversity in AOS than whfb ever had (or 40k). And I agree that that is true.

But the powerlister builds are still only a tiny fraction of what you could see in the game, and there is an awful lot of unviable models and builds in the game, particularly when you have folks that won't tone down in your group. So while the power meta is a bit more diverse than whfb was, the casual lists still get smacked around with no effort by those lists, and if you aren't powerlisting with the powerlisters you aren't going to have a fun game (unless you don't mind who wins or loses and just want to push models and roll dice). The chasm between power list and casual list is pretty wide.

In 40k, a casual eldar list was still basically an optimized tournament list.

In AOS, any list that isn't pushing out 30-40 mortal wounds a turn, or a list that isn't summoning 600-1000 free points a game I would consider "casual". (you will also see hybrids of those two pillars, where they may only be pushing 25 mortal wounds which is lower than most optimized armies but also they summon 500 points, so its still keeping a competitive edge)

In that regards, if two armies meet that aren't doing the above, I think they can have a fairly ok game. The legacy armies (those being the armies that are models from whfb that have not yet had any updates) are hurting because they trend towards overcosted for what they can do.

When we say some armies only have one build, what we are talking about is that in reality they have many builds, but only one power build that can run amuk at tournaments. The slayer player indeed had his power build turned into a more casual build.

There are players that can do with casual builds in a hyper competitive environment still. Its just a lot more difficult to do.

I think distilling down competitive armies to JUST mortal wounds and summoning is a bit much. Those are very strong trends, but there are army builds that are competitive while not being top tier--competitive enough to be crushing an average list and to hit top 25% at a tournament. Such builds are based around options that are simply wildly OP for the cost rather than fitting into a summoning or MW niche. Beastclaw raiders come to mind. A notable factor on them in particular is the MW count may be low per turn but the placement of them is so precise that it is disproportionately effective.

Sidenote: LoN do have a viable foot character general in the necromancer since he can bounce wounds to a nearby unit. Not much consolation I know, but it is something. Also the vampire does have a blood chalice ('option' that you are paying points for anyways) so is more durable than many foot characters. Slap him in cover and he will be pretty resilient against shooting.

As an old whfb player with limited funds the decision to swap to Aos has been a hard one but finding other whfb players is near impossible and AoS is not much better so the question of being under powered is irrelevant when there is not much in the way of local players.

Much of my army is made up of metal 4th edition models which is going to need a lot of big purchases to be even remotely be competitive.

To answer the original question, I think my biggest practical issue with AoS is the same as with 40k, it's a mass-battle game with individually based models. Just doesn't make sense to me to be moving up to hundreds of models each turn individually, instead of making regiment/unit basing a part of the rules.

Another good point that has been brought up: Character sniping, and customisation.
In WHFB Warlord Skrittclaw, my Skaven general, could have a 2+/4++ save, with a successful armour save inflicting damage on enemy models in melee with him. He rode a Ratogre Bonebreaker and cleaved through armour with his Warpstone Blade. The only sniping he feared where cannons (but then again that was 8th nonsense). Under him where numerous clan chieftans, and his 'loyal' banner bearer Mortkin, carrying the Sacred banner of the Great Horned Rat and inspiring the other Skaven around him into a religious frenzy.
In AoS Skrittclaw is a bog standard Warlord with a Warpstone blade. No magic armour, no ratogre mount, no ward save. Not only is he now as generic as they come, he is also incredibly vulnerable to sniping thanks to the "if I can see one tiny bit of your characters bannerpole I can snipe him even through a few hundred clanrats". Furthermore he is now no different from Clanbanner Mordkin, bar appearance and possibly weapon.

This is a joke. Character customisation has gone and now any character not on a giant beast or chariot (or who is not a monster themselves) is dead on arrival. My only other option as a Skaven player is to invest in a Verminlord kit (expensive) or use my Grey Seer on his Screaming Bell, neither of which is fluffy for my clan.

 master of ordinance wrote:
In AoS Skrittclaw is a bog standard Warlord with a Warpstone blade. No magic armour, no ratogre mount, no ward save. Not only is he now as generic as they come, he is also incredibly vulnerable to sniping thanks to the "if I can see one tiny bit of your characters bannerpole I can snipe him even through a few hundred clanrats".

