How is Age of Sigmar doing in your area? Has it grown or shrink? did it even exist at all?



Has Age of Sigmar been popular with your store.

Steadily gaining strength since the first GHB. Quite popular now.

virtually extinct, there are still a handful of holdouts playing usually in my basement, the local GW doesn't even bother supporting it, 8th 40k finished it off more or less. It was not popular at launch and GHB did nothing to change it. Shadespire siphoned off a few more players and they more or less abandoned it for MT:G, Guildball, and X-wing.

Terribly. Everyone from Fantasy preferred Fantasy, the few new people it brought in left pretty fast (although that's a good thing in half of those cases), then after a while the holdouts from Fantasy left. After a period of literally nobody playing its back up to my friend and myself.
We play so we have something to do with our old armies and between the bad rules of 40k and AoS we chose the one that's always been bad and is almost entirely free.

pm713 wrote:
Terribly. Everyone from Fantasy preferred Fantasy, the few new people it brought in left pretty fast (although that's a good thing in half of those cases), then after a while the holdouts from Fantasy left. After a period of literally nobody playing its back up to my friend and myself.
We play so we have something to do with our old armies and between the bad rules of 40k and AoS we chose the one that's always been bad and is almost entirely free.

If you really want to "embrace the suck" check out holistic's "carnage"

It doesn't really get played where I am except for when I run a campaign. There are a couple of tournament guys that go to other cities to play tournaments. Thats about it.

The fantasy crowd here is not interested in touching it beyond doing the occasional campaign...which I guess is fine as it gets played a little bit.

 auticus wrote:
It doesn't really get played where I am except for when I run a campaign. There are a couple of tournament guys that go to other cities to play tournaments. Thats about it.

The fantasy crowd here is not interested in touching it beyond doing the occasional campaign...which I guess is fine as it gets played a little bit.

we dont have near enough for a good campaign sadly, I was tempted to try again at our flgs (even got the go ahead from the manager) but the firestorm set was just...not what i was willing to buy, not that i dont like the concept, I just dont like that part of the realms where it was set. none of my terrain would really "fit" with it and I would have had to provide pretty much everything.

We have 15 to 20 or so regular AOS players at my local GW (great store actually), and when we run events or campaigns we have about 25.

When you walk in looking for a game its about 50/50 if your opponent will want AOS or 40K that day. Shadespire is pretty popular as well.

mfranks985 wrote:
We have 15 to 20 or so regular AOS players at my local GW (great store actually), and when we run events or campaigns we have about 25.

When you walk in looking for a game its about 50/50 if your opponent will want AOS or 40K that day. Shadespire is pretty popular as well.

must be nice, you couldn't physically get 20 people into our GW store, you wouldn't be able to move or breathe.

Currently we have 8 new people getting back into AoS at our FLGS. 2 Campaigns at once. Going the escalation route. Theres als oa club day atleast once a month if not twice. 40k is still king here, but AoS is getting traction as a lot of people are getting bored of seeing the same 40k lists and leafblower armies/alpha strike. I wish AoS has the same wounding table of str/toughtness as 40k does and id say I like it vastly more.

str00dles1 wrote:
Currently we have 8 new people getting back into AoS at our FLGS. 2 Campaigns at once. Going the escalation route. Theres als oa club day atleast once a month if not twice. 40k is still king here, but AoS is getting traction as a lot of people are getting bored of seeing the same 40k lists and leafblower armies/alpha strike. I wish AoS has the same wounding table of str/toughtness as 40k does and id say I like it vastly more.

two questions for you guys then.. 1) did you give Firestorm a go yet? and 2) if so, how did it go/what did you think?

The big thing that I noticed with firestorm is that they give you 23 territories to fight over. But only five of them really matter and thats where all of the battles take place, because if you forge the fire scepter you just flat out win.

Sometimes I don't understand how rules developers can write these things and NOT see obvious holes in their framework like that (unless for whatever reason they honestly thought people wouldn't be trying to go for the quick win the entire time)

If I do another run it will be wiith the auto-win removed and the fire scepter only grants additional glory points or some other perk in-game.

That sounds perfectly reasonable. More narrative and less competitive the better.

Maybe enables the use of a powerful Fyreslayer weapon? (And give the Fyreslayer who already owns said weapon an attack buff)

Declined leading up to GH2017 and then 8th edition 40k virtually killed it. GH2017 was not well-received here; I heard a lot of complaints that it "ruined" the game by not fixing things (basically didn't change the rules to be like 40k).

With Malign Portents though I have gotten some people more interested, the next step is to try and organize these people to get some games going. I greatly prefer AOS to 40k and feel it is the superior game, but 40k has more mainstream appeal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:
The big thing that I noticed with firestorm is that they give you 23 territories to fight over. But only five of them really matter and thats where all of the battles take place, because if you forge the fire scepter you just flat out win.

Sometimes I don't understand how rules developers can write these things and NOT see obvious holes in their framework like that (unless for whatever reason they honestly thought people wouldn't be trying to go for the quick win the entire time)

If I do another run it will be wiith the auto-win removed and the fire scepter only grants additional glory points or some other perk in-game.

Honestly I think it's the second. They probably think it's a campaign, why would you want to go for the quick win as soon as possible, wouldn't you want to keep it going so everyone has fun, etc. etc. Sometimes I think they just underestimate the "I want to WIN" mindset gamers tend to have.

It's played regularly at the GW store and seems to attract a decent-sized crowd. However, most play seems centered around the store. It doesn't seem to have the same level of independent hobbyist support (narrative campaigns, ladder leagues, ITC events, etc.) that 40K does.

The player base did decline a little bit - a lot of people played it because they hated 7th ed. 40K. When 8th came out, those players mostly switched back. Not sure how significant the numbers are.

The game was virtually non-existent prior to GHB 2016, then picked up significantly for the next year. We had about 6 players who showed up on a regular basis plus a dozen others who played from time to time. I live in a small city, so that's pretty impressive for this area. By the time GHB 2017 came out, things had slowed down a little, but you could still find a pick-up game on most Saturdays. 8th ed. 40k has pretty much killed to game for now, but I still get in a game every now and then. It doesn't help that my FLGS moved in the last month after changing owners, but it should be re-opening after the first of the year, and with Malign Portents, I expect things to pick up again.

Also I'm looking for playtesters to run my Azyr Empires 2nd edition. I'll be starting that in April with my group (we are wrapping up path to glory now).

Azyr Empires is resource campaign where you build an empire. 1st edition is found in my signature site.

2nd edition I cut the page count tremendously.

Extinct.

Dying at my store, me and my brother play regularly. A hand full of people joined up for a tournament but it didnt attract new players because all the "that guy" people came out of the wood work kept newer players away with questionable playing. It's more of a 40k store and most of those players dont like AoS rules there is also a pocket of Warmahordes people whom also dont like AoS rules, and on top of that the store seems like its trying to push KoW.

Seems Pretty popular in Copenhagen

Doing fairly well here. The issue is more with the guy trying to run events I think (he's pretty hardcore) than it is the games popularity. I see people playing at GW and normally at FFG to whenever I swing thru. Quite a few local stores have a AoS night. So overall probably pretty good. I just don't get to play it as much as tournaments are dwindling due to other issues.

 auticus wrote:
The big thing that I noticed with firestorm is that they give you 23 territories to fight over. But only five of them really matter and thats where all of the battles take place, because if you forge the fire scepter you just flat out win.

Sometimes I don't understand how rules developers can write these things and NOT see obvious holes in their framework like that (unless for whatever reason they honestly thought people wouldn't be trying to go for the quick win the entire time)

If I do another run it will be wiith the auto-win removed and the fire scepter only grants additional glory points or some other perk in-game.

does it matter more with more players? or can it go ok with just 2 or 3?

We had 7 players in our test run of it and I assigned factions. I think it would be fine with 2 or 3 players.

 auticus wrote:
We had 7 players in our test run of it and I assigned factions. I think it would be fine with 2 or 3 players.

in your opinion, how did the 7 players work?..you assigned factions, assuming 2,2,2,1? and was the map conducive to it, I get that maybe 5 zones are critical, but I also played the old generals handbook campaign in the border princes (it was similar) is there a way to "block" folks from getting to those? sorry to bombard, but even with it being in one of the realms i dont care for, the temptation is rising. some buddies of mine have moved back here from out east and they have tweens and want to get back into gaming, I am thinking AoS really is a great "Starter" type game.

The old General's Handbook map campaign from 2002 was far superior IMO because it was a legit map.

The map in Firestorm is just a setting. You can pick and choose whatever area you want to fight in. There are no map movements. Thats the big part I don't like as much but from my feedback and what not I understand the community at large isn't interested in complex maps.

So I assign factions and then the factions battle. Every week we'd see who was available, and then they'd simply fight for their faction.

However all battles were in the key 5 territories.

So we had three order players, three chaos players and a death player.

The factions were two stormcast (1 faction), khorne & nurgle (1 faction), dwarves and death (1 faction) and slaves to darkness player (1 faction).

Slaves to darkness player is very active so could play more than the other players who played maybe once or twice a month max.

Every week they'd pair themselves up for their faction and play.

 auticus wrote:
The old General's Handbook map campaign from 2002 was far superior IMO because it was a legit map.

The map in Firestorm is just a setting. You can pick and choose whatever area you want to fight in. There are no map movements. Thats the big part I don't like as much but from my feedback and what not I understand the community at large isn't interested in complex maps.

So I assign factions and then the factions battle. Every week we'd see who was available, and then they'd simply fight for their faction.

However all battles were in the key 5 territories.

