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.

USNCenturion wrote:
The user that lamented AoS isn’t a maneuver based game like WHFB anymore made me lol. WHFB didn’t sell, and was killed off for a good financial reason. Maybe GW is copying some aspects of Warmahordes because that system is actually selling and entertaining.

Also, nobody ever said you couldn’t use heritage rules to play old WHFB. Try doing that instead of constantly morning about a game system you clearly don’t like before it’s full rules are even out yet.

WHFB didn't sell because GW priced gouged the hell out of it and designed the rules to favor large units.
Imagine if you had to pay 20 bucks for a single AOS mini when you needed at least 10 for a functional unit that's not completely useless. Now cut all support. That's what happened to WHFB.

auticus wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:

 Valander wrote:

Changes in a system are always a mixed bag. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it breaks more than it fixes. In a lot of ways, I'm kinda happy to at least see GW doing something for a change that at least feels like they're trying.

Not saying you are wrong, just had a chuckle with this comment. A lot of people have said Age of Sigmar was a lazy set written in a few hours. 4 pages of rules. I don't see GW trying to fix anything here. Again it seems GW of old, doing very little and hoping to bring in big influx of cash. To me it seems GW is not taking this very seriously. While the writers are hyping this up really good on Warhammer Community (great job there) I am not really seeing anything here that GW is trying. More like throwing stuff against the wall and see what sticks.

If GW was really trying Age of Sigmar would be it's own game not Fantasy 40K.

That said, it still looks like fun. Time will tell if more is broken than fixed. It will take a few days/weeks before the broken combinations are found.

Having followed a few of the gw game devs on twitter, I think they take it very seriously. I just think that they are for the most part (with a few exceptions) very young, very green, and very influenced by games like warmachine and it shows in the rules they are producing now.

Oh I am not blaming the writers at all. After all they are doing what their bosses are telling them to do. I am sure if the reigns were off and they were unschackled they can make out an awesome game system for Fantasy. So when I said, GW I ment the comapny and no writers at all. I believe GW needs Fantasy to be different from 40K.

Sqorgar wrote:

Davor wrote:If GW was really trying Age of Sigmar would be it's own game not Fantasy 40K.

Technically, AoS pioneered this system, so it is more like 40k is a Scifi AoS.

Fantasy Battles inspired 40K. Thing is, Age of Sigmar went to round bases. Went to more skirmish game than a regiment game. Space Marines added into AoS when they were not there in Fantasy. I could be wrong so please correct me there. AoS just seemed more 40K than Fantasy. While yes 40K 8th edition seems more like AoS than 40K 7th edition, AoS is becoming more 40K when the "depth" is being added in. That is why I see AoS becoming more 40K and what was AoS is becoming less and less AoS and more like 40K 8th edition.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

USNCenturion wrote:
The user that lamented AoS isn’t a maneuver based game like WHFB anymore made me lol. WHFB didn’t sell, and was killed off for a good financial reason. Maybe GW is copying some aspects of Warmahordes because that system is actually selling and entertaining.

Also, nobody ever said you couldn’t use heritage rules to play old WHFB. Try doing that instead of constantly morning about a game system you clearly don’t like before it’s full rules are even out yet.

WHFB didn't sell because GW priced gouged the hell out of it and designed the rules to favor large units.
Imagine if you had to pay 20 bucks for a single AOS mini when you needed at least 10 for a functional unit that's not completely useless. Now cut all support. That's what happened to WHFB.

There's a lot of factors to it but I'd agree and disagree on certain points. I'd say WHFB ended because:

-WHFB just wasn't selling. Partially due to price gouging, partially due to rules complexity, and partially due to there were other rank and file games doing what WHFB did but better.
-They also wanted to be able to trademark more stuff. See Aelves, Orruks, etc.
-It just wasn't exciting and was hard to revamp after 25 years.
-Hard getting in new blood and getting existing players with tons of models to buy new stuff.

So yeah, you could argue GW did it to themselves, but in the end if it isn't selling, it was time for something new. I for one am happy for it. I liked WHFB's setting and models but hated the game in itself. I like the way AoS is now heading and the models selling at the shop would agree. WHFB used to be about half of 40k and was a bunch of dusty old stuff. Now it's half of 40k in shiny new plastic and selling as well as 40k is.