Have you read the 2nd edition rules?

LOOK OUT, SIR!

You must subtract 1 from hit rolls made for missile weapons if the target of the attack is an enemy HERO that is within 3" of an enemy unit that has 3 or more models. The Look Out, Sir! rule does not apply if the target HERO is a MONSTER.

Age of Sigmar is not a 'block infantry' game. A model shouldn't be immune to shooting just because he's behind a unit if he can be seen.

As a gamer who played a lot of GW from the mid-90's to the early 2000's, I took a lengthy break - coming back to 40K for 8th edition. Finally have the resources, time and skill to do armies justice.

I considered Warhammer Fantasy, but the lore/background/aesthetic is gone for me. Shame too, since I listen to podcasts which discuss it and the game rules sound fine - 8th edition 40K is plenty entertaining, etc. However the nature of the armies, the aesthetics of the models and new ranges (for the most part) have absolutely lost me. This is something GW won't be changing anytime soon so I don't really have to worry about it. Did they lose a customer? Sure, but that's due to personal preference. If I was desperate I could take a look at LOTR etc.

I was always far more interested in a more classical fantasy genre, and world. The Old World was arguably the best part of Warhammer Fantasy proper, without that story/reality/lore...I can't find any interest. I've had numerous people ask me to start AoS but I simply can't - I've no interest in seeing 90% of the AoS models across the table from me.

 Ghaz wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
In AoS Skrittclaw is a bog standard Warlord with a Warpstone blade. No magic armour, no ratogre mount, no ward save. Not only is he now as generic as they come, he is also incredibly vulnerable to sniping thanks to the "if I can see one tiny bit of your characters bannerpole I can snipe him even through a few hundred clanrats".

Have you read the 2nd edition rules?

LOOK OUT, SIR!

You must subtract 1 from hit rolls made for missile weapons if the target of the attack is an enemy HERO that is within 3" of an enemy unit that has 3 or more models. The Look Out, Sir! rule does not apply if the target HERO is a MONSTER.

Age of Sigmar is not a 'block infantry' game. A model shouldn't be immune to shooting just because he's behind a unit if he can be seen.

How does that prevent sniping? Its only -1 to hit. If you throw enough dice at it, it will die.

 Ghaz wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
In AoS Skrittclaw is a bog standard Warlord with a Warpstone blade. No magic armour, no ratogre mount, no ward save. Not only is he now as generic as they come, he is also incredibly vulnerable to sniping thanks to the "if I can see one tiny bit of your characters bannerpole I can snipe him even through a few hundred clanrats".

Have you read the 2nd edition rules?

LOOK OUT, SIR!

You must subtract 1 from hit rolls made for missile weapons if the target of the attack is an enemy HERO that is within 3" of an enemy unit that has 3 or more models. The Look Out, Sir! rule does not apply if the target HERO is a MONSTER.

Age of Sigmar is not a 'block infantry' game. A model shouldn't be immune to shooting just because he's behind a unit if he can be seen.

Except that a -1 penalty to hit is absolutely pathetic. Especially when most characters have a mere handful of wounds and are armoured with paper mache.

Again, we're talking about basic grunts making shots that would embarrass a professional sniper using a modern rifle. And they're supposedly doing this with bows and arrows.

The fact that you have to lead from behind and hide heroes instead of having them lead the charge like in books or movies is something I have complained about (extensively) in the past.

The LOOK OUT SIR rule they implemented is not fully what I would have implemented, but I see it as throwing a bone and a compromise.

I will say that I create tables that have varied landscapes and terrain and that the key is making sure the table is broken up enough where your guys aren't taking 100% of the enemy ranged attack power every turn.

I will say that with the forest line of sight blocking change (very positive change in my opinion) and with the look out sir, and with the fact that missile troops can no longer shoot out of their combat if they are engaged, that these things combined make it not as bad as it was pre 2.0.

