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

Given this is such a momentous release, a lot of threads have been posted covering essentially the same ground. In order to draw all these conversation together, I am consolidating them here. What do you think about Age of Sigmar? Have you played yet? Are you going to try it or buy any AoS products?

Keep in mind that Rule One is Be Polite. No matter what you think about AoS or WHFB, it is not a valid reason to attack people who play/dis/like those games. Please be especially mindful about avoiding inflammatory terms, generalizations, and blanket (mis)characterizations. Thanks!

After playing AoS what are your thoughts?
Age of Sigmar- how are you finding it so far?
Age of SIgmar? More like Age of Power Metal!
Age of Sigmar - Open Box Review
Age of Sigmar... What's the deal?
Aos - Depth or no depth, that is the question...?
AoS: First Impressions
An Outsider's Perspective on Warhammer: Age of Sigmar
Excited about AoS...
First AoS "Game" Yesterday
First game of AoS for non fantasy player
GW Rep. Talks Openly About the Future of AoS
Has anyone read the Sudden Death rules?
How i think AoS might actually make competitive players better as players.
In praise of the SigMarines, the lords of order (yes, I'm serious)
My take on balancing and Some Pratice Rounds
So it looks like Age of Sigmar will be selling well
So, who's buying WH: Age of Sigmar then?
Stop checking the news for a few months and Warhammer gets replaced
The gaming community ...
The rage continues and it needs to stop soon I hope!
the secret balancing factors for age of sigmar!
Trying to see the side of GW
Who is the market for AoS?
Why AOS is the best thing GW did in a long time
Why is Fantasy now the bad guy?
WTF Moments in the AoS Rules
Your reaction to the Age of Sigmar (one week on)?

I might not have minded it if it didn't represent the death of WHFB.

As it is - not one cent for AoS, and I have no interest in trying to play with those downloadable rules that came off the back of a kiddie-meal restaurant placemat.

 Commissar Molotov wrote:
I might not have minded it if it didn't represent the death of WHFB.

How did you feel about End Times?

Didn't much like that, either.

I really liked the WHFB fantasy setting - I still think WHFRP's "Enemy Within" campaign is the best RPG supplement ever published - and it was sad to see them burn a deep, living background down because the bean-counters didn't like what they were seeing from the financial returns.

Best thing that could have happened to fantasy from my point of view. It was stale and boring and this freshens it up. Yes its extreme but it needed it.

Personally never been very interested in fantasy but AoS has me hooked. Pre ordered two copies of the game to start a khorne army and will buy more to add to it, hell when either dwarves or undead get re done will likely get a small army for them too.

Another plus point for it, my wife is interested in it and I mean actually interested not just the usual oh right looks ok but genuinely interested with the simple rules and look she has decided sigmarites are for her and she has even worked out a colour scheme and all sorts. It is pure win win for me.

Looking forward to getting some games in with many new faces

Eh, wondered why all them threads got locked... like some sort of mass cull. Though, seeing them all linked in the OP in one place does make me realise how many of them there were.

I guess I may as well sum up my main points regarding AoS:

- I do appreciate the game for what it is, and I will undoubtedly have fun playing it, providing I can meet certain conditions (balance etc) beforehand
- AoS isn't a mass battle game, which disappoints me. AoS players have to be considerate of me, and others, who liked that sort of game.
- AoS isn't of the scale or aesthetic of what I deem to be "Fantasy"
- I fear that GW's lack of support of WHFB will, eventually, lead to it being extremely hard to find a game of it.
- I also feel that GW could have released AoS as a separate game, and continued to support WHFB, even if they had to cut many of its lines or move them to mail order only.
- I feel that the complete lack of balancing systems, the lackluster and clunky rules, the lack of depth and the disregard to a lot of realism (being able to fire a bow in combat, for example) makes AoS a bad game to play, without players having to tweak it (which they shouldn't have to do)
- WHFB is simply a better game, for those reasons above. Yes, some people will prefer AoS but saying it is a game of better quality is like saying Sharknado is a better film than LotR: Return of the King (first best picture-winning, 10+ Oscar -winning film I could think of) simply because you enjoyed it more.
- Whether you're pro-Aos or pro-WHFB, you need to consider that/why other people prefer their game. However this recognition does not change what each game is

 Commissar Molotov wrote:
Didn't much like that, either.

I really liked the WHFB fantasy setting - I still think WHFRP's "Enemy Within" campaign is the best RPG supplement ever published - and it was sad to see them burn a deep, living background down because the bean-counters didn't like what they were seeing from the financial returns.