Well I'm going off the assumption that one command ability = one command point, maybe the general gets to use his for free once per round. And I like the change overall. Battalions give an extra one per game on top of the one per round so are beneficial but not hugely swingy (like the artifact they give now) and the additional command abilities/change to inspiring presence I like, they seem more tactical than before. It isn't how I'd do it but I think the change is an improvement.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

USNCenturion wrote:
The user that lamented AoS isn’t a maneuver based game like WHFB anymore made me lol. WHFB didn’t sell, and was killed off for a good financial reason. Maybe GW is copying some aspects of Warmahordes because that system is actually selling and entertaining.

Also, nobody ever said you couldn’t use heritage rules to play old WHFB. Try doing that instead of constantly morning about a game system you clearly don’t like before it’s full rules are even out yet.

WHFB didn't sell because GW priced gouged the hell out of it and designed the rules to favor large units.
Imagine if you had to pay 20 bucks for a single AOS mini when you needed at least 10 for a functional unit that's not completely useless. Now cut all support. That's what happened to WHFB.

There's a lot of factors to it but I'd agree and disagree on certain points. I'd say WHFB ended because:

-WHFB just wasn't selling. Partially due to price gouging, partially due to rules complexity, and partially due to there were other rank and file games doing what WHFB did but better.
-They also wanted to be able to trademark more stuff. See Aelves, Orruks, etc.
-It just wasn't exciting and was hard to revamp after 25 years.
-Hard getting in new blood and getting existing players with tons of models to buy new stuff.

So yeah, you could argue GW did it to themselves, but in the end if it isn't selling, it was time for something new. I for one am happy for it. I liked WHFB's setting and models but hated the game in itself. I like the way AoS is now heading and the models selling at the shop would agree. WHFB used to be about half of 40k and was a bunch of dusty old stuff. Now it's half of 40k in shiny new plastic and selling as well as 40k is.

Trademarking is hardly a factor in sells. As you said, there are other fantasy systems, and they didn't need to use made up lawyer IP friendly names.
I'd argue that the fact that the game was unchanged at its core for 25 years is a sign that the system is solid, and it would seem that it only started to decline when GW decided to push for bigger units from smaller kits.

Getting in new blood and getting existing players to buy new stuff is a direct consequence of GW's pricing practices and disregard for their own system.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

USNCenturion wrote:
The user that lamented AoS isn’t a maneuver based game like WHFB anymore made me lol. WHFB didn’t sell, and was killed off for a good financial reason. Maybe GW is copying some aspects of Warmahordes because that system is actually selling and entertaining.

Also, nobody ever said you couldn’t use heritage rules to play old WHFB. Try doing that instead of constantly morning about a game system you clearly don’t like before it’s full rules are even out yet.

WHFB didn't sell because GW priced gouged the hell out of it and designed the rules to favor large units.
Imagine if you had to pay 20 bucks for a single AOS mini when you needed at least 10 for a functional unit that's not completely useless. Now cut all support. That's what happened to WHFB.

There's a lot of factors to it but I'd agree and disagree on certain points. I'd say WHFB ended because:

-WHFB just wasn't selling. Partially due to price gouging, partially due to rules complexity, and partially due to there were other rank and file games doing what WHFB did but better.
-They also wanted to be able to trademark more stuff. See Aelves, Orruks, etc.
-It just wasn't exciting and was hard to revamp after 25 years.
-Hard getting in new blood and getting existing players with tons of models to buy new stuff.

So yeah, you could argue GW did it to themselves, but in the end if it isn't selling, it was time for something new. I for one am happy for it. I liked WHFB's setting and models but hated the game in itself. I like the way AoS is now heading and the models selling at the shop would agree. WHFB used to be about half of 40k and was a bunch of dusty old stuff. Now it's half of 40k in shiny new plastic and selling as well as 40k is.

Trademarking is hardly a factor in sells. As you said, there are other fantasy systems, and they didn't need to use made up lawyer IP friendly names.

Trademarking isn't a factor in selling but it is a factor in ending WHFB. Look at Imperial Guard / Astra Militarum. GW obviously wants to trademark and keep their IPs.

I'd argue that the fact that the game was unchanged at its core for 25 years is a sign that the system is solid, and it would seem that it only started to decline when GW decided to push for bigger units from smaller kits.