I've actually had no unreasonable issues with character sniping with 2.0 because its not as simple a task as it was pre 2.0.

auticus wrote:
I will say that with the forest line of sight blocking change (very positive change in my opinion)

I'd be more interested with the forest change if it didn't create Schrödinger's Vampire.

Let's say I have a foot vampire with Flying Horror. Well, since he can fly, he's now completely incapable of hiding in forests.

So, is he just assumed to be flying all the time, even when it makes no sense for him to do so? I have to assume so, otherwise he'd surely be able to hide like a normal foot hero.

Okay, so if he's constantly flying then he muse at least be immune to melee, right? Nope. Apparently, even though he's apparently flying above the treeline, regular infantry have no issue attacking him with swords.

Fantastic. So we have a vampire that is simultaneously flying above a forest and also standing on the ground, depending on which one is the least advantageous to him.

 vipoid wrote:

auticus wrote:
I will say that with the forest line of sight blocking change (very positive change in my opinion)

I'd be more interested with the forest change if it didn't create Schrödinger's Vampire.

Let's say I have a foot vampire with Flying Horror. Well, since he can fly, he's now completely incapable of hiding in forests.

So, is he just assumed to be flying all the time, even when it makes no sense for him to do so? I have to assume so, otherwise he'd surely be able to hide like a normal foot hero.

Okay, so if he's constantly flying then he muse at least be immune to melee, right? Nope. Apparently, even though he's apparently flying above the treeline, regular infantry have no issue attacking him with swords.

Fantastic. So we have a vampire that is simultaneously flying above a forest and also standing on the ground, depending on which one is the least advantageous to him.

Look, the infantry with swords are clearly all Marbo, which is how they are capable of jumping over the tree line.
Its AoS, it doesn't have to make sense.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its AoS, it doesn't have to make sense.

This needs to be the slogan on EVERY AoS release from here on out. At the very least, it needs to be my sig. Permission?

 Just Tony wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its AoS, it doesn't have to make sense.

This needs to be the slogan on EVERY AoS release from here on out. At the very least, it needs to be my sig. Permission?

Yeah, go for it.

Ghaz wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
In AoS Skrittclaw is a bog standard Warlord with a Warpstone blade. No magic armour, no ratogre mount, no ward save. Not only is he now as generic as they come, he is also incredibly vulnerable to sniping thanks to the "if I can see one tiny bit of your characters bannerpole I can snipe him even through a few hundred clanrats".

Have you read the 2nd edition rules?

Not fully I admit, but from what I have seen they have done little to fix the major issues or to make the game any less shallow.

LOOK OUT, SIR!

You must subtract 1 from hit rolls made for missile weapons if the target of the attack is an enemy HERO that is within 3" of an enemy unit that has 3 or more models. The Look Out, Sir! rule does not apply if the target HERO is a MONSTER.

Thats..... It? That is pathetic, especially given how powerful some of the shooting units in this game are and how poorly most character models are armoured. Unless you are a toughness monster your hero is still going to be pincushioned as soon as they enter range. If my Warlord is behind 50+ Clanrats then there is no way you should be shooting him with your archers, those 50+ bodies should block line of sight.

Age of Sigmar is not a 'block infantry' game. A model shouldn't be immune to shooting just because he's behind a unit if he can be seen.

This is a problem in itself, but still a dense mob of bods should block LoS just as well as a ranked formation, probably moreso infact.

 master of ordinance wrote:

LOOK OUT, SIR!

You must subtract 1 from hit rolls made for missile weapons if the target of the attack is an enemy HERO that is within 3" of an enemy unit that has 3 or more models. The Look Out, Sir! rule does not apply if the target HERO is a MONSTER.

Thats..... It? That is pathetic, especially given how powerful some of the shooting units in this game are and how poorly most character models are armoured. Unless you are a toughness monster your hero is still going to be pincushioned as soon as they enter range. If my Warlord is behind 50+ Clanrats then there is no way you should be shooting him with your archers, those 50+ bodies should block line of sight.