So you wanted them to keep investing in a dead platform that is actually making them lose money

Plenty of people play WHFB, just not many buy models from GW anymore. Price simple as that.

The game just has nothing to offer me. Don’t like the setting, don’t like the system

I'm currently in the middle of a GM'ed hex campaign, revolving around dodgy goings on at Brass Keep. The encounters are either played as WHFB games or using a tweaked version of Warhammer Skirmish, for smaller encounters. I'm trying to open the road to Middenheim at the moment, so old Boris can get some White Wolf reinforcements to me. And its Awesome.

Magical realm A vs magical realm B, just doesn’t have any of that depth and richness to exploit. And you cant do proper Battles any more. Which as a WHFB player, that’s kind of what I want from my GW fantasy fix. I have more skirmish games, including GW ones that I can ever play properly, I don’t need another.

My opinion is what happened to fantasy was extreme and too much. They could've waited for the many warhammer fantasy video games to come out and given them time before axing off fantasy. The fact the 'dawn of war' series did so well and hooked me into warhammer in the first place should tell GW something. Perhaps they should branch out rather than get obsessed over IP protection and trying to sue people at first opportunity.

The move GW made alienated a good portion of their warhammer fantasy fans and they have a right to be angry. How would anybody else feel if they'd spent hundreds and put lots of time, effort and progress accumulating money only to be told the setting they loved was destroyed and if they like competitions they best just 'GET OUT!'? Even the local GW manager mentioned that if people quit that GW didn't want them anyway. You know back in 2007 i was told by a GW manager/employee some sales pitch that 'Sure you spent a lot of money on warhammer but you'll have it longer whereas with a video game you spend 50 dollars and are through with it in a month.' Lately i've seen 'End Times' books and stuff being taken off the shelves after having only been on them for a few months and costing about 70 something USD to buy. GW doesn't understand that we're not made out of money. Treating us like saps that'll just buy anything new they put out and crap ourselves and buy the next new thing when they make the previous one obsolete in 3 months is going to alienate and anger the player base.

My opinion: I can see AoS as something fun to play every now and then if I didn't have to invest more than maybe fifty bucks in it at most, preferably half that, and if I can find the right people rather than play with randoms. But from my experience as well as from watching, it's not really a quality game, nor something memorable. A casual game to be causally forgotten in a few years, and occasionally be reminded "oh yeah, that's a thing".

That is, as long as the rumors are right and the non-legacy armies are going to not have the stupid "beard" rules. If those non-legacy armies are infested with that crap too, then I don't even see this game being that much. They're stupid rules thoughtlessly thrown in, and as a result, are rife for abuse and powergaming, not the kind of well-planned rules necessary for the casual game it is pretending to be.

I think the biggest failing of GW was their inability to have a story that progresses without it being huge and impacting beyond reason.

Why couldn't they have, instead of end times, have had this new beastman, Ork or whatever rise up through the rank and lead an army on a huge campaign to take a city. They then could release a book of this character with details of his past and so on. Then the story of his quest to take a city and then what happens to the city once captured. Then it could detail the rivals story as well. Add to this new scenarios and new character rules and people might start getting peaked interest in the setting.

Just keep making nice normal changes to a setting seems a little hard for GW to grasp as most events have to be crazy important to even be worth putting in a rulebook of theirs.

With all the factions, land mass and so on they could have done a lot to increase interest that didn't involve a giant killing off of a setting and then a new game. It also isn't hard.

Out of interest, who would have been excited to see, for example, a scenario book that features a skaven incursion into a Lizardmen temple to try get a magic artifact. Quickly Skink braves on patrol go to intercept the skaven. From there the battle escalates as more forces from both sides are drawn into the conflict. Maybe the lizardmen go further into the skaven cave to take back the artifact? Maybe the lizards hold them off? maybe the Skaven take the artifact and start creating a new prototype weapon?

The scenario book can have rules for the generals on both sides. Maybe scenario book that features the initial fight and escalates into the large battle. This gives people the chance to slowly buy into the game and grow the collection. Potential for a new skaven model as well depending on the artifact.

Bam, to me that is sensible and easy story telling that can get people buying books and maybe armies.

Instead we get end times (lame) and then total reboot.

So my opinion? Really over the top and complete waste of a potentially cool and growing setting. I like Warhammer lore (game was ok) and I would have purchased the book above.

I actually agree with melissia here. I think this game will be forgotten in a few years tops. This will go the way of dreadfleet, mordheim and other unsupported games by GW. The whole unofficial army books readily available online for free points to this being very possible.