So we had three order players, three chaos players and a death player.

The factions were two stormcast (1 faction), khorne & nurgle (1 faction), dwarves and death (1 faction) and slaves to darkness player (1 faction).

Slaves to darkness player is very active so could play more than the other players who played maybe once or twice a month max.

Every week they'd pair themselves up for their faction and play.

well honestly it sounds while not "perfect" good enough, and since i wont be playing with strangers. i think this may be a good investment.

I'd definitely encourage you to give it a try yes. It was fun. I prefer full on maps but I think this was pretty cool other than the deficiency I pointed out.

 auticus wrote:
I'd definitely encourage you to give it a try yes. It was fun. I prefer full on maps but I think this was pretty cool other than the deficiency I pointed out.

will do, and consider a house rule or something for requiring areas to be moved through or whatnot? thanks for the heads up!

If you make it so that the flame scepter is not an auto win and only gives some glory points, then I think what will happen is mostly you will still fight in those 5 realms until the flame scepter is gotten, and then afterward the campaign continues in the other areas until your endpoint (whatever you all agreed on) is reached.

i will get with my group on that one, have it ordered thanks

 auticus wrote:
If you make it so that the flame scepter is not an auto win and only gives some glory points, then I think what will happen is mostly you will still fight in those 5 realms until the flame scepter is gotten, and then afterward the campaign continues in the other areas until your endpoint (whatever you all agreed on) is reached.

I find it incredibly amusing and more than a little bit sad that in a campaign you still have people who are trying to game it to win as quickly as possible.

Gaming culture is gaming culture. Thats why you need rules that are tight. It doesn't matter if its a campaign or a tournament, or a tabletop RPG session, people are going to min/max or find the most efficient means to victory.

Firestorm is just a very obvious shortcut to victory by owning those territories and forging the scepter first. (since if you do so you flat out win)

There are other ways around that, such as making the pieces of the scepter randomly obtained regardless of territory. Or what I would prefer - a quest token you get from something like winning a game of Silver Tower will earn you a piece of the scepter.

Only 40K is being played in my local GW on a regular basis. There were some AoS intro games in the past and then it went the way of the dodo.

Strong. Bit lower than 40K, but right now has been experiencing a surge in new players, expecially veterans getting bored by the 40K. The friendly tournaments at the local GW store have an equal partecipation forboth AoS and 40K, so I got to say AOS is looking good in my area

AoS started strong but has declined in favour of 8th ed 40K and Bolt Action. Rarely does an AoS game get planned anymore which is a shame.

 BlackLobster wrote:
AoS started strong but has declined in favour of 8th ed 40K and Bolt Action. Rarely does an AoS game get planned anymore which is a shame.

it reversed for us.

40k declined and AoS is super strong in my neck of the woods.

Shadespire seems pretty big in my area. I still see the occasional game of AoS proper too. My immediate group has been on an AoS binge of late.

With the new nurgle stuff coming I am going to really need to get AOS back and kicking. Sadly nurgle is fairly popular here so part of me is wanting to do something else, despite really liking it, just for variety.

AoS is keeping up with 40k by quite a bit at my gaming place, maybe even surpassing it. Trouble is there are a LOT of hardcore AOS tourney players so it's really a challenge to have some good victories, but overall Its alive and well!

With these new releases on the horizon I think AoS is going to come to the forefront.

I would think by this point AoS is pretty much at its "high water mark". anywhere its popular, it will likely remain so, where its not, it will remain unpopular.

I am slowly building the AOS in my community. Did a demo game for someone at my FLGS (where previously we tried to get AOS off, and nothing happened) who was new, and he loved it, and said he has two friends and a co-worker who have start collecting sets (his co-worker only bought it to paint, he said) so that's promising. The hard part here is that, for whatever reason, this region of Florida has no desire to be part of a community. People just don't care about organization, so it's going to be an uphill battle to try and get that going, despite there being like 3-4 stores in a 30 mile radius. Also I have a friend who, while I like talking to him, plays the game obnoxiously and I think is why it fizzled the last time (he can be very abrasive).

There might be a AoS player base in the town about 30 miles from me, but it's not really feasible to travel that far to game regularly, which has really sucked as a minis wargamer for the last 20+ years, lol.

The only gaming I get is with my Dad, when I can shanghai my wife into a game, or a couple of buddies who I really only get to see once or twice a month at best, and then it's mostly for Roleplaying games. So around me I would have to be the one pushing everything (as with 90% of the games I want to play) and it's just too expensive to buy all the gaming material to have multiple armies/warbands available to play with.

So I'm instead going to end up playing AoS in spirit, if not reality. I use the rules and warband lists for the game Age of Fantasy from One Page Games, which is a free indie ruleset that uses it's own set of rules to represent the forces of 40k and AoS, with a very light but fulfilling ruleset that's much less complicated than even AoS, which is perfect for only being able to game every several weeks or months and everyone's rusty and doesn't want to spend precious game time relearning rules.

Very badly, we have probably 3/4 players out of a hundred or so, some people collect it but don't play it, I think it needs someone to push it and try to get others on board, might try to get an escalation league going

Narrative campaigns have actually worked here. We finished path to glory with 18 players and the spring azyr empires campaign is set for potentially 21.

 auticus wrote:
Narrative campaigns have actually worked here. We finished path to glory with 18 players and the spring azyr empires campaign is set for potentially 21.

Can you make any suggestions on how to drum up interest? How did you do it?

I've been running events here for over twenty years, so that helps because people know it will complete instead of fizzle and die out.

I live in a tournament centric area but there are a lot of narrative guys here that dwell in the shadows that just needed events that they were interested in. The problem was that it wouldn't happen overnight, its like a slow moving snowball.

In our WHFB days we had about 25-30 active players. When AOS hit we were struck down to about 5 of us.

The tournament AOS scene here is basically totally dead.

How I assisted in growing it was to measure interest and cater to that interest.

We ran Azyr Empires (this will be our third run through this spring) and path to glory really helped get new players interested since they didn't need huge forces.

The biggest pointers that I can think of that were the most positive:

* start small, work up. Do not start at 2000 points. Do not start with tournaments or tournament standard. Most of the people I encounter actually have no interest in tournaments or events run like tournaments. Tournaments are great, but if your events are all based on tournaments, there is a large subsection of players that will stay out of the community.

* come up with a schedule. Give it a begin date and a definite end date.

I find that open scheduling is a setup for failure. I schedule players and that gives a structure and we have exponentially more players stick around than if its open scheduling where players don't want to be social lol.

I had little awards as well. I have a persistent plaque that hangs on our GW store's wall that goes back to 99 with all of the campaigns that have run and who won or what factions won. This gives history and shows a trail of successful events, which I also find is very important because a big complaint that I hear is that campaigns suck because they always just fizzle out.

They shouldn't always fizzle out.

Start small with players. Say 3-5 players your first go around. Build up from that.

Successful events that are fun will attract other players.

The biggest thing though is gauging your audience. I live in tourney-center-USA, and running campaigns can be a challenge particularly when houserules or non official material is presented, but the reward for persisting with that is a group of campaign players that aren't as worried about tournament rules and a lot of engaged players.

However if your audience are all tournament players, you will have to design accordingly or be ok with smaller groups which grow over the years.

The NEO events are great places to start. Firestorm Campaign is also a good box to start with. If you're interested in empire building, I wrote Azyr Empires and have the 2nd edition coming out this spring for our 2018 campaign (you can get to Azyr Empires on my signature). It is a bit more complicated than most people like though, but if crunch is your thing we have a good size playtest group and I'd be happy to hear critique for it. Thats how it got to 2nd edition after all.

Good luck!

I always joke with my buddies that at least my situation allows me to do whatever the hell I want for my local setting, as they are not really any kind of strict fans of Warhammer anyway.

Have our games set in a verdant kingdom on Ghyran and accept the official AoS setting while adding my own fluff? Sure.

Ignore the AoS realms, retcon half the End Times, and have Stormcast appearing several hundred years later and fighting to retake a Chaos overrun, ruined and tainted Empire in a post-apocolyptic Old World setting? Like anyone can stop me. This summer event...the retaking of Altdorf, and bloody tunnel fighting in the warrens below the great Chaos citadel of Middenheim.

Dying.

We have more Bolt Action players than AoS players.

About once a month, some folks get together and play AoS.

We have more games of Silver Tower and the other Warhammer Quest game than we do AoS.

It's really sad seeing how many communities ignore AOS; I wonder if its just bitter old WHFB people angry that they killed the world, or still angry over "muh points" and "silly rules" from the early days? In my experience, AOS is way better as a game than 40k is right now, 40k being a huge cluster this early in the edition.

Here its that the people that liked whfb like infantry forces clashing rank/flank style, and didn't want another skirmish game in a market glutted and overloaded with skirmish games.

Wayniac wrote:
It's really sad seeing how many communities ignore AOS; I wonder if its just bitter old WHFB people angry that they killed the world, or still angry over "muh points" and "silly rules" from the early days? In my experience, AOS is way better as a game than 40k is right now, 40k being a huge cluster this early in the edition.

I’m certainly enjoying AoS a lot more at the moment than 40k. Both in game mechanics and fluff.