Well, I think it was a reaction to what 40K had to deal with. There was a lot of a thing called "confusion" regarding it, so I think they were trying to down it down between nothing and 40K's. On the other hand, in pure proportion, there are far fewer ranged weapons in AoS than in 40K.

 master of ordinance wrote:

Age of Sigmar is not a 'block infantry' game. A model shouldn't be immune to shooting just because he's behind a unit if he can be seen.

This is a problem in itself, but still a dense mob of bods should block LoS just as well as a ranked formation, probably more so in fact.

Which is ironic, since in WHFB, they were usually in front which is where a lot of non-arcing shooting hit first...

 Charistoph wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

LOOK OUT, SIR!

You must subtract 1 from hit rolls made for missile weapons if the target of the attack is an enemy HERO that is within 3" of an enemy unit that has 3 or more models. The Look Out, Sir! rule does not apply if the target HERO is a MONSTER.

Thats..... It? That is pathetic, especially given how powerful some of the shooting units in this game are and how poorly most character models are armoured. Unless you are a toughness monster your hero is still going to be pincushioned as soon as they enter range. If my Warlord is behind 50+ Clanrats then there is no way you should be shooting him with your archers, those 50+ bodies should block line of sight.

Well, I think it was a reaction to what 40K had to deal with. There was a lot of a thing called "confusion" regarding it, so I think they were trying to down it down between nothing and 40K's. On the other hand, in pure proportion, there are far fewer ranged weapons in AoS than in 40K.

 master of ordinance wrote:

Age of Sigmar is not a 'block infantry' game. A model shouldn't be immune to shooting just because he's behind a unit if he can be seen.

This is a problem in itself, but still a dense mob of bods should block LoS just as well as a ranked formation, probably more so in fact.

Which is ironic, since in WHFB, they were usually in front which is where a lot of non-arcing shooting hit first...

Except if a unit has more than 5 models you can't hit the character. If the unit is reduced to less than 5 models you have to allocate shots, and even then the character gets Look out Sir. Pg 99.
Its assumed that some grunt will always get the way of fire and that its not easy to pick out the character in a crowd.
Killing characters with shooting was not easy, unless they were by themselves in the open.

 Charistoph wrote:

Well, I think it was a reaction to what 40K had to deal with. There was a lot of a thing called "confusion" regarding it, so I think they were trying to down it down between nothing and 40K's. On the other hand, in pure proportion, there are far fewer ranged weapons in AoS than in 40K.

Just a point, but they could have simply made the penalty for shooting at characters harsher. Surely a -2 or -3 modifier wouldn't have been any more confusing than a -1 modifier?

It might also have been nice if you just had to be within 3" of any friendly unit, so that a character can actually hide behind monsters and other large models.

In terms of the confusion relating to 40k's system:
- Whether or not a character can hide is dependant on their Wounds value. However, this tends to only have a flimsy connection to a model's actual size. So we have a situation where Guilliman is invisible if he's standing behind a line of guardsmen that barely come up to his waist. Or, in the case of Necrons, you can have two near-identical vehicles (one is a character, the other isn't). One of them is invisible when floating behind a line of warriors, the other can be freely shot.
- The character doesn't have to be hiding at all - there just has to be a closer unit somewhere. So, in the above case, you might be unable to shoot Guilliman because you can't pick him out from the line of guardsmen in the other direction.
- Whilst the character doesn't have to be hiding, the closer unit can freely hide. Indeed, it's possible that Guilliman can be standing out in the open, but you still can't shoot him because you can't distinguish him from the unit of guardsmen that are completely out of sight.

One feels that 40k was perhaps a little too eager to protect its characters.

The thing in AOS is that the game is entirely about characters and how they stack buffs on your models, so characters not able to be hurt easily set some people off.

auticus wrote:
The thing in AOS is that the game is entirely about characters and how they stack buffs on your models, so characters not able to be hurt easily set some people off.

Surely it works both ways though?

I can appreciate that having completely untargetable characters could be frustrating - but so is having characters that are effortlessly sniped and which you can do almost nothing to protect.