A solid system gets old after awhile. Axis and Allies is one of the few unchanged games I know of that's been around forever. How hot is that selling?

Getting in new blood and getting existing players to buy new stuff is a direct consequence of GW's pricing practices and disregard for their own system.

Debatable. It is definitely partly due to their pricing, but cheap models will never fix a complex and difficult ruleset. Yeah, WHFB was a solid ruleset, but it was complex and not very new player friendly. Plus it had some goofy rules (can't make the charge because you're slightly outside your arc / there's a single model with his toe in your charge arc).

Don't you pay for battalions in AoS? I play a mixed order army so I never got the chance to see what they offer.

 Knight wrote:
Don't you pay for battalions in AoS? I play a mixed order army so I never got the chance to see what they offer.

You do. The issue eith battalions has aleays been certain ones being under/over costed rather than any inherent flaw to the way they work. At any rate you can run the battalions from any of the order armies/battletomes in a mixed order army; by RAW you cannot but I don't know of a single tournament or event that has enforced that. It is also only one of many RAW things that are ignored by default, RAI is kind of needed to make AoS work to a certain extent.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Well I'm going off the assumption that one command ability = one command point, maybe the general gets to use his for free once per round. And I like the change overall. Battalions give an extra one per game on top of the one per round so are beneficial but not hugely swingy (like the artifact they give now) and the additional command abilities/change to inspiring presence I like, they seem more tactical than before. It isn't how I'd do it but I think the change is an improvement.

Going off Idoneth(supposedly it was designed with AoS2.0 as its basis) as an example, I'm getting the feeling that yeah--the general will get to use theirs for free, but future books are going to be much more restrictive as to what the general's freebie ability is(if they have one at all!).

Look at the Akhelian King/Volturnos for example.
It requires:
1) Unit to be fully within range
2) A secondary caveat(in this case--High Tide)
3) It applies specifically to one type of value(Melee weapon attack values)

It's cool and all, but man that's a bit much if I'm going to have to pay a CP for it.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Well I'm going off the assumption that one command ability = one command point, maybe the general gets to use his for free once per round. And I like the change overall. Battalions give an extra one per game on top of the one per round so are beneficial but not hugely swingy (like the artifact they give now) and the additional command abilities/change to inspiring presence I like, they seem more tactical than before. It isn't how I'd do it but I think the change is an improvement.

Going off Idoneth(supposedly it was designed with AoS2.0 as its basis) as an example, I'm getting the feeling that yeah--the general will get to use theirs for free, but future books are going to be much more restrictive as to what the general's freebie ability is(if they have one at all!).

Look at the Akhelian King/Volturnos for example.
It requires:
1) Unit to be fully within range
2) A secondary caveat(in this case--High Tide)
3) It applies specifically to one type of value(Melee weapon attack values)

It's cool and all, but man that's a bit much if I'm going to have to pay a CP for it.

This. I see the future GHB for the year having LOTS of adjustments and caveats to command abilities, on top of other rules. Let's be honest, even Volturnos' ability, while broad at 18" and affecting 3 units, is VERY situational. Many games are decided by turn 3, and you might not even have 3 units wholly in 18" that are also in close combat (or going into close combat) for this to go off. There are lots of other command abilities or similar abilities that give buffs for just having one model daisy-chained within range of your general, and it affects that unit all game long.

We'll see how this pans out, but I think we can definitely look at the Daughters of Khaine and Deepkin books as inspiration for what we may see in the future. We'll definitely know what's up once the Nighthaunt and new Stormcast stuff comes out too.

I like this CP system. It remains to be seen of course, but it's looking pretty balanced so far. You'll only be able to fit so many battalions into your list so you can't go crazy on the spam. I would assume that the general gets to use his ability for free?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I like this CP system. It remains to be seen of course, but it's looking pretty balanced so far. You'll only be able to fit so many battalions into your list so you can't go crazy on the spam. I would assume that the general gets to use his ability for free?

My biggest issue is the factions with little or no battalion support. It might have the feeling that 40k has with Index vs Codex.

Darsath wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I like this CP system. It remains to be seen of course, but it's looking pretty balanced so far. You'll only be able to fit so many battalions into your list so you can't go crazy on the spam. I would assume that the general gets to use his ability for free?