Wayniac wrote:
It's really sad seeing how many communities ignore AOS; I wonder if its just bitter old WHFB people angry that they killed the world, or still angry over "muh points" and "silly rules" from the early days? In my experience, AOS is way better as a game than 40k is right now, 40k being a huge cluster this early in the edition.

generally no, those guys here are still playing 8th warhammer (and in some cases even older editions) AoS is largely ignored here because it just isnt very good at what it says it is, an "affordable, easy to get into skirmish game" when compared to the large number of other skirmish games. We have tried over and over to get any kind of momentum but sticker shock is a big killer. This game is not appreciably cheaper than warhammer and the armies are not appreciably smaller. Even running with smaller groups there is still a massive disconnect in price. The idea that "simpler is better" is really just a matter of local meta, here "simpler is poison" so other games get the nod. I used to think of AoS as the worst game currently on the market in terms of quality rules and cost, 8th edition 40k told me to "hold my beer" and managed to be the IMO the works game ever made, by anybody. I do not miss seeing 40k games anymore. But realistically taken on its own merits, AoS is a pretty decent little game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:
Here its that the people that liked whfb like infantry forces clashing rank/flank style, and didn't want another skirmish game in a market glutted and overloaded with skirmish games.

Again hitting the nail on the head, too many skirmish games available. But also...almost all of them are cheaper.

Cost is also definitely a factor. Even pushing for smaller games, people are not so keen on getting in because the standard (2000p) is so expensive regardless of local smaller games supporting people not wanting to get a full force.

Psychology in action the tournament scene in general dictates standard game size, even with people that will never set foot in a tournament.

Pretty dead in my area. Our FLGS owner tries every now and again to gen it up, but no one is biting.

I don't know a single Fantasy player that I played with who plays.

 auticus wrote:
Cost is also definitely a factor. Even pushing for smaller games, people are not so keen on getting in because the standard (2000p) is so expensive regardless of local smaller games supporting people not wanting to get a full force.

Psychology in action the tournament scene in general dictates standard game size, even with people that will never set foot in a tournament.

Well, the fact that once points based play came onto the scene it removed virtually everything else didn't help that, even though without that you had the ability to play smaller games. But that was "not fair" because you had to gauge balance yourself, so was a vile and evil thing that had to be stamped out. Ironically, ignoring that subset of the game also means people are back to complaining about it being "too expensive".

Yep people can be special.

Wayniac wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Cost is also definitely a factor. Even pushing for smaller games, people are not so keen on getting in because the standard (2000p) is so expensive regardless of local smaller games supporting people not wanting to get a full force.

Psychology in action the tournament scene in general dictates standard game size, even with people that will never set foot in a tournament.

Well, the fact that once points based play came onto the scene it removed virtually everything else didn't help that, even though without that you had the ability to play smaller games. But that was "not fair" because you had to gauge balance yourself, so was a vile and evil thing that had to be stamped out. Ironically, ignoring that subset of the game also means people are back to complaining about it being "too expensive".

to be fair though, just to put a 3 warscroll force of overlords on the table will cost you about $115 and thats just two units of arkanaughts and a leader. Even playing how we do (without points) that's a chunk compared to the other games out there. so even with free warscrolls and rules (and free rules and suchnot is more common than not for games) that is a hard sell. And having played since day 1, gauging balance is hit or miss and takes getting to know players and their army, good for long term, but terrible for pick up and getting people into a game. Trying to teach someone a game and then trying to eyeball them a good force with no metric whatsoever (what we had before any points) was not fun or easy.

in the warhammer store Rotterdam its going well, with an active AoS community. Its hard to tell whats more populair there 40k or AoS.

It's huge in my area. I'm a 40k player, but there's a bit of pressure to come to Age of Sigmar from the rest of the club - almost all of the 40k players also play AOS and it sounds pretty rockin'.

Our holiday game day had 3 tables of 40k (with 5 players per table) and 6 tables (!) of AOS, with the same rules. Admittedly we were playing 500 point armies and fighting for presents that rained from the sky, but still..

Deader then dead, it had a quick short revival but that was really only to act as a change of pace over 40k during the initial launch of 8th. Now no one touches it, and the armies just. Ollect dust.

It was dead here but me and 2 others are starting it. Malign portents is actually getting people interested. Not going to lie though it’s going to be tough. My 40k community don't use language like this on Dakka.

Reds8n

We have a group that plays the game of the month on Sundays. When there isn't a new awesome miniature game out that month, they fall back to AoS. Other stores don't get much play of it, although the mantic version of WFB has its adherents.

Its doing fine here. Multiple large tournaments. 10-20 players on our weekly meetups. Its a good game, balance is getting better. Armies are being updated. 8th edition 40k has overshadowed it, and 40k mains will still talk trash about it. Which is ironic, seeing how the game their playing is based off the game their hating on.

the local GW finally gave it up, its pretty much RIP. 40k is still struggling along but AoS and shadespire are dead as doornails. granted neither was popular to begin with. The rules are very off putting and the whole game is basically bashing mobs in the middle.

My area has a decent dedicated AoS tournament going on. I couldn’t make the last one but it’s been going on for a while now and they’re trying to meet up again in March. Shadespire is very popular in the local GW store too.

We are getting back on it again. Shadespire keeps on strong and healthy, with more adherents than AoS proper!

Lord Kragan wrote:
We are getting back on it again. Shadespire keeps on strong and healthy, with more adherents than AoS proper!

The shadespire does not surprise me, that game really has the best potential out of any of GW's current games (except lotr, its its own thing) I am hoping they make more boards and hurry up with warbands, we got into it and tried to push, but at the time having only 3 warbands made the game just tank hard. didnt help that it was "yay more stormcast and khorne" but they really did right by having warscrolls for them as well, makes the expansions IMO worth buying even if you hate shadespire.

No AoS in my area (Upper Austria, Europe).

Three "The 9th Age" players and most of my friends are playing still the old Warhammer Fantasy 8th edition.

Kahless

Doesn't even have shelf space at my local store. Just 40k, sadly.

We have about half a dozen folks who have armies and say they're interested in playing. We've just started a new miniatures group for the local area and people are showing up pretty regularly every time we have something scheduled.

Shadespire is literally dead, haven’t seen anyone playing it, despite someone constantly buying teams. Might need a push, because it’s quite fun game.

Had AOS tourney previous weekend with 8 people, but they are pretty much the same guys who play 40k regulary. Funny thing though: Tomb Kings took the first place

Still flat lined here.

Why'd you state that twice?

My area's mixed(40k, AoS, MtG, Warma). Though the hobby shops getting completely gutted by new management hasn't helped the tabletop scene. (Though it does probably help the GW stores though I haven't visited them due to the distance. Will have to soon.)

 CragHack wrote:
Shadespire is literally dead, haven’t seen anyone playing it, despite someone constantly buying teams. Might need a push, because it’s quite fun game.

Had AOS tourney previous weekend with 8 people, but they are pretty much the same guys who play 40k regulary. Funny thing though: Tomb Kings took the first place

I am one of the guys who likes buying teams but despises shadespire (not in your area of course) because the unique sculpts are awesome for skirmish and path of glory style games.

Was DOA here. Still dead.

Now have 4 different small factions painted up, gonna try giving it a go to get some skirmish AoS going. fingers crossed for some interest on tomorrows game day (Saturdays are major for the big FLGS)

A tiny handful of people play it, but mostly dead. My GW didn't even bother to advertise the malign portents painting thing, because not one person expressed any interest at all in it. Of course, my GW store basically does nothing to promote the hobby whatsoever.

Yep GW store managers are typically bad at promoting the hobby which is why they struggle.

Ours lets us promote the hobby and thats why he has a few top sales plaques in the store for north america.

We have a middle earth thing running now and the store in a nearby city told him that was a waste of time. We're still rocking 15 or so players for that system. Because we promote it.

 auticus wrote:
Yep GW store managers are typically bad at promoting the hobby which is why they struggle.

Ours lets us promote the hobby and thats why he has a few top sales plaques in the store for north america.

We have a middle earth thing running now and the store in a nearby city told him that was a waste of time. We're still rocking 15 or so players for that system. Because we promote it.

Players are pretty much the best at promoting anything, most of our FLGS are really good at supporting and making things available, but more or less if we want to get something going its on us. As for our GW, it sucks, badly. its barely big enough for 2 4x4s and that is crowded and its in a crap location. Nothing really happens there.

I’ll be going to an AoS tournament in March. It’s got like 20 participants. I don’t know if that’s good or not.

It's been dead for a while in my area, mostly because our primary FLGS changed owners, then changed locations. Things are pickup up again, and I'll be pitting my Slaves (complete with new herald) against some Ironjawz tomorrow night.

we are about to have a malign portents campaign at our local GW probably around 12 partisapants. half of the boxes generalluy sold per month is AOS. very good turnout if you want games. I do not know about our local gaming store as I don't go there.m

My city / area update:

AOS is still not a presence in any local gaming stores. Still a moderate amount of hostility toward it.

The GW store where I organize events has a solid 10-12 AOS players and we are doing a Malign Portents event in April that II am writing which will run two months.

I wish I could organize events at my GW store, but there is only 1 8x4 table for AOS (the other two tables are for 40k). I want to run the Coalescence malign portents event, but I'd have to figure out a way to get another table and table's worth of terrain (and kick out one of the 40k tables) to do it and that's not likely.

Our GW store only has two tables. I reserve a saturday for campaign day. And then we all meet and some of us go to another place to do our battle.

Things seems to have picked up quite a bit, and even more now that some of the more tournament-minded are preparing to participate in AoS at the ETC.

 auticus wrote:
Our GW store only has two tables. I reserve a saturday for campaign day. And then we all meet and some of us go to another place to do our battle.

This part confused me, so you have like a standing saturday for a campaign day at your GW, and then like your let's say 8 people meet up there, and then split up so some people stay at the GW store to play, and some people go somewhere else (another store, somebody's house, etc.)?

update from last post, took 4 painted factions (overlords, stormcast, bloodbound, and nighthaunt) and ran some AoS at FLGS, 1 person somewhat interested until they saw the price and went for guildball instead, otherwise the usual hostility towards gw games.