Let's take the aforementioned Winged Vampire Lord:
- To start off with, his basic defensive stats are awful, being no better than those of an ordinary human in armour (and worse than many comparable units). 5 wounds is about as low as it gets without being a demi-hero, and a 4+ save is nothing to write home about.
- Next, he has no special abilities to improve his defence. At most, he can regain some wounds (which is irrelevant if the opponent does the sensible thing and one-rounds him), but he has nothing to stop him actually taking damage.
- Further, outside of specific artefacts in specific armies, he can't buy anything to keep him safe. Even something as basic as a shield is apparently too much to ask.
- Next, in terms of placement, he can't meaningfully hide behind any units. It doesn't matter how much stuff is in front of him, so long as an opponent can see even the tiniest fraction of his cape, they can shoot him. And if he tries to hide behind a monster then he doesn't even get the pitiful LoS bonus.
- He can't hide behind a forest because he has the Fly keyword.
- The only thing he can do is prey that there is piece of terrain that is large and bulky enough to completely conceal him from the enemy army, yet not so bulky as to interfere with the movement of the infantry that the vampire lord is supposed to buff. And then I have to hope that there are more of these magical terrain pieces further up the board so that my Vampire Lord can keep up with his infantry without just being instantly sniped.

TLR My issue is not with the possibility of heroes being sniped - my issue is that there are basically no countermeasures I can take to prevent it.

As weird (or even harsh) as it may sound if it bothers you that much:


Yes... that's exactly the point now in AoS 2.0. that you CANNOT be 100% sure your heroes are safe ALL THE TIME. But you can force your opponent to take a horribly inefficient move by dedicating a lot of firepower over a minor foot solder hero.

IF you could, this game would be BROKEN AF for certain factions, LoN first and foremost.

AoS' ranged units are quite expensive for their actual damage output compared to most melee units (or incredibly swingy at best) and to have those units shoot at reduced efficiency is always a trade-off. One you can force your opponent into in a LoN list, because a LoN regeneration for none hero models is pretty bonkers.

And that's not even mentioning that LoN has moves that can shut shooting down (or force them to target units in melee range) with a bit of luck turn 1 once you get more of the intricacies of the army down.

 Elmir wrote:
Yes... that's exactly the point now in AoS 2.0. that you CANNOT be 100% sure your heroes are safe ALL THE TIME.

Yep, just keep burning that straw man. I think there are a few patches left that aren't quite ashes yet.

In AoS you are supposed to not bring just one of those foot heroes. You can of course. But your general is supposed to be some big beasty boi, or at least some very durable dude.

A Vampire is a support character. But that does not mean that it can't work alone and as your general. It absolutely can.

Your find that those monstrous armies that snipe characters left and right without any effort with a ton of powerfull shooting attacks and mortal wounds and magic are much less abundant and common that you may think. As Elmir said, actually, thats true in AoS, shooting units pay a price for being shooty, and they have (now) a good bunch of drawbacks. Of course you'll have the boogeyman like Skyfires, but they have been nerfed into a balanced state.
Playing agaisnt those lists is like playing vs a imperial soup of imperial guard+ba+Imperial Knight. Are they popular? Yes. Do they exist? Of course. Do you encounter them regularly outside tournaments? That will depend of your local meta.

In my case, I don't encounter them unless I go to a proper big tournament. So I have 0 problems running Doombulls and other squisy heroes, because most of my enemy shooting is short ranged, or more of a support role, or their magic isn't that powerfull. So basically, yeah.

As with everything: In a casual setting, everything works. Just as like 40k, if you want very powerfull builds, you'll find them. The real question here is. Are the rest of your group looking for those very powerfull builds?
And no, it does not cut the "It where just the models I like", just like nobody makes a Ynnari soup with DE and a Craftowlr Eldar for doom because "he liked the models"

 Galas wrote:
In AoS you are supposed to not bring just one of those foot heroes. You can of course. But your general is supposed to be some big beasty boi, or at least some very durable dude.

Yeah, that's why I'm a little sad about Vampire Lords getting stomped down to 'ordinary human in basic armour'. It used to be that they were the durable ones.

 Galas wrote:

A Vampire is a support character. But that does not mean that it can't work alone and as your general. It absolutely can.

