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.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I'm looking in to starting AoS as well. I have a question- I saw decks of cards (like the ones in Warcry) are they supplemental to the army books or can you use them in place of the books?

They're simply Warscroll Cards...



... you will still need your battletome for points, relics, etc. They're basically the Age of Sigmar equivalent of the datacards that accompany every codex release (i.e., an unnecessary limited edition product that sells out almost immediately).

 Ghaz wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I'm looking in to starting AoS as well. I have a question- I saw decks of cards (like the ones in Warcry) are they supplemental to the army books or can you use them in place of the books?

They're simply Warscroll Cards...

Spoiler:

... you will still need your battletome for points, relics, etc. They're basically the Age of Sigmar equivalent of the datacards that accompany every codex release (i.e., an unnecessary limited edition product that sells out almost immediately).

Another great resource here is the https://www.warhammer-community.com/warscroll-builder/

I find the cards can be pretty useful so you don't have to flip in the codex all the time. If you only have a few units, you can just have those available for quick reference.

I don't see a heap of sense in jumping from 40K to AoS. While there are some minor differences you're feeding the same beast, and paying the same costs.

There are so many decent-to-good wargame options out there - if you're sick of 40K I'd jump ship entirely.

 Elbows wrote:
I don't see a heap of sense in jumping from 40K to AoS. While there are some minor differences you're feeding the same beast, and paying the same costs.

There are so many decent-to-good wargame options out there - if you're sick of 40K I'd jump ship entirely.

I can't say I disagree, and that is coming from someone who enjoys 40k/AoS quite a bit for what they are. The best thing I ever did in this hobby was branch out. Finding even 1-2 fellow players willing to try any number of the much better games out there can be reinvigorating, and oddly, helps you better appreciate GW's offerings for what they really are. Playing a real tournament balanced, well written ruleset or two helped me to stop trying to force GW games to work in that way.

 Elbows wrote:
I don't see a heap of sense in jumping from 40K to AoS. While there are some minor differences you're feeding the same beast, and paying the same costs.

There are so many decent-to-good wargame options out there - if you're sick of 40K I'd jump ship entirely.

You have to consider the community and playgroups. GW is often the only game in town. It also already sounds like he has a group of friends that he is going to play AoS with, which is likely a factor in the decision.

GW is the only game in town for places because few people try to make that not so.

GW is not the only game in town, by a long shot. It's an easy one to find, and it makes gaming less time-consuming. You need precisely one other friend to play any wargame out there. It's just the "arms race, meet at the store" mentality which 40K brings with it that people seem unable to break out of.

If you like another game - collect two forces, and host it for people. Or, tackle a skirmish game where you can literally assemble all the minis you'll need for less than a box of Space Marines. This requires having a decent table and building some terrain - which unfortunately seems like an impossible challenge to so many people.

I've never been a GW-only gamer, but I have to agree with the above poster; playing other games will help you look at GW in an entirely new light (and not necessarily a good one). It definitely helps take the shine off that brand. If you want to play a quick and easy fantasy game, you can buy a copy of Osprey's "Dragon Rampant" for like $16 on Amazon, use whatever figures you want (including any Warhammer ones you have) and be playing an entirely different game with very little investment. Some people seem shocked when they encounter "normal" games....just how affordable and simple they can be to adopt and play. No need to buy a half dozen books, etc.

I cut my teeth in a hobby group of older gamers who instilled in me the idea that if I want to play something...collect and build it, and then host a game. If someone else likes it, they'll get into it too. It's the easiest way to wargame and you never have to convince a friend to buy or paint an army or even a warband. They literally just show up with dice and snacks and you get to game. Simple.

 Elbows wrote:
I've never been a GW-only gamer, but I have to agree with the above poster; playing other games will help you look at GW in an entirely new light (and not necessarily a good one). It definitely helps take the shine off that brand. If you want to play a quick and easy fantasy game, you can buy a copy of Osprey's "Dragon Rampant" for like $16 on Amazon, use whatever figures you want (including any Warhammer ones you have) and be playing an entirely different game with very little investment. Some people seem shocked when they encounter "normal" games....just how affordable and simple they can be to adopt and play. No need to buy a half dozen books, etc..

I support this message.

 DarkBlack wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
I've never been a GW-only gamer, but I have to agree with the above poster; playing other games will help you look at GW in an entirely new light (and not necessarily a good one). It definitely helps take the shine off that brand. If you want to play a quick and easy fantasy game, you can buy a copy of Osprey's "Dragon Rampant" for like $16 on Amazon, use whatever figures you want (including any Warhammer ones you have) and be playing an entirely different game with very little investment. Some people seem shocked when they encounter "normal" games....just how affordable and simple they can be to adopt and play. No need to buy a half dozen books, etc..

I support this message.

Indeed, even worse when you find an actually competently written wargame

All gw really got is the miniatures. And even there that is debatable.

Careful guys you are sounding negative and that might ruin someones experience.

 auticus wrote:
Careful guys you are sounding negative and that might ruin someones experience.