My biggest issue is the factions with little or no battalion support. It might have the feeling that 40k has with Index vs Codex.

My biggest issue is the factions with battalions that are just downright unfeasible or overly clunky for certain points values/game sizes.

So I posted a few pages back interested in getting a sense of the game since the models were so lovely, and I wanted to know if there were any redeeming qualities. Sadly given there's been almost 10 pages of negative impressions on the game system and the new edition, me and my friends have decided to abandon our plans to join our local AoS group.

After all, if there's this much sharing of fears and disappointments, it seems the message is very clearly "STAY AWAY" in big neon letters. I can now warn others just as you've helped me.

I'll keep checking back over the years to see how the community reacts to changes, though. A huge thank you to everyone sharing their perspectives - you've helped immensely as it truly seems like we dodged a bullet with all the really disappointed and negative impressions of the game system as a whole.

Lemondish wrote:
So I posted a few pages back interested in getting a sense of the game since the models were so lovely, and I wanted to know if there were any redeeming qualities. Sadly given there's been almost 10 pages of negative impressions on the game system and the new edition, me and my friends have decided to abandon our plans to join our local AoS group.

After all, if there's this much sharing of fears and disappointments, it seems the message is very clearly "STAY AWAY" in big neon letters. I can now warn others just as you've helped me.

I'll keep checking back over the years to see how the community reacts to changes, though. A huge thank you to everyone sharing their perspectives - you've helped immensely as it truly seems like we dodged a bullet with all the really disappointed and negative impressions of the game system as a whole.

Ummm... its a few very vocal people complaining about some very corner case situations that come up in tournaments. Not a tournament player? Then I guarantee you won't come up against 90% of the gank lists that people have problems with. Double turns only suck when you are faced with a list that throws out 50 Mortal Wounds a turn. And if you are seeing that in casual play, you need to thump someone.

People like to complain, and it's human nature to critique and complain. For every complainer that actually logs into Dakka and complains about AOS, there are at least twice as many people that are perfectly content with the game and have fun.

I am one of the people that is pretty happy with the way AOS is. I play in tournaments infrequently, maybe 4 to 1 (4 regular games to one tournament game), and I have fun. Yes, it can be frustrating at times, but it's not nearly as bad as a few people on here make it sound. The game scales beautifully across all points ranges, and funny enough, all my games always take about 90 minutes. 500 points or 3,000 points- they all take about 90 minutes. I very rarely ever get into a rules dispute or spend a bunch of time with my nose buried in the General's Handbook during a game. The FAQ's and Errata have been fair, consistent and made sense. The "WTF" moments I've had have always involved an older, 8th edition army that was ported over to AOS... very poorly. The new armies? No real issues.

Are there things I'd like to see improved? Absolutely. No game is perfect. But they are minor quibbles that in no way turn me off from AOS.

Bottom line: If you have a good gaming group that isn't WAAC, then you will enjoy AOS. Even going to tournaments can be fun.

Lemondish wrote:
So I posted a few pages back interested in getting a sense of the game since the models were so lovely, and I wanted to know if there were any redeeming qualities. Sadly given there's been almost 10 pages of negative impressions on the game system and the new edition, me and my friends have decided to abandon our plans to join our local AoS group.

After all, if there's this much sharing of fears and disappointments, it seems the message is very clearly "STAY AWAY" in big neon letters. I can now warn others just as you've helped me.

I'll keep checking back over the years to see how the community reacts to changes, though. A huge thank you to everyone sharing their perspectives - you've helped immensely as it truly seems like we dodged a bullet with all the really disappointed and negative impressions of the game system as a whole.

With all it's faults of the game, I still like it a lot. I believe some of the complaining, is people want more, but it's still good. It's just "what could have been". As in it could have been so much better.

As for not trying the game, everything is free. It sounds you already have minis. Rules are free. Warscrolls are free. Use your minis as counts as and try a few games. Then add in the "house rules" since it seems you guys will be playing and should be able to make the game you want.

So I wouldn't give up on the game from a few people's opinions. Since it doesn't cost any money at all, I say try a few games before writing it off. After all if you are seeing how a "few" people hate it, how come the "few" people who love it are so into it? Just don't knock it, other wise, you will get this for EVERY game system. I have seen it in Warmahordes, X wing, other Star War games, Going by what you say, you will never find a game for you and your group. Not saying you are wrong but need to try it first when the game is free. Good luck in your choice of game.