-------

Btw best idea i had for list restrictions are here.

Note normal heroes, wizards and monsters don't count against model cap.

0-2 Heroes (for each hero under max amount add 10 models to army cap)

0-1 Wizards (for each wizard under max add 10 models to army cap)

0-1 Named Characters (for every named character you have subtract 15 models from the model cap)

A model that is a wizard and also a hero takes up both slots and same goes for named characters. Monsters that are wizards or named are also taken into account. A named hero takes up the hero and named hero slot.

0-1 Monsters, each monster takes the place of 15 models from max models per army.

0-2 War machines or weapons teams, each war machine takes away 10 models from rank and file limit.

No more than 60 models per army from normal rank-and-file.

Units of models of normal rank-and-file have wounds count against model limit. For instance 15 ogres (4 wounds per model) are the max in model count.

-------

Also add this part for 1 wound models.

How about for 1 wound models that make up units we have a system? Each number will represent 1/2 a model against model count.

1-(1/2 a model) horde-units such as skavenslaves will be in this slot

2-(1 model) trained-units such as clanrats will be in this slot

3-(1 and 1/2 models) veteran-units such as stormvermin will be in this slot

4-(2 models) elite-units such as censer bearers and gutter runners will be in this slot

Elves for instance will usually run in the 3 and 4 category. All units like swordmasters, white lions, phoenix guard, sisters of averlorn are in the 4 category (2 models per). Slaves, zombies, peasants and maybe skinks are in the 1 category. Crappy rank and file such as skeletons, clanrats, marauders and most basic empire soldiers are in the 2 category (basically trained but not well). 3 is for usually the elite of horde armies and the core units of elite armies so basically bog standard elves, dwarfs and saurus and for horde armies you have stormvermin, greatswords and other such things. 4 is basically for the best 1 wound models elite armies can bring. Basically think of chaos chosen and elite elf and dwarf units.

Ejay wrote:

 Commissar Molotov wrote:
Didn't much like that, either.

I really liked the WHFB fantasy setting - I still think WHFRP's "Enemy Within" campaign is the best RPG supplement ever published - and it was sad to see them burn a deep, living background down because the bean-counters didn't like what they were seeing from the financial returns.

So you wanted them to keep investing in a dead platform that is actually making them lose money

Keep investing? They could have just kept releasing rules-sets (which we would all dutifully have purchased) and never invested in another new sculpt again. Trust me, I think most WHFB players would have been a lot better with that than with the choice they ultimately made.

Ejay wrote:

 Commissar Molotov wrote:
Didn't much like that, either.

I really liked the WHFB fantasy setting - I still think WHFRP's "Enemy Within" campaign is the best RPG supplement ever published - and it was sad to see them burn a deep, living background down because the bean-counters didn't like what they were seeing from the financial returns.

So you wanted them to keep investing in a dead platform that is actually making them lose money

Something tells me you wouldn't be saying that if your system was on the chopping block.

They merely needed to spread fantasy into other outlets such as video games. Total War: Warhammer would've been a great effort. Instead we get an incredibly half-baked system. You know what really gets at me? The fact my army was one of the few older than 8th edition armies still to be updated. So now i have the grand choice of only playing 8th edition with an army book never meant for 8th edition with about an 8 page FAQ or i have the choice of playing really crappy half-done rules in Age of Sigmar. My choices either way are pretty terrible.

I personally enjoy Age of Sigmar and I think it's only going to get better.Unfortunately people forget that it is still a new game, so won't have the tactical or competitive depth of Warhammer Fantasy, which had years to develop. I'm looking forward to seeing which direction GW takes AoS.

 WargamingWarrior wrote:
I personally enjoy Age of Sigmar and I think it's only going to get better.Unfortunately people forget that it is still a new game, so won't have the tactical or competitive depth of Warhammer Fantasy, which had years to develop. I'm looking forward to seeing which direction GW takes AoS.

I dont know... I have played plenty of new edition games and they seemed to be written with competence.

Bolt Action is first edition and that ruleset is pretty good for example.

It does not take a genius to release decent rules without selling 8 editions or more to get there. I think 2 editions is usually at most what is needed.

Just gonna leave this here




But I honestly have a lot of high hopes for the game and really hope it becomes a phenomenon that GW prays for...


Just don't touch my 40k with... Beard rules...

Alfabusa is awesome, yes.

Once a die hard Warhammer Fantasy fan said to me: "The reason I dislike 40K is because I see nothing special in the fluff. I only see Green Space Marines, Blue Space Marines, Red Space Marines and that's all. I'm not interested in fantasy based in space"....