Wayniac wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Our GW store only has two tables. I reserve a saturday for campaign day. And then we all meet and some of us go to another place to do our battle.

This part confused me, so you have like a standing saturday for a campaign day at your GW, and then like your let's say 8 people meet up there, and then split up so some people stay at the GW store to play, and some people go somewhere else (another store, somebody's house, etc.)?

We get as many people as we can at the store and the overflow has to go to someone's house or another store yes. In warmer months we set up tables outside. They have had a 30 player 40k ITC weekender there before. I provide a couple of tables. But in the winter months thats not doable so I'll take some people to my place since i have a nice home table and there are many local game stores that they'll go to as well.

Hmm never considered having a campaign group split among different stores to participate. Interesting idea.

Have had to do that for years and years, even before GW store became my primary store. The other stores would always boot us for card events so had to be flexible.

THe idea is meet up at a central location, go over the event and then let them go off and do their thing!

 auticus wrote:
Have had to do that for years and years, even before GW store became my primary store. The other stores would always boot us for card events so had to be flexible.

THe idea is meet up at a central location, go over the event and then let them go off and do their thing!

Thats because card games are the bread and butter of hobby/gaming stores, they are what make the most money.

I'm not disputing that. But because of that I had to adapt a way to be able to run events knowing that any event that I had put on the calendar could be wiped for a magic or pokemon tournament without notice.

 auticus wrote:
I'm not disputing that. But because of that I had to adapt a way to be able to run events knowing that any event that I had put on the calendar could be wiped for a magic or pokemon tournament without notice.

True, but that would happen with any event not just AoS, but all be it, AoS gets it even harder because its such a niche game in so many areas. It has a very small, but dedicated, following. 40k probably does not suffer that problem as much because 40k is a lot more popular.

Oh no, I've had this problem since the late 90s. It didnt' matter what game, the card games always had priority.

We changed stores in 2003 because our 40k playoffs were cancelled the day of for a pokemon tournament. Back then I didn't have any contingency plans.

That's just stores being gakky. You don't alienate a community like that. Too many games though rely 100% on a store for a place to play, so are at the whims of the store, instead of the store being encouraged to court communities and gaming groups to patronize their store.

Yeah, that would have marked my last day using that particular store.

While I agree at the same time, that store is a business and as much as we don't want to admit it, AoS is struggling to stay aloat in a lot of areas. So as a business if you are gonna have to choose between a handful of people that don't make up a lot of the profit of your business vs a group who is your primary income, well you take the latter. That said I don't know the store, and the size but I imagine it could accommodate loosing one or 2 tables.

Again this is from a purple objective business persepctive. That said I do agree over writing things you already reserved is gakky if it was reserved in writing.

It's picking up pretty well at my local store. Me and two of my friends are getting back into it, and there's a handful of other people getting into it. Before recently though there were maybe four or five people playing it regularly, including an adepticon player.

 Stus67 wrote:
It's picking up pretty well at my local store. Me and two of my friends are getting back into it, and there's a handful of other people getting into it. Before recently though there were maybe four or five people playing it regularly, including an adepticon player.

Are you guys playing at a store in the B-more area?

Shadespire is picking up. AOS itself is basically dead around me.

Dead. My FLGS' WHFB community is the sort that hopped straight over to KoW when the reboot happened.

 nels1031 wrote:

 Stus67 wrote:
It's picking up pretty well at my local store. Me and two of my friends are getting back into it, and there's a handful of other people getting into it. Before recently though there were maybe four or five people playing it regularly, including an adepticon player.

Are you guys playing at a store in the B-more area?

Games n' Stuff in Glenn Burnie

Alive and well in my neck of the woods. Just played in a big regularly occuring tournament. And we’re meeting up again in May. Counting people who play in it but couldn’t make it, and the people they know, there’s upwards of 100 serious AoS players in Ireland at least. And remember that Ireland is tiny.

Well, what's large or small will depend on the measurement and comparison used.

Best I can tell (haven't had a lot of time to stop by my local shop lately), AoS has picked up quite a bit. 40K is still by far the game of choice, but AoS is played a good bit.

SG

Doing very well in my area. There are different cliques and comic shops around, and I think as more people get scared off by many of those cliques being hardcore seal-clubbing 40k players, they gravitate to an INCREDIBLY friendly AoS group. They play weekly at two different shops and take over the tables. Real passionate group with lots of painted miniatures all encouraging each other to build and paint.

If anything, I'd say 40k in my area is shrinking while AoS is growing fast.

pretty much still extinct, hoping the fishelves may spark some interest.

The adepticon turnout for AOS was pretty solid.

At the local GW AoS seems to be doing ok but is still far and away second fiddle to 40k. Maybe one in every 3 people who show up looking for pickup games are bringing AoS though between the two tables it's usually two 40k games or one 40k game and one AoS one.

The hobby table has roughly the same ratio, you can be guaranteed to see one person working on 40k but more and more recently you see at least one person there working on AoS

It's generally pretty busy at this store.

This ratio gets shaken up when the store runs leagues. You always had at least one AoS game going on in store during the last couple of leagues but interest drops off afterwards (in my case, I just felt exhausted after it was done) and they're basically running one for both games right now.

Beyond that, the only other FLGS I frequent is near my work, I stop by during my lunch break sometimes and if there's a game going on in the back room it's roughly an even toss up whether it'll be 40k, AoS, or Magic. Less often there's also X-Wing, more often than any of that there's someone in the front playing bloodbowl, sometimes with the owner, or else painting. I don't know how it looks after hours these days but they schedule an X-Wing night, a magic night, etc every week.

Generally speaking I don't think AoS is in big trouble, if it is its certainly not something GW can't pivot to fix relatively easily. More surprising to me I'd that Shadespire took off so well, and Bloodbowl, which was kept alive with leagues run by that independent hobby store, is actually seeing a bit of a revival, they're even playing it in the GW store again.

I have found that Aos suffers from a real problem in that no one is an "AoS player." By that I mean, I have not met anyone who comes off as "oh yeah I play AoS and I have a 40k army or a bolt action army" they are all, "I play 40k and I have an AoS army.". AoS in my area is that game everyone has, but no one really plays it unless someone activly seeks out a game. It's sorta the back burner game. It's really weird.

Finally managed to make it to my FLGS last week on 40k night and just kind of polled the room on what everyone thought of AoS. The responses ranged from "I could bring my old (insert WHFB army here) if you want to play. I've been wanting to try it out" to "New stuff looks really cool, but I can't afford to start a new army right now". When I asked the same question a year ago, the most common response was some form of "I'm just too mad about them destroying the Old World!" I'm still one of the few people who actually plays AoS, but it seems like in my area, interest is growing.

I agree it's growing but it's a massive slow grow. Funny enough old armies I find are way more popular then new stuff

Opposite here. The old armies have been mostly discarded and the players playing are 95% using the new stuff.

It is definitely a slow grow thing, but the AOS population here is now greater than Kings of War and at Adepticon that was definitely the case, so I think in a couple more years we'll be back at the levels of players that we were at when WHFB finished.

with even our local GW not supporting it much, AoS will likely be locally extinct. There are some folks still bringing legacy armies, but the focus on order has not helped, at all and the complete lack of interest in "campaigns" hurts. Bloodbowl does very well, as long as its at GW, otherwise Guildball completely overshadows it.Put a good amount of effort into having an overlord force ready for the "portents" and sat alone with no other players way too many times :( I roll heavy with the arkanaughts but dont use any of the ships, the boys in purple will be all over you like a spider monkey though

 thekingofkings wrote:
with even our local GW not supporting it much, AoS will likely be locally extinct. There are some folks still bringing legacy armies, but the focus on order has not helped, at all and the complete lack of interest in "campaigns" hurts. Bloodbowl does very well, as long as its at GW, otherwise Guildball completely overshadows it.Put a good amount of effort into having an overlord force ready for the "portents" and sat alone with no other players way too many times :( I roll heavy with the arkanaughts but dont use any of the ships, the boys in purple will be all over you like a spider monkey though

This, along with end times, is honestly the biggest crime GW has committed in its fantasy range, is the massive lack of support for anything other then order. You can only fight storm cast with storm cast for so long before you get tired lol

I also think a lot of it has to do with rule sets, AoS needs some work in the rules department badly because even at 2000 points, games never go beyond turn 3, as either one side gets tabled, or the other is so far ahead in points there is no way to catch up, or the other team can not physically win, which is possible in some games that require x amount of models in a unit to stand on an objective.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
This, along with end times, is honestly the biggest crime GW has committed in its fantasy range, is the massive lack of support for anything other then order. You can only fight storm cast with storm cast for so long before you get tired lol

I also think a lot of it has to do with rule sets, AoS needs some work in the rules department badly because even at 2000 points, games never go beyond turn 3, as either one side gets tabled, or the other is so far ahead in points there is no way to catch up, or the other team can not physically win, which is possible in some games that require x amount of models in a unit to stand on an objective.

You’re absolutely right. I’ve come to dislike the rolling for initiative for example. That’s actually cost me a couple of games, because the double turn can be devastating a lot of the time. I’d prefer a roll for first turn, with the army who deployed first getting +1 to the result.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
This, along with end times, is honestly the biggest crime GW has committed in its fantasy range, is the massive lack of support for anything other then order. You can only fight storm cast with storm cast for so long before you get tired lol

I also think a lot of it has to do with rule sets, AoS needs some work in the rules department badly because even at 2000 points, games never go beyond turn 3, as either one side gets tabled, or the other is so far ahead in points there is no way to catch up, or the other team can not physically win, which is possible in some games that require x amount of models in a unit to stand on an objective.