Your find that those monstrous armies that snipe characters left and right without any effort with a ton of powerfull shooting attacks and mortal wounds and magic are much less abundant and common that you may think. As Elmir said, actually, thats true in AoS, shooting units pay a price for being shooty, and they have (now) a good bunch of drawbacks. Of course you'll have the boogeyman like Skyfires, but they have been nerfed into a balanced state.
Playing agaisnt those lists is like playing vs a imperial soup of imperial guard+ba+Imperial Knight. Are they popular? Yes. Do they exist? Of course. Do you encounter them regularly outside tournaments? That will depend of your local meta.

I keep hearing conflicting opinions on this.

Some people are saying 'yeah, foot infantry are fine, barely any armies have the tech to snipe them', whilst others say 'if you move a foot hero a millimetre out of LoS-blocking terrain, he's dead'.

 Galas wrote:

In my case, I don't encounter them unless I go to a proper big tournament. So I have 0 problems running Doombulls and other squisy heroes, because most of my enemy shooting is short ranged, or more of a support role, or their magic isn't that powerfull. So basically, yeah.

As with everything: In a casual setting, everything works. Just as like 40k, if you want very powerfull builds, you'll find them. The real question here is. Are the rest of your group looking for those very powerfull builds?

*I'm* not looking for those powerful builds but I've no idea what my group will be using. If they're running more competitive stuff then there isn't a whole lot I can do about that, aside from shrugging my shoulders, sweeping up my heroes with a dustpan and brush, and going back to 40k.

 vipoid wrote:


I keep hearing conflicting opinions on this.

Some people are saying 'yeah, foot infantry are fine, barely any armies have the tech to snipe them', whilst others say 'if you move a foot hero a millimetre out of LoS-blocking terrain, he's dead'.

Reality is probably somewhere between the two. Also note that if your opponent is spending all their time sniping your hero then they are not using those ranged attacks on your infantry; so sure your hero might go down, but then bam the rank and file will hit into them fast.

 Overread wrote:
Reality is probably somewhere between the two. Also note that if your opponent is spending all their time sniping your hero then they are not using those ranged attacks on your infantry; so sure your hero might go down, but then bam the rank and file will hit into them fast.

But, for LoN, isn't that much worse? Since the infantry are heavily reliant on the heroes for regeneration and support.

Most armies are reliant in their heroes. Khorne, for example. I had problems running them before 2.0 because yeah, heroes where snipped left and right the moment the opponend had a little of quality shooting power.

But now... this is not like 40k. Shooting units aren't putting out 50 dice (Unless they were savage ork arrow boyz in the kunnin ruk formation, good times), they have a worse to hit (normally), they have less damage and less rend (of course saves are also worse here), and the biggest range shooting is normally 18-24". Bolter range.
And now that shooting units can't shoot outside their own combat? Na. I don't find snniping characters to be a problem.

I use a couple of marauder Horsemen in my khorne list to tie up the enemy shooting. If they get the charge, they don't shot my heroes. If they don't, then that means the enemy will need to shoot them down or they will be unable to shoot the next turn.

 Overread wrote:

 vipoid wrote:


I keep hearing conflicting opinions on this.

Some people are saying 'yeah, foot infantry are fine, barely any armies have the tech to snipe them', whilst others say 'if you move a foot hero a millimetre out of LoS-blocking terrain, he's dead'.

Reality is probably somewhere between the two. Also note that if your opponent is spending all their time sniping your hero then they are not using those ranged attacks on your infantry; so sure your hero might go down, but then bam the rank and file will hit into them fast.

It is as easy as the level of competitiveness you are playing. Auticus, or people that go to big competitive tournaments, will find that heroes are snipped left and right with shooting and magic. But then in those kind of enviroments you also find lists summoning 600-800 points a game or dishing out 30-50 mortal wounds a turn. Your heroes being snipped are not the biggest of your problems.

I'm luck to not play in an enviroment like that one. I understand not everybody is that lucky. Thats why my recomendation, Vipoid, is to wait and see how are gonna play, and in what are interested the people you are gonna play with.