I did not replied with any arguments, simply because I had no interest in Fantasy Battle at all. But now I can pretty much said the same - All I see is Space Marines dressed up like gladiators into sword and sorcery - Conan the Barbarian - Fantasy Like....

 Melissia wrote:
Alfabusa is awesome, yes.

Yes he is! Good way to get friends into 40k cause its funny and informative!

I personally think Age of Sigmar is terribad. I played Warhammer Fantasy to have fun building lists, coming up with interesting army ideas within the ruleset, and actually *use strategies*. Everything I loved about Warhammer Fantasy is absent in Age of Sigmar and thus, I'm not getting involved save the rare pick up game or whatever.

But this is something of a new dawn for the old Warhammer fantasy, as I think we're going to see a lot of fan stuff being made, some of which will be better than the GW stuff. It's like the new NetEpic.

Three weeks ago if I went to play 8th and brought Eliasson's fine Cathay Codex, I'd probably be laughed out because it wasn't "GW Official", even though I believe he balances his stuff just as rigorously as GW does. Now if I went to play 8th with a friend and I brought it, I think nobody would mind giving it a try. This is an age of upheaval, that much is for sure.

Game is a bit of fresh air, but has no real lasting appeal to me.

I keep asking myself, "why would I play this when I can play X-Wing?"

so if want to post in response to one of the locked threads, we post it here?

This thread was actually about the analysis of wargaming community, not quite about AoS exclusively and how much we like/dislike it.

But anyway, I just wanted to add how offputt...you know what, nevermind. Feels so wrong to post it here and not in the original thread lol.

I'll just sum it up by saying I thank GW so much for making AoS if only b/c it diminishes the ultra-competitive powergamers. And I appreciate the objective to win as much as anyone. I never play just for fun. I always play to win. Winning is fun. But I vary my lists, I give myself a challenge, try to implement something fluffy or thematic perhaps, etc. You'll never see me dedicate my entire work week to coming up w/ a list to beat someone on a Friday night pick-up game. And it appears AoS will weed those types out.

Praise, truly be to Age of Sigmar!

Commissar Molotov wrote:I really liked the WHFB fantasy setting - I still think WHFRP's "Enemy Within" campaign is the best RPG supplement ever published - and it was sad to see them burn a deep, living background down because the bean-counters didn't like what they were seeing from the financial returns.

I just got my hands on the first book from 1986. It's really quite something.

Ejay wrote:So you wanted them to keep investing in a dead platform that is actually making them lose money

The setting was used for a profitable game line for almost three decades. It's recent financial trouble but past success tells us that it's not the setting, but what GW was doing with the game. Continuing to do the same and investing more money in a failed platform obviously wasn't going to work, but that doesn't mean you have to burn it to the ground and start over. Instead you can stop doing what's not working, look at what was working when the company grew from a UK importer of D&D into an international miniatures company and do more of that.

If the Warhammer universe served as a successful basis for a commercial product for decades and then it starts failing, the place to look for a problem to fix is not in the setting, but in how it has been mishandled in recent years.

I'd post a review but it's really too hard to think right now with this knife stuck deep in my back. Even half a bottle of whiskey doesn't dull the pain of them salting the wound with their neckbeard jokes.

 Mysterious Pants wrote:
I personally think Age of Sigmar is terribad. I played Warhammer Fantasy to have fun building lists, coming up with interesting army ideas within the ruleset, and actually *use strategies*. Everything I loved about Warhammer Fantasy is absent in Age of Sigmar and thus, I'm not getting involved save the rare pick up game or whatever.

But this is something of a new dawn for the old Warhammer fantasy, as I think we're going to see a lot of fan stuff being made, some of which will be better than the GW stuff. It's like the new NetEpic.

Three weeks ago if I went to play 8th and brought Eliasson's fine Cathay Codex, I'd probably be laughed out because it wasn't "GW Official", .

I agree with your feelings. and BTW that Codex is quite nice. Did you actually make a Cathay army?

It's a common problem with fantasy warhammers, but the size and shape of those sigmarine hammers has been bugging me and jogging my memory. Now I finally realise what they remind me of, and it's kind of appropriate to GW.

Am somewhat disappointed that my thread got rolled into this. Does this mean that if we're on topic for one thread in the OP, we're on topic for this thread?

Just got back from my FLGS where some Fantasy players had gathered tonight to try out Age of Sigmar before the midnight release. They were nice enough to let me watch and answer my questions as they played. Here are my impressions:

1. Against armies that are similarly constructed, the game is actually quite well-balanced. It still needs some sort of general rules for army construction. Number of wounds doesn't cut it; unit types need to be restricted. Deployment is also a problem; I would recommend adapting the scenarios in the starter set until more are released.