You’re absolutely right. I’ve come to dislike the rolling for initiative for example. That’s actually cost me a couple of games, because the double turn can be devastating a lot of the time. I’d prefer a roll for first turn, with the army who deployed first getting +1 to the result.

Oh yeah, the initiative is a horrible HORRIBLE rule, its gotten to the point were we house rule, that you dont roll of initiative on turns one and two. just because for example as a tzeentzch player if i go second and get a double turn, its almost a garunteed win for me at that point. Because by then they have already gotten in range of me and i have deleted at least a fourth if not more of their army with out mine being touched because i dont move in the first turn.

Chaos gets a ton of support too.

The Order support makes sense to me, though. Overwhelming Order victory in 2016 global campaign + multiple Destruction releases at the time & a new Death battletome + announcement that the next five years productions have been planned out after campaign = massive Order focus for the next few years.

Likely Order will be winding down now(as they've even said with aelves)but it does make sense GW want to go strong where the popularity is and that's Order/chaos.

As for rules, meh, if a change-up is in that big a demand then we will see the result with the AoS 2.0 rule changes.

I don’t think anyone at my store has Stormcast. I have the full pantheon of Chaos gods (minus rats), one guy has Bretonnia and Fyreslayers, another has DoK, another has rats, two guys have death, and one of those two also has orruks. That’s what I know of. And my friend’s store back home only has a single guy with Stormcast.
My wife collects Stormcast, Sylvaneth and is going to start DoK, but if she decides to play, she’d be the first one using SE.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Oh yeah, the initiative is a horrible HORRIBLE rule, its gotten to the point were we house rule, that you dont roll of initiative on turns one and two. just because for example as a tzeentzch player if i go second and get a double turn, its almost a garunteed win for me at that point. Because by then they have already gotten in range of me and i have deleted at least a fourth if not more of their army with out mine being touched because i dont move in the first turn.

Exactly. I recently lost a game of Knife To The Heart against Tzeentch due to losing the initiative roll. And I was actually in a position to win by turn 2. It just feels cheap, having everything come down to a single dice roll like that.

Exactly another issue which I hope gets addressed is the importance of objctives, because currently, majoirty of the missions you can ignore them and go for table.

Going for the table is pretty much what everyone I know does and yes it makes objective mostly useless.

The only time I was beat by objectives was when I went against a ScE player who was running g the vanguard guys on gryph hounds that vanished off the board and popped up on back lines and capped my objectives. Other then that, never even bothered with them. AoS until fixed is about pushing your guys into the middle and brawling

 Backspacehacker wrote:
The only time I was beat by objectives was when I went against a ScE player who was running g the vanguard guys on gryph hounds that vanished off the board and popped up on back lines and capped my objectives. Other then that, never even bothered with them. AoS until fixed is about pushing your guys into the middle and brawling

Actually, my current Tzeentch list involves castling up, playing defense for the big casters while my opponent is forced to come to me, and then a big old Bloodthirster spawns in their back yard, ready to murderize anything in his way. Backfield campers? Poof. Lone heroes? Splat. Yup. I’m happy with it.

What would you guys change to draw the focus away from simply tabling the enemy?

I actually prefer kill points over objectives. I don’t mind “tabling”.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
The only time I was beat by objectives was when I went against a ScE player who was running g the vanguard guys on gryph hounds that vanished off the board and popped up on back lines and capped my objectives. Other then that, never even bothered with them. AoS until fixed is about pushing your guys into the middle and brawling

Actually, my current Tzeentch list involves castling up, playing defense for the big casters while my opponent is forced to come to me, and then a big old Bloodthirster spawns in their back yard, ready to murderize anything in his way. Backfield campers? Poof. Lone heroes? Splat. Yup. I’m happy with it.

That's what my army is, my hammer is a LoC gaunt summoner, chaos sorcerer lord on manticore, and a cursling ( might change get him out) and then my anvil is chaos warriors and a chrinw buffing them. They run into the wall of chaos warriors and just get stuck as I toss spells at them and just bleed them dry over the game. Horde units get deleted via the gaunt summoner, and I eat elites with infernal gateway from the LoC and the warriors themselfs dish out lots of attacks

 Future War Cultist wrote:
What would you guys change to draw the focus away from simply tabling the enemy?

Depends on the army but you hear some pretty fun stories by people going mobile objective takers or hordish like with skeletons that swarm their marks while tying up the enemy with fodder.

Otherwise all I can think is narrative and battleplans so it's not a regular game.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
The only time I was beat by objectives was when I went against a ScE player who was running g the vanguard guys on gryph hounds that vanished off the board and popped up on back lines and capped my objectives. Other then that, never even bothered with them. AoS until fixed is about pushing your guys into the middle and brawling

Actually, my current Tzeentch list involves castling up, playing defense for the big casters while my opponent is forced to come to me, and then a big old Bloodthirster spawns in their back yard, ready to murderize anything in his way. Backfield campers? Poof. Lone heroes? Splat. Yup. I’m happy with it.

That's what my army is, my hammer is a LoC gaunt summoner, chaos sorcerer lord on manticore, and a cursling ( might change get him out) and then my anvil is chaos warriors and a chrinw buffing them. They run into the wall of chaos warriors and just get stuck as I toss spells at them and just bleed them dry over the game. Horde units get deleted via the gaunt summoner, and I eat elites with infernal gateway from the LoC and the warriors themselfs dish out lots of attacks

The Gaunt makes an awesome hammer, and he is one of mine. The second is the summoned Bloodthirster; I use a basic one because Destiny Dice can't be used on non-Tzeentch models, so the whip pulls in a juicy target to mulch, almost guaranteeing a charge. I actually have marauders as the anvil, because I can throw so many bodies there (currently 2 40 man blocks for 80 bodies that have to get chewed through). I actually also use Kairos! Since he can borrow his allies spells, he can refill my destiny dice pool, force one die (mine or an opponent's) to a facing of my choice, and generally be a nuisance. The second LoC is the general for the +1 to cast, and I'm rounding it out with 40 Horrors. I'm considering going to 60 horrors, dropping 40 marauders, and having 80 points left to summon brimstone speedbumps (It'll end up being the same # of bodies, but increase the usefulness of the horrors and summoned speedbumps are obnoxious; plus I don't have to buy another 30 marauders this way; only own 50). The horrors can cast, shoot, and add to the castle around the three big casters, while the BT grinds the enemy up against them. Had a friend try the list out (he's incredibly competitive) and he decimated the opponent. He said he barely lost any marauders; the damage output is just so incredibly high.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
What would you guys change to draw the focus away from simply tabling the enemy?

Missions that let you score points from objectives and that don't give a win condition for tabling, so if you get tabled but scored more than your opponent who wasted turns trying to table you instead of scoring, he'd still lose.

I don't find the two can coexist. Either the mission is a kill point mission or its not. If you try to do both, the objective part will usually always be ignored in favor of powergaming a sledge hammer force that will table its opponents.

As matched play is 99% the norm though you'd be playing "not real aos" which is an uphill battle to fight.

I run 40 chaos warriors in 2 ranks, one with sword and board, the one behind them with halbards, so anything charging gthe first row gets hit by the sword and board while also getting poked by the halbards. Then the shrine buffs the front row.

Would my front row has a 3+ rerollqble 5++ and a 6+++ so once something makes the mistake of charging into them, they never leave combat.

Almost every game I've ever played has been won by objectives. I just assumed this was the norm. The only exceptions have been matches that were tied on points, or games where we specifically played without using missions. I'm legitimately surprised to hear people complaining about getting tabled in AoS. This really explains why your experience of the game has seemed so different from mine, Auticus.

Yeah different communities and play groups, different parameters, different results.

My community is half casual and then half people that like clubbing baby seals with netlists, so it makes for an interesting dynamic that can cause a lot of strife.

I'd rather make a list that is so stupidly strong that it BECOMES a net-list as people steal it; as opposed to borrowing somebody else's list. Part of my fun is coming up with nasty combos and putting them on the table. But I want to put the thought process effort in. I don't want somebody else to do the work. I do like seeing my list in the hands of others though; I like to see how other people do with stuff I've come up with.

I lost friends over 60-wound Archaon with four layers of saves supported by a Tzeentch Daemon Prince and Fatemaster with 0+ save.

60 wound Archaon?? How?!

 timetowaste85 wrote:
60 wound Archaon?? How?!

The long and short is tzeentzch warp gakary. You take a max squad of brimsand one pink with a banner give archeon the tzeentzch spell that on a 2 up he passes the wound off into one of them, they get a save, you then use a destany die to auto roll a one for them and get d6 back. It's pretty much the only way yo run archeon. You can make it even funnier I'd you take a chaos lord on mount of slaanehs and use his and ability on archeon to attack twice with him

 EnTyme wrote:
Almost every game I've ever played has been won by objectives. I just assumed this was the norm. The only exceptions have been matches that were tied on points, or games where we specifically played without using missions. I'm legitimately surprised to hear people complaining about getting tabled in AoS. This really explains why your experience of the game has seemed so different from mine, Auticus.

I can honestly say I have never seen a game be won by objectives, It has always been one force or the other wiped out.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
60 wound Archaon?? How?!