Darsath wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I like this CP system. It remains to be seen of course, but it's looking pretty balanced so far. You'll only be able to fit so many battalions into your list so you can't go crazy on the spam. I would assume that the general gets to use his ability for free?

My biggest issue is the factions with little or no battalion support. It might have the feeling that 40k has with Index vs Codex.

I don't see it happening. AoS has always had non-battletome armies that do very well. Mixed Order is one of the strongest right now. The thing is that battalions cost a decent chunk of points, battletome benefits require allegiance across the whole army, and only replace the allegiance that the generic faction already had. Imagine if codex armies in 40k had to have at least 1600/2000 points from the same codex to get any of it's benefits, and the remaining points would not get any benefits at all (from the army's main codex or their own).

Lemondish wrote:
So I posted a few pages back interested in getting a sense of the game since the models were so lovely, and I wanted to know if there were any redeeming qualities. Sadly given there's been almost 10 pages of negative impressions on the game system and the new edition, me and my friends have decided to abandon our plans to join our local AoS group.

After all, if there's this much sharing of fears and disappointments, it seems the message is very clearly "STAY AWAY" in big neon letters. I can now warn others just as you've helped me.

I'll keep checking back over the years to see how the community reacts to changes, though. A huge thank you to everyone sharing their perspectives - you've helped immensely as it truly seems like we dodged a bullet with all the really disappointed and negative impressions of the game system as a whole.

Wow. I really wouldn't trust dakka on this. This corner of the community strongly tends towards the negative regarding all game systems. They especially hate aos since it is a relatively simple game.
I would strongly recommend going to your local aos group and try a few games. Maybe ask to borrow an army or ask someone to teach you how to play.
If you dont like the game after that then fine.
Coming here to get an accurate sense of what aos is like would be like going into the comments section on the fox news website and asking them what they think of the Democrats.

 jreilly89 wrote:


Trademarking isn't a factor in selling but it is a factor in ending WHFB. Look at Imperial Guard / Astra Militarum. GW obviously wants to trademark and keep their IPs.

This is entirely on GW and not a fault of the game.

A solid system gets old after awhile. Axis and Allies is one of the few unchanged games I know of that's been around forever. How hot is that selling?

Axis and Allies is a self contained boardgame with limited unit and faction selection with no way of expanding your collection outside of buying another self-contained boxgame with slightly different scenarios. It is not a Table Top Wargame like WHFB.
But if you want to bring a boardgame that had nigh-constant rules, I see your Axis and Allies and raise you a Monopoly.

Debatable. It is definitely partly due to their pricing, but cheap models will never fix a complex and difficult ruleset. Yeah, WHFB was a solid ruleset, but it was complex and not very new player friendly. Plus it had some goofy rules (can't make the charge because you're slightly outside your arc / there's a single model with his toe in your charge arc).

Considering how players lamented that 8th ed Wh40k dropped vehicle facing and AoS dropped ranking and unit facings, it would seem that they liked complexity in their wargames.
Furthermore, Wh40k still has its share of complex book keeping (stratagems, unit buffs) and goofy rules (a tank can shoot every single one of its guns out of a corner of its armor), and that's still selling quite well.

If could get into WHFB's rules as a new player , and if there were some younger folks at my local store that could get into it, then logically the rules weren't a problem.
At least, that's how it was in 7th edition. Which had its problems, mind you, but it was playable. I could see the argument that 8th edition was unfriendly towards new players, as that's when GW basically phoned it in and started sabotaging WHFB by making the rules all about random tables, OP spells, huge blocks of infantry, and later big expensive monsters rather than tactics and game mechanics.
Which again brings us to price gouging, as in order to effectively play 8th ed you needed to buy big expensive monsters and a large number of infantry kits, which were also expensive for its contents. Even little Timmy's parents would be hesitant in forking over cash for that.

I really dislike more stuff being linked to the battalions, I don't like battalions. It has already pointed out, that different armies have completely different numbers of battalions available to them. Then there is my personal issue, that battalions are like 40K 7th edition formations (which I also hated), they force you to bring very particular combination of specific units. I want to choose what units to take myself, thank you very much! 8th edition 40K detachments are much better, as you can pretty freely fill them with units you like.