More than spending $500 on a new army and discovering he picked the wrong army book and is going to get tabled in two turns no matter what he does every game?

(Having a Stormcast player and a Bloodbound player in the same playgroup (Bloodbound get tabled in two turns no matter what they do) has done more to sour me on Sigmar than any amount of complaining anyone's done or any changes to models/rules.)

I was being sarcastic and passive aggressive. A poster on the previous page suggested putting me on ignore because i sometimes speak ill of aos and its gaktastic balance.

I fully agree that the amount of traps and negative play experiences can lead to a horrible time if players arent coached correctly and know how to minmax out the gate. Otherwise youre blowing a ton of money on a bad experience.

Further you may have to regularly change armies out as they cycle one army out for another in power.

A general rules question- If I have a character with the wizard keyword do I get to use the spells on his warscroll and the one(s) from his lore realm or does the lore realm only apply to those warscrolls that don't list specific spells?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
A general rules question- If I have a character with the wizard keyword do I get to use the spells on his warscroll and the one(s) from his lore realm or does the lore realm only apply to those warscrolls that don't list specific spells?

A wizard will only know the spells on his Warscroll (which should include Mystic Shield and Arcane Bolt too).

He or she or it will also know the spells from the Realm only if the game takes place in that Realm...but if your army is from a Realm then at least one hero can take a weapon or artefact of that Realm (all listed in the Malign Sorcery book).

Also, if your wizard is in an army that uses a Battletome Allegiance, as opposed to a generic Grand Alliance Allegiance, the wizard can usually take another spell listed in the Battletome, but limited to casting however many times the warscroll says.

 Malathrim wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
A general rules question- If I have a character with the wizard keyword do I get to use the spells on his warscroll and the one(s) from his lore realm or does the lore realm only apply to those warscrolls that don't list specific spells?

A wizard will only know the spells on his Warscroll (which should include Mystic Shield and Arcane Bolt too).

He or she or it will also know the spells from the Realm only if the game takes place in that Realm...but if your army is from a Realm then at least one hero can take a weapon or artefact of that Realm (all listed in the Malign Sorcery book).

Also, if your wizard is in an army that uses a Battletome Allegiance, as opposed to a generic Grand Alliance Allegiance, the wizard can usually take another spell listed in the Battletome, but limited to casting however many times the warscroll says.

Also note there's one realm spell in each realm from the main rulebook and 6 spells for each realm in Malign Sorcery.

A wizard generally has:
-Arcane bolt & mystic shield from the basic rules
-Any spell(s) from his warscroll
-Any spell(s) granted by his allegiance
-The basic spell from the realm you are playing in, found in the core rulebook
-The realm spells from malign sorcery, found in that supplement

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
A wizard generally has:
-Arcane bolt & mystic shield from the basic rules
-Any spell(s) from his warscroll
-Any spell(s) granted by his allegiance
-The basic spell from the realm you are playing in, found in the core rulebook
-The realm spells from malign sorcery, found in that supplement

Note that of these spells the last two - basically the realm stuff - is all with opponents permission; since as part of the game setup you'd agree if you're using home-realms for your armies and you'd also agree if you're using realm rules for the game itself. Note some clubs will have a default state for these which remain true in general pickup games and events.

 auticus wrote:

Be wary for AOS is a game all about absurd deck/list building lol.

If your assertion is that this situation is somehow worse or more prevalent in AoS than it is in 40k, then I very much disagree with you.

Please do not insert words into my posts. I have never once asserted 40k or aos were worse than the other.

They both equally ride the same boat down burn’n’churn river.

 Overread wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
A wizard generally has:
-Arcane bolt & mystic shield from the basic rules
-Any spell(s) from his warscroll
-Any spell(s) granted by his allegiance
-The basic spell from the realm you are playing in, found in the core rulebook
-The realm spells from malign sorcery, found in that supplement

Note that of these spells the last two - basically the realm stuff - is all with opponents permission; since as part of the game setup you'd agree if you're using home-realms for your armies and you'd also agree if you're using realm rules for the game itself. Note some clubs will have a default state for these which remain true in general pickup games and events.

Technically speaking use of realm rules is the default, and not using them is a house rule. However your point still stands.

 auticus wrote:
Please do not insert words into my posts. I have never once asserted 40k or aos were worse than the other.

They both equally ride the same boat down burn’n’churn river.

Fair enough.

However, if you believe both game systems are the same in that regard, then why bother issuing your "warning"? It gives a pretty strong indication that you think the opposite of what you just said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Technically speaking use of realm rules is the default, and not using them is a house rule. However your point still stands.

Technically speaking you are not correct. Nothing in the Matched Play rules forces players to use Realm rules as some sort of default state

 mikethefish wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Please do not insert words into my posts. I have never once asserted 40k or aos were worse than the other.

They both equally ride the same boat down burn’n’churn river.

Fair enough.

However, if you believe both game systems are the same in that regard, then why bother issuing your "warning"? It gives a pretty strong