Keep a 20-man squad of Chaos Warriors near him and use the Tzeentch spell to pawn wounds off over to them. It's not a super strong list, but it is frustrating as hell to play against, and it forces your opponent to play objectives, because there is really no reasonable way you can expect to kill Archaon unless you have a way to just delete a model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
Almost every game I've ever played has been won by objectives. I just assumed this was the norm. The only exceptions have been matches that were tied on points, or games where we specifically played without using missions. I'm legitimately surprised to hear people complaining about getting tabled in AoS. This really explains why your experience of the game has seemed so different from mine, Auticus.

I can honestly say I have never seen a game be won by objectives, It has always been one force or the other wiped out.

Difference in local metas, I guess.

I’ve repeatedly suffered the indignity of being both tabled and losing on objectives.

We play the ghb up to a tee. If you get tabled but had an edge in pints you win.

Has mattered plenty of times.

I'm wondering if some of the posters here are considering a tabling to be an automatic win. Per the rules, it's not.

Depends on the mission you are playing. A great many missions state that if at any time a player has no models remaining that the game is over and a major victory for their opponent. There are a few missions that are objective based only though the acceptance of playing those will depend on your play group. I strive for my events to use a mix of the two.

 auticus wrote:
Depends on the mission you are playing. A great many missions state that if at any time a player has no models remaining that the game is over and a major victory for their opponent. There are a few missions that are objective based only though the acceptance of playing those will depend on your play group. I strive for my events to use a mix of the two.

None of the Pitched Battles allow for: "tabling = win" (in fact they outright tell you to ignore the "victory conditions" section in the 4-pager ruleset. IMO if people are worried about the game turning into a mosh pit they should sitck to the book when it comes to "balanced" scenarios. Those work fairly fine.

I'm frankly thinking of getting rid of my AoS stuff. The localish group is stating 40k escalation and Necromunda is in full swing. There are some AoS players (4-6) but only a couple of us actually play the FGS. Since new 40k scratches much of the same itch---based on a very AoS rule set---I am fine with picking up with 40k and Necromunda and running.

I think the forum activity speaks volumes. There are threads from a month ago still on the first page.

I remember when posts couldn't stay on the first page for a day!

It's sad.

Warhammer fantasy had the same problem. On every forum I ever visited. I remember when Portent (before warseer was warseer) moved fantasy to the top to try to generate more traffic since it was being smothered by 40k and this was back in the glory 6th and 7th edition days of whfb.

 auticus wrote:
Warhammer fantasy had the same problem. On every forum I ever visited. I remember when Portent (before warseer was warseer) moved fantasy to the top to try to generate more traffic since it was being smothered by 40k and this was back in the glory 6th and 7th edition days of whfb.

That was mostly due to WfB going stagnent because they never advanced it. It also suffered from fan back lash like AoS still has, not nearly as bad, when they did the ass pull that was storm of chaos.

That was one thing. WHFB had several issues that have plagued it over the last 20 years before it was pulled, especially compared to the exponentially more popular 40k (and I say that with whfb being my primary game, I'm not big into 40k)

 auticus wrote:
That was one thing. WHFB had several issues that have plagued it over the last 20 years before it was pulled, especially compared to the exponentially more popular 40k (and I say that with whfb being my primary game, I'm not big into 40k)

Oh yeah toward the end it suffered from a lot
Silly rules with magic getting crazy
The start up cost for an army was dumb, 800+ just for models
Stagnent setting because they never wanted to advance it
When they did advance it, it was a cluster

WHFB imo had a much better setting. Aos has it's own set of issues.

Honestly, as far as setting goes, I actually enjoy reading AOS more.

Oldhammer Fantasy felt like LORD OF THE RINGS but with name changes. You could replace "Naggaroth" with "Underdark" or "The Empire" with... well, any empire, and the storylines would be the same. Orcs are bad, humans are struggling, elves are divided into light and dark, pantheons of gods exist and religious wars are a thing...

it struck me as fairly bland fantasy, from an outsider looking in.

Now? The gods stride among the realms. Mortals, once merely striving over territory on a world, now strive to themselves ascend to godhood (Morathi) or otherwise survive in this radically changed environment. The creative freedom is massive, and the divergence from "that one other fantasy setting with humans, evil humans, dwarves, evil dwarves, wood elves, high elves, dark elves, and orcs" is pretty huge.

The only thing in the Old World that I think was truly rather unique were the Skaven, and they play a large role in AoS, if my outsider reading is true.

I just picked up AoS and must say I really like the game. However it is definitely 2nd fiddle to 40k here.

Well that's one of the biggest turn off for many people is the fact that AoS is a cosmic fantasy. Lots of people don't like that, it's a very niche setting, and the lack of AoS enthusiasm in stores shows that. WHFB was and still is, the best none tolkin setting, Warcraft is good, but it's not a fantasy like Warhammer or tolkin was.

If someone likes the AoS setting that's cool but it's a cosmic fantasy that's probably a niche setting that is not that popular.

As I have said several times the reason I can't get into AoS outside of playing the game is that nothing really matters. Because it's cosmic the story really revolves around the gods doing their thing so when massive events happening nothing matters. For example the most recent campaign introduced the most powerful items in the setting, a time Cannon capable of rewinding time, got swept under the rug the next week and I bet dollars to donuts it's never going to be touched. Vs fantays where if say kislev was taken by chaos, oh that's pretty damn tangable I understand where that is and what that effects, vs random town in a plane of existence that has no baring on a place in another relm gets nuked, why should I care.

Sorry mini rant.

Yeah AOS the setting is not going to appeal to someone that loves the gritty low "realistic" fantasy settings that whfb catered to, no doubt.

I like both setting-wise. I'm a giant heavy metal fan and the lore and the setting appeal to me. The AOS rules on the other hand leave a lot to be desired for someone like me that got into wargaming where maneuver and the like were a huge thing (which was the appeal of whfb for me) and its now... well... its a modern game designed using modern game design principals, and is a few steps removed from draws me into wargaming in the first place.

Thats my struggle.

The problem I had with WHFB is that if I wanted to read lore set in the Old World, I could go read an Elder Scrolls novel or play an Elder Scrolls game and get what roughly felt like the same experience. Only, the winds of magic come from the sun rather than portals on the poles of the planet...

I disagree that WHFB was the "best" non-Tolkien fantasy setting out there. It essentially was Tolkien fantasy, just like a whole host of fantasy universes. I found the Elder Scrolls far more compelling, not the least because it at least had "cosmic battle" underpinnings that WHFB seemed to lack until it became AOS (where now COSMIC BATTLES are the way ahead!).

at least with AOS there's nowhere else I can go for a similar overarching narrative. And I'm not sure "nothing matters" is a valid criticism - it obviously matters to your men and women, dying in the trenches or slaughtering for Khaine or doing whatever. It may not matter in the grand scheme of things, but since when has anything mattered in the grand scheme of things? I don't think I've ever played a game of 40k or AOS or Fantasy that was mentioned anywhere again, except perhaps in my tiny circle of friends.

But that's the thing, major events don't matter. In the start of AoS sigmar sunk aassive chaos fortress into molten metal to get the hammer back. In WHFB that would have been a massive event and allowed none chaos races to advance. In AoS nothing happened there was no negative draw back, chaos was not effected are all and it carried on.

I would also say the WhFB is nothing like LOTR lore. Lord of the rings lore is in a completely different level of crazy when it comes to their lore.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
But that's the thing, major events don't matter. In the start of AoS sigmar sunk aassive chaos fortress into molten metal to get the hammer back. In WHFB that would have been a massive event and allowed none chaos races to advance. In AoS nothing happened there was no negative draw back, chaos was not effected are all and it carried on.

I would also say the WhFB is nothing like LOTR lore. Lord of the rings lore is in a completely different level of crazy when it comes to their lore.

Major events do matter, though, you just have to upscale what is major. A massive chaos fortress is not major to a pantheon of gods. Trapping Slaanesh, however, and beginning to rip the consumed Aelf souls from him, is quite major indeed. It's the difference between "melting a fortress" and "incarcerating a god." The latter is the scale AOS cares about now.

And when I said LOTR lore, I didn't mean the nitty-gritty silmarillion or behind-the-book stuff (like the "tom bombadil is an eldritch horror" or whatever nonsense). I mean the generic idea of "here is a country, and here are the evil dudes, and good dudes, and yeah there are gods somewhere doing things, but the dudes do a fight."

AOS, in one sentence, is "nothing mortals do matters - they run and hide and try to survive while gods and the armies of gods clash like titans; being a mortal in AOS is akin to being an ant on the plains of Troy."

Much different.

Both settings have their charm. I've been enjoying where AoS is heading with its background. There are only a few constraints when writing a story and background for your army.

The AOS rules on the other hand leave a lot to be desired for someone like me that got into wargaming where maneuver and the like were a huge thing (which was the appeal of whfb for me) and its now...

I miss some of those rules. AoS feels simply lacking when it comes to moving or using terrain to restrain the opponent. I sometimes wonder what exactly promoted the design to turn this way.

 Knight wrote:
I miss some of those rules. AoS feels simply lacking when it comes to moving or using terrain to restrain the opponent. I sometimes wonder what exactly promoted the design to turn this way.

Same reason 8th went this way too: people. GW's demand signal was that wargaming was complex and hard, and therefore the best wargames were computer games. So they made it less complex and hard, and while that upsets people who liked the complexity and hardness, it's clearly been a success (at least as far as 40k goes).

 Knight wrote:
Both settings have their charm. I've been enjoying where AoS is heading with its background. There are only a few constraints when writing a story and background for your army.

The AOS rules on the other hand leave a lot to be desired for someone like me that got into wargaming where maneuver and the like were a huge thing (which was the appeal of whfb for me) and its now...