Lemondish wrote:
So I posted a few pages back interested in getting a sense of the game since the models were so lovely, and I wanted to know if there were any redeeming qualities. Sadly given there's been almost 10 pages of negative impressions on the game system and the new edition, me and my friends have decided to abandon our plans to join our local AoS group.

After all, if there's this much sharing of fears and disappointments, it seems the message is very clearly "STAY AWAY" in big neon letters. I can now warn others just as you've helped me.

I'll keep checking back over the years to see how the community reacts to changes, though. A huge thank you to everyone sharing their perspectives - you've helped immensely as it truly seems like we dodged a bullet with all the really disappointed and negative impressions of the game system as a whole.

If I may offer a different opinion then, my local AoS group is extremely excited for the changes. We already loved the original version, but now every change we've seen so far has been met with nothing but praise. Discussing the recent command point announcement today with them, we were all very pleased with the way it was set up, linking them to battalion warscrolls, as unlike 40K, these all carry a point cost with them, so even if one was to take several in order to maximise command points, they would be paying points for the privilege, as opposed to 40K which hands them out for free. Given as well that the benefit is to allow models to use their command abilities, that's more points that must be spent on models to get the benefits. It's a trade-off system that works beautifully, and we're all keen to try it out.

With regards to negativity, don't discount the ongoing hostility towards AoS that still hangs around in the online community even after 3 years. Some people have a very vested interest in seeing AoS fail. My strong advice is to try it out for yourself (the rules are free anyway) and also to have a chat to your local group.

Lemondish wrote:
So I posted a few pages back interested in getting a sense of the game since the models were so lovely, and I wanted to know if there were any redeeming qualities. Sadly given there's been almost 10 pages of negative impressions on the game system and the new edition, me and my friends have decided to abandon our plans to join our local AoS group.

After all, if there's this much sharing of fears and disappointments, it seems the message is very clearly "STAY AWAY" in big neon letters. I can now warn others just as you've helped me.

I'll keep checking back over the years to see how the community reacts to changes, though. A huge thank you to everyone sharing their perspectives - you've helped immensely as it truly seems like we dodged a bullet with all the really disappointed and negative impressions of the game system as a whole.

That is a shame. As others have said, AoS is great. I was hooked on it right off the bat, and it triggered a resurgence in wargaming among me and my friends, and now it's our main game. It's not perfect, but then what is? It's just that there is a sizable chunk of the player base, still sore from the ending of old fantasy and angry at simplified rules, who are actively rooting for it to fail and will help facilitate that at every opportunity with over the top negativity. And here they seem to have gotten to you.

It's your decision, but I say that you're really missing out by avoiding AoS.

Yeah, there are those groups that will tell you that AoS is great and all those who are telling you something different are gates that can not get over killing the old world
Than there are those that say AoS is bad and everyone who say it is not is just a fanboy who buy anything from GW and never played something else.

All in all, AoS is an average Skirmish game and it's main difference to other games are large monster models.

Gameplay wise there are better fantasy Skirmish games out there.
Also some without dedicated models, so you can use GW stuff, but without special rules for the very big stuff

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Lemondish wrote:
So I posted a few pages back interested in getting a sense of the game since the models were so lovely, and I wanted to know if there were any redeeming qualities. Sadly given there's been almost 10 pages of negative impressions on the game system and the new edition, me and my friends have decided to abandon our plans to join our local AoS group.

After all, if there's this much sharing of fears and disappointments, it seems the message is very clearly "STAY AWAY" in big neon letters. I can now warn others just as you've helped me.

I'll keep checking back over the years to see how the community reacts to changes, though. A huge thank you to everyone sharing their perspectives - you've helped immensely as it truly seems like we dodged a bullet with all the really disappointed and negative impressions of the game system as a whole.

That is a shame. As others have said, AoS is great. I was hooked on it right off the bat, and it triggered a resurgence in wargaming among me and my friends, and now it's our main game. It's not perfect, but then what is? It's just that there is a sizable chunk of the player base, still sore from the ending of old fantasy and angry at simplified rules, who are actively rooting for it to fail and will help facilitate that at every opportunity with over the top negativity. And here they seem to have gotten to you.

It's your decision, but I say that you're really missing out by avoiding AoS.