2. You want a game where close combat is powerful? This is that game. CC makes or breaks games, and the threat of CC dictates how people move and use terrain. Instead of only the first couple ranks mattering, you can now bubble-wrap and dogpile like in 40k. Just remember that if an unengaged enemy unit is within 3" of your combat they can pile into you! If you couldn't shoot into combats, assault would be broken in this game.

3. You know what's great in CC? Monsters. Even with their weakening with taking wounds, they are still more than capable of wrecking face and smashing through infantry blobs. Proper CC Heroes are no slouches either.

4. You want to kill monsters or heroes? Magic is how. Arcane Arrow is one of the most powerful spells in the game. Magic is great for whittling down monsters or heroes while staying safely out of CC range. Massed shooting can have a similar effect.

5. You want morale to matter? It definitely does here. Battleshock can be just as deadly as a good round of shooting or assault. The command ability that lets a unit automatically pass is one of the most important things you can do to keep your army alive and intact.

6. The most important dice roll is the one that decides who goes first in the round. Games are won and lost based on this single roll-off every game turn.

Overall, I can definitely see the potential in Age of Sigmar for a great game that's loads of fun. There's a solid rock-paper-scissors dynamic to the balance between infantry, monsters, heroes, and wizards. However, if the BRB doesn't deliver on giving some sort of army construction rules, deployment rules, and terrain rules, I can't see this game surviving the current wave of novelty. An FAQ and fixing summoning would be nice too.

BONUS: http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/07/age-of-sigmar-competitive-rules-doing-the-rounds.html Just as a rebuttal to anyone who says that nobody at GW has a clue about balance.

Also:

http://www.corehammer.com/self-reflection-in-the-age-of-sigmar-brinton-williams/

It's still sad that some wargamers just don't get it. Almost a twisted irony (but it's not ironic, just a funny coincidence)

 TheNewBlood wrote:
Am somewhat disappointed that my thread got rolled into this. Does this mean that if we're on topic for one thread in the OP, we're on topic for this thread?

Just got back from my FLGS where some Fantasy players had gathered tonight to try out Age of Sigmar before the midnight release. They were nice enough to let me watch and answer my questions as they played. Here are my impressions:

1. Against armies that are similarly constructed, the game is actually quite well-balanced. It still needs some sort of general rules for army construction. Number of wounds doesn't cut it; unit types need to be restricted. Deployment is also a problem; I would recommend adapting the scenarios in the starter set until more are released.

Try the list restrictions i posted. They're probably not perfect but it should be helpful.

-------------

Btw best idea i had for list restrictions are here.

Note normal heroes, wizards and monsters don't count against model cap.

0-2 Heroes (for each hero under max amount add 10 models to army cap)

0-1 Wizards (for each wizard under max add 10 models to army cap)

0-1 Named Characters (for every named character you have subtract 15 models from the model cap)

A model that is a wizard and also a hero takes up both slots and same goes for named characters. Monsters that are wizards or named are also taken into account. A named hero takes up the hero and named hero slot.

0-1 Monsters, each monster takes the place of 15 models from max models per army.

0-2 War machines or weapons teams, each war machine takes away 10 models from rank and file limit.

No more than 60 models per army from normal rank-and-file.

Units of models of normal rank-and-file have wounds count against model limit. For instance 15 ogres (4 wounds per model) are the max in model count.

-------

Also add this part for 1 wound models.

How about for 1 wound models that make up units we have a system? Each number will represent 1/2 a model against model count.

1-(1/2 a model) horde-units such as skavenslaves will be in this slot

2-(1 model) trained-units such as clanrats will be in this slot

3-(1 and 1/2 models) veteran-units such as stormvermin will be in this slot

4-(2 models) elite-units such as censer bearers and gutter runners will be in this slot

Elves for instance will usually run in the 3 and 4 category. All units like swordmasters, white lions, phoenix guard, sisters of averlorn are in the 4 category (2 models per). Slaves, zombies, peasants and maybe skinks are in the 1 category. Crappy rank and file such as skeletons, clanrats, marauders and most basic empire soldiers are in the 2 category (basically trained but not well). 3 is for usually the elite of horde armies and the core units of elite armies so basically bog standard elves, dwarfs and saurus and for horde armies you have stormvermin, greatswords and other such things. 4 is basically for the best 1 wound models elite armies can bring. Basically think of chaos chosen and elite elf and dwarf units.