I miss some of those rules. AoS feels simply lacking when it comes to moving or using terrain to restrain the opponent. I sometimes wonder what exactly promoted the design to turn this way.

Context: I do game design and like to attend game design seminars and get togethers to keep up with how things are going these days though my expertise is on PC game development, the environment is very similar.

Modern game design has been moviing into the simpler direction for many years now. Warmachine was the first to really start emulating card games like Magic and Pokemon only using miniatures with the foundation being set more on combinations and deckbuiilding and traditional tropes of wargaming like maneuver being made secondary or even ancillary.

About 2010 - 2011 we hit a threshold where games that focused more on maneuver were deemed difficult and were not very friendly to your average gamer. The trend has been overwhelmlingly in favor of discrete mathematics based games where you play the puzzle of maximizing a power coefficient (list building) and then apply that in a context against another person's power coefficient and then roll some dice to determine a winner.

Since then, we have moved into the direction we have been moving into and AOS and 40k being the simpler game that it is today is not an accident. We have had two GW devs on these boards who were normal people first who both loved the modern simple CCG style rules and that is not anything leaving anytime soon because it sells to the masses a lot more than traditional wargaming does.

Things like being outflanked, getting out of position, losiing because you maneuvered poorly, etc... are largely seen as not fun and drive people away from these games. Making sure your game is very forgiving sells more than a game that has a higher learning curve.

Note that this has nothing to do with complexity of the rules, but rather on how forgiving the rules are and how many mastery points you have.

GW games are now first and foremost about maximizing power coeffiicient via probability mathematics coupled with target priority which is also a subset of probability mathematics being applied to create a ranking structure. Maneuver is not as much a factor considering things can deepstrike or cover the length of the table in a turn or two.

Its what sells by far the most units.

Thank you both for the explanation.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
But that's the thing, major events don't matter. In the start of AoS sigmar sunk aassive chaos fortress into molten metal to get the hammer back. In WHFB that would have been a massive event and allowed none chaos races to advance. In AoS nothing happened there was no negative draw back, chaos was not effected are all and it carried on.

I would also say the WhFB is nothing like LOTR lore. Lord of the rings lore is in a completely different level of crazy when it comes to their lore.

I loved the world of Fantasy but it was also entirely stagnant. AoS can at least do big campaigns that actually change things, whereas Fantasy was in the same category as 40K prior to the Gathering Storm: nothing really changed. Storm of Chaos was the biggest event prior to The End Times and what changed? Absolutely nothing.

I do like that in the 100 or so years since the Age of Sigmar began, there's been big changes occurring in the Mortal Realms. There's a hell of a lot of scope there for storytelling too. I'm reading through Spear of Shadows right now and really enjoying the worldbuilding that's going on in it.

[Deleted]

Nvm, forum took me to a old conversation. :p

Edit: oh wait, it was just last page. Whoops.
Well, yadda yadda, fantasy forums have always been slow. Yadda yadda, forums not as popular as Reddit, Discord and Facebook these days. Adda yadda, TGA forum is nicer to go to than a 40k forum.

But that's the thing, major events don't matter. In the start of AoS sigmar sunk aassive chaos fortress into molten metal to get the hammer back. InWHFB that would have been a massive event and allowed none chaos races to advance. In AoS nothing happened there was no negative draw back, chaos was not effected are all and it carried on. 

Yeah it was, it allowed Sigmar to bring forth the Celestant Prime(and it would bring many glorious victories for Sigmar), stopped the drawback that the reforgings were starting to drain him and it was one blow among many that was a chain of events to stop chaos' death grip on the realms.

It's more perspective. A massive Tzeentch fortress in AoS is the equivalent of a chaos sorceror's wizard tower in the Old World. You have to take in the accounts that the realms make the World That Was look like a pebble in comparison and expand/retract comparisons from there. Like the Seeds of Hope global campaign would've been a battle over the city of Kislev in the World that Was.

AOS, in one sentence, is "nothing mortals do matters - they run and hide and try to survive while gods and the armies of gods clash like titans; being a mortal in AOS is akin to being an ant on the plains of Troy."

They still have their parts to play of course, several times in the novels it was the interventions and sacrifices of such mortals that saw the gods plans succeed or fail.

 auticus wrote:

 Knight wrote:
Both settings have their charm. I've been enjoying where AoS is heading with its background. There are only a few constraints when writing a story and background for your army.

The AOS rules on the other hand leave a lot to be desired for someone like me that got into wargaming where maneuver and the like were a huge thing (which was the appeal of whfb for me) and its now...

I miss some of those rules. AoS feels simply lacking when it comes to moving or using terrain to restrain the opponent. I sometimes wonder what exactly promoted the design to turn this way.

Context: I do game design and like to attend game design seminars and get togethers to keep up with how things are going these days though my expertise is on PC game development, the environment is very similar.

Modern game design has been moviing into the simpler direction for many years now. Warmachine was the first to really start emulating card games like Magic and Pokemon only using miniatures with the foundation being set more on combinations and deckbuiilding and traditional tropes of wargaming like maneuver being made secondary or even ancillary.

About 2010 - 2011 we hit a threshold where games that focused more on maneuver were deemed difficult and were not very friendly to your average gamer. The trend has been overwhelmlingly in favor of discrete mathematics based games where you play the puzzle of maximizing a power coefficient (list building) and then apply that in a context against another person's power coefficient and then roll some dice to determine a winner.

Since then, we have moved into the direction we have been moving into and AOS and 40k being the simpler game that it is today is not an accident. We have had two GW devs on these boards who were normal people first who both loved the modern simple CCG style rules and that is not anything leaving anytime soon because it sells to the masses a lot more than traditional wargaming does.

Things like being outflanked, getting out of position, losiing because you maneuvered poorly, etc... are largely seen as not fun and drive people away from these games. Making sure your game is very forgiving sells more than a game that has a higher learning curve.

Note that this has nothing to do with complexity of the rules, but rather on how forgiving the rules are and how many mastery points you have.

GW games are now first and foremost about maximizing power coeffiicient via probability mathematics coupled with target priority which is also a subset of probability mathematics being applied to create a ranking structure. Maneuver is not as much a factor considering things can deepstrike or cover the length of the table in a turn or two.

Its what sells by far the most units.

Interesting read thanks for that. Ultimately the point you make about the modern style game not going away as it sells more units is probably the key thing: if maneuver does not sell, then it does not make it. I think the advantage for GW also at this point is that there is enough of a secondary rules production industry that they do not need to invest their resources into this - other companies do it, often quite well, and normally more or less suckling on their creative teat.

In my area (Central Coast Australia) AoS is going gangbusters. There is a monthly gaming group about an hour from me with quite a few players, there is a local store which has a number of regular Thursday players, 2 or 3 players in my own local group, and a really active tournament scene. So no complaints there.

Maneuver and positioning have always seemed crucial in Warmachine. Is that no longer the case in the new edition?

 Glane wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
But that's the thing, major events don't matter. In the start of AoS sigmar sunk aassive chaos fortress into molten metal to get the hammer back. In WHFB that would have been a massive event and allowed none chaos races to advance. In AoS nothing happened there was no negative draw back, chaos was not effected are all and it carried on.

I would also say the WhFB is nothing like LOTR lore. Lord of the rings lore is in a completely different level of crazy when it comes to their lore.

I loved the world of Fantasy but it was also entirely stagnant. AoS can at least do big campaigns that actually change things, whereas Fantasy was in the same category as 40K prior to the Gathering Storm: nothing really changed. Storm of Chaos was the biggest event prior to The End Times and what changed? Absolutely nothing.

I do like that in the 100 or so years since the Age of Sigmar began, there's been big changes occurring in the Mortal Realms. There's a hell of a lot of scope there for storytelling too. I'm reading through Spear of Shadows right now and really enjoying the worldbuilding that's going on in it.

I preferred that. It was a setting. I could make lore for my armies and nicely slot them into the world. Now it needs constant rewriting and the advancement is just annoying. Nothing matters. Oooo a Chaos fortress fell. Let's look at all the changes. Oh there weren't any.

 Eldarain wrote:
Maneuver and positioning have always seemed crucial in Warmachine. Is that no longer the case in the new edition?

There have been many threads of many pages of arguments on this topic over the past many years of Warmachine's existence. Positioning is more important in Warmachine than it is in 40k and AOS, but less so than classic WHFB. I consider it a secondary thiing over there, behind building your power coefficient and popping your combos at the correct time.

Nothing matters. Oooh a Chaos fortress fell. Let's look at all the changes. Oh there weren't any.

Haha, the exact same thing happened in the Sword of Justice and Sword of Vengeance books!

Huge build-up of plots, massive chaos army assembled and chaos cathedral spawning daemons created in the heart of the Empire and tons of deaths with two legendary heroes nearly broken-

Nothing happens, everything goes back to exactly the same status quo with even the small political matter of Averheim needing a elector count was reset at the end. They were great reads but the end made me felt like I just ate ashes, it was all pointless.

The AoS chaos fortress? No, it was just a, rather massive, objective that did see definite change happen and plot advancement in spades.

Also, what constant rewriting? GW's been staying on a consistent plot path and lore.

No, I'm doing the rewriting. Nobody knows where Slaanesh is? Great I can make something up! Then they reveal where Slaanesh is and then I have to rewrite things.

pm713 wrote:
No, I'm doing the rewriting. Nobody knows where Slaanesh is? Great I can make something up! Then they reveal where Slaanesh is and then I have to rewrite things.

Which is rather the point, in my opinion.