Amen!
I Think aos is the Best thing that has come out of gw in the 15 years I've been a customer..

Thenord wrote:
Amen!
I Think aos is the Best thing that has come out of gw in the 15 years I've been a customer..

Damn straight. Simple (and free!) rules, beautiful models, and a new setting that's growing and expanding. It's fantastic!

 Crimson wrote:
I really dislike more stuff being linked to the battalions, I don't like battalions. It has already pointed out, that different armies have completely different numbers of battalions available to them. Then there is my personal issue, that battalions are like 40K 7th edition formations (which I also hated), they force you to bring very particular combination of specific units. I want to choose what units to take myself, thank you very much! 8th edition 40K detachments are much better, as you can pretty freely fill them with units you like.

Yeah, formations / battalions are a blatant marketing ploy to get you to buy a specific combination of units to get some special ability out of them.
I hate them.
8th ed 40k detachments have some problems in that it's easy to farm CP with them and get all sorts of buffs from faction traits, especially if you're imperial, but it's still better than formations

I think basing one's opinion of the game without playing it at all is a mistake. Especially since the rules are free.

There are people that love it. There are people that hate it. There are people like me who love part of it and hate other parts of it.

You have to make your own decision based on what you and your group personally are looking to get out of a game. What I am looking to get out of a game is likely totally different from what you want out of a game.

auticus wrote:
I think basing one's opinion of the game without playing it at all is a mistake. Especially since the rules are free.

There are people that love it. There are people that hate it. There are people like me who love part of it and hate other parts of it.

You have to make your own decision based on what you and your group personally are looking to get out of a game. What I am looking to get out of a game is likely totally different from what you want out of a game.

To clarify, we have played a few games and enjoyed what we'd seen - but these hobbies are expensive and we like to play competitively. We all agreed that a couple games, despite being enjoyable, would not give us the experience or knowledge of the competitive side of the game nor the insight on how these changes would impact it. That is why I've found this thread very helpful - it's filled to the brim with longtime players that have the experience and insight we lack. You've all provided important analysis of these changes and the current status of the game, and much of the analysis here says a lot of the same message - you're unhappy. The message I'm hearing is that it does not seem worth committing the time and money at this juncture.

It's a pity, but I imagine GW will continue to make changes over time and eventually the game may find an audience of authorities like yourselves whose analysis is much more positive. I'll keep an eye on the scene (my buddies likely will too). Once again, thanks everyone for the honest feedback. Cheers and good gaming!

It sounds to me like you had already decided against playing, and that's fine, but for anyone else reading this thread, it really is a vocal minority lamenting the changes. The vast majority of online discussions I've read about the 2.0 changes have been extremely optimistic.

Crimson wrote:I really dislike more stuff being linked to the battalions, I don't like battalions. It has already pointed out, that different armies have completely different numbers of battalions available to them. Then there is my personal issue, that battalions are like 40K 7th edition formations (which I also hated), they force you to bring very particular combination of specific units. I want to choose what units to take myself, thank you very much! 8th edition 40K detachments are much better, as you can pretty freely fill them with units you like.

You can choose what units you want. This hasn't changed. Unless you are adamant of getting those extra what ever they are called because I can't remember points are called.

Thenord wrote:
Amen!
I Think aos is the Best thing that has come out of gw in the 15 years I've been a customer..

I would say for me that would be Lord of the Rings. Only difference between the two is Age of Sigmar is about more massed die rolling like 40K is. I understand there is a rush rolling 20-50 dice but sometimes more simplier is more elegent.

EnTyme wrote:It sounds to me like you had already decided against playing, and that's fine, but for anyone else reading this thread, it really is a vocal minority lamenting the changes. The vast majority of online discussions I've read about the 2.0 changes have been extremely optimistic.

So true. Also it's only a few weeks before we have actual game play. I know I harp on AoS only because of "what could have been" but I am still here and I am enjoying the game. It's like the new Star Trek movies. While I don't consider them Star Trek they are good sci fi movies to kill a few hours.

Age of Sigmar is a fun game. I find it funny that what people find wrong with the game and have friends don't house rule stuff in. "We shouldn't have to do it" is no excuse. You want fun play what is fun for you. After all GW tells us to house rule things in and out. That is the player base fault, not GW. After all almost every game I see played has a house rule in it somewhere.