I play the game as if my army was a character in a roleplay setting. My Exalted Greater Daemon of Slaanesh may in fact be a pretender to Her/His/Its throne, right up until she/he/it hears him calling from the shadow world and the trap the Elven deities have laid for him.

Pretender no longer, I should think.

Though where does said Keeper of Secrets go? Does she go scampering back with her hordes to the shadow plane to save Slaanesh? Does he pretend nothing is wrong? Or does it do something nefarious, like subtly warning the elves that their trap is failing, in an effort to keep Slaanesh out of the way? She's the rightful holder of the throne after all...

The information changing for you is the information changing for your army as well, no need for your army to some how be anchored to a fixed point in time. That's just going to get it left behind.

BTW I play Slaanesh Daemons

Oh, that seems rather trivial. I always found fun in stories where I used head-canon to blend things together despite the plot taking a change away from where I expected.

Slaanesh can be an easy one just off the merit of being a chaos god. They reveal where it's main body is but your reveal can be a fragment of it contained like it's heart or a significant power that took on it's form and will try to recombine with it's host.

I'd be much happier with my writing not being majorly affected by whatever GW puts out. I already had to stick it in whats basically a bubble universe.

So your main complaint is that the plot is advancing? The horror.

 EnTyme wrote:
So your main complaint is that the plot is advancing? The horror.

Exalted. That's what it sounds like to me. "Things are changing, and that means my story has to evolve, and I hate it."

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
So your main complaint is that the plot is advancing? The horror.

Exalted. That's what it sounds like to me. "Things are changing, and that means my story has to evolve, and I hate it."

To be fair though, a setting is a backdrop to a game, be it wargaming or rpg, so its not a salty complaint but a very valid mindset. I think there is too much focus on "pushing the story" but there does not really need to be a "story" thats for us to play out on our tabletops not have pushed by a company.

Well the global events let both happen.

In anycase I hardly see it as a problem, if you want it static then just pick a point in the timeline and stick to it there. If you want to still be involved with the current lore then either pick/head-canon an area away from all the changes and action or justify why your homeland is in stasis.

Example would be wanting a ruined kingdom in the fire realm during the Age of Chaos. You love the barbaric struggles and your knights and soldiers desperately battling raiders and monsters amongst the ruins and outposts while the countryside is overrun by daemons. The timeframe advancing to the Age of Hope threatens this so you justify this hellish struggle continuing as the dark gods either use the lands as prime recruiting ground for mighty warriors or there's priceless artifacts still unearthed in the land so they cast their power over the borders that turn away all but the bravest mortals and blind the gods that try to gaze into it. Thus now a stasis land that can keep with the timeline, have new daring armies introduced and stay the same all at once.

It all comes down to the player and his imagination in the end.

Baron Klatz wrote:
Well the global events let both happen.

In anycase I hardly see it as a problem, if you want it static then just pick a point in the timeline and stick to it there. If you want to still be involved with the current lore then either pick/head-canon an area away from all the changes and action or justify why your homeland is in stasis.

Example would be wanting a ruined kingdom in the fire realm during the Age of Chaos. You love the barbaric struggles and your knights and soldiers desperately battling raiders and monsters amongst the ruins and outposts while the countryside is overrun by daemons. The timeframe advancing to the Age of Hope threatens this so you justify this hellish struggle continuing as the dark gods either use the lands as prime recruiting ground for mighty warriors or there's priceless artifacts still unearthed in the land so they cast their power over the borders that turn away all but the bravest mortals and blind the gods that try to gaze into it. Thus now a stasis land that can keep with the timeline, have new daring armies introduced and stay the same all at once.

It all comes down to the player and his imagination in the end.

Problem is you cant just "Pick a point in time." because the point in time people want is the one that got completely axed from the game. I agree we can all pick a point say prior to the world ending and leave it there, but the setting is completetly invalidated because GW has said, its gone. It also does not help that the AoS community is one of the worst communities when it comes to old players. I have never once seen a community as bad as the AoS one when it comes to players that just say, "I dont like AoS i enjoyed Fantasy." Or god for bid, you tell them, "I play a legacy army or keep them on square bases." Is like a personal insult to AoS players. So my choices are to get wit hthe time with a setting that i really dont enjoy at all, or get gak posted on by AoS for not liking cosmic fantasy.

Ill take option three which is go with my small group of players that just ignore everything GW is doing in the setting, which, is why we see AoS struggling, because the power house market for it, old players with cash to burn, arnt coming back.

AoS certainly has a smaller player base than 40K, but in my neck of the woods it has been picking up steam. We have a quickly growing group at my store in Tokyo and we had a growing group when I lived back in the states. I've also noticed that the major tournaments (like Adepticon) have seen significant increases in participation for their AoS events.

The generals handbook made a strong coherent game (with, I would argue, a better ally/list restriction and allegiance mechanic than 40K offers) and the most recent fiction ( https://malignportents.com/stories/ ) has done wonders building an evocative cohesive setting.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Baron Klatz wrote:
Well the global events let both happen.

In anycase I hardly see it as a problem, if you want it static then just pick a point in the timeline and stick to it there. If you want to still be involved with the current lore then either pick/head-canon an area away from all the changes and action or justify why your homeland is in stasis.

Example would be wanting a ruined kingdom in the fire realm during the Age of Chaos. You love the barbaric struggles and your knights and soldiers desperately battling raiders and monsters amongst the ruins and outposts while the countryside is overrun by daemons. The timeframe advancing to the Age of Hope threatens this so you justify this hellish struggle continuing as the dark gods either use the lands as prime recruiting ground for mighty warriors or there's priceless artifacts still unearthed in the land so they cast their power over the borders that turn away all but the bravest mortals and blind the gods that try to gaze into it. Thus now a stasis land that can keep with the timeline, have new daring armies introduced and stay the same all at once.

It all comes down to the player and his imagination in the end.

Problem is you cant just "Pick a point in time." because the point in time people want is the one that got completely axed from the game. I agree we can all pick a point say prior to the world ending and leave it there, but the setting is completetly invalidated because GW has said, its gone. It also does not help that the AoS community is one of the worst communities when it comes to old players. I have never once seen a community as bad as the AoS one when it comes to players that just say, "I dont like AoS i enjoyed Fantasy." Or god for bid, you tell them, "I play a legacy army or keep them on square bases." Is like a personal insult to AoS players. So my choices are to get wit hthe time with a setting that i really dont enjoy at all, or get gak posted on by AoS for not liking cosmic fantasy.

Ill take option three which is go with my small group of players that just ignore everything GW is doing in the setting, which, is why we see AoS struggling, because the power house market for it, old players with cash to burn, arnt coming back.

That's some very nice head canon you have there. To be frank, I have only seen one place where the community that proactively shunned squares and that was in 4chan. and it's generally frowned upon even there.

Tournaments over here shun square bases, and if your group is also a tournament group they will therefore also shun square bases.

It is an issue I also deal with because I won't rebase my collection and the tournaments around here at the very best heavily discourage instead of outright ban squares, and a lot of people that play you wiill still gripe that you are somehow cheating them.

The narrative campaiigns I run actively allow squares to counter-balance that, which leads to interesting clashes between tournament oriented players and casuals.

 auticus wrote:
Tournaments over here shun square bases, and if your group is also a tournament group they will therefore also shun square bases.

It is an issue I also deal with because I won't rebase my collection and the tournaments around here at the very best heavily discourage instead of outright ban squares, and a lot of people that play you wiill still gripe that you are somehow cheating them.

The narrative campaiigns I run actively allow squares to counter-balance that, which leads to interesting clashes between tournament oriented players and casuals.

That's an entirely different kettle of fish, though.

Squares, in this case, are discouraged because they can allow for more egregious min-maxing of weapons and hordes (regardless of it being in truth the case, which all too often isn't).

Well I'm sorry to hear your local community is like that, Backspace. :(

I do wish you don't project it everywhere like that because I do know many groups who roll with older armies and square bases and just playing for fun. As has been said above there's many different community metas, sounds like you got a toxic one. :(

I don't see why you can't play in the World That Was either, GW still support the IP by giving it out to videogame companies and now Cubicle7 for a new rpg line. They're even bringing back more and more books in their chronicle section of the Black Library.

It's all comes down to imagination again and they give plenty of inspirations for it.

Also you're wrong on old players not coming back, just check Reddit or TGA, there's people ranging 5-20 years of putting warhammer on a break coming back because of the fun system and a new lore starting point that puts everyone on equal footing, not to mention the flood of new people and hobbyists that see AoS book in popularity and success.

My friends play Age of Sigmar in the world that was, because one guy has a YUUUUGE skaven army, so they essentially are playing through the last days of the end times. Not sure if they're going to ever put their personal storylines on hold, or if they're eventually going to play through the Age of Myth, but it sounds fun from what I overhear in our chat.

Haha, that sounds fun. End Times main battles with ShadeSpire/Skirmish Vermintide.

Did they see on TGA that someone converted the End Times scenarios for AoS use?

Baron Klatz wrote:
Haha, that sounds fun. End Times main battles with ShadeSpire/Skirmish Vermintide.

Did they see on TGA that someone converted the End Times scenarios for AoS use?

No but I will let them know! They're a fairly insular group, perfectly comfortable making up their own stuff on the fly.

My favorite kind of group!

Let the fun and narratives flow!

I really have no problem with personal headcanons allowing groups to have their AoS games set pre-End Times. A Fyreslayers army would make a really fun Karak Khadrin (sp?) Slayer force rampaging across the Old World, or Sylvaneth leaving the borders of Athel Loren, and frankly many of the WHFB armies would make more sense not using block unit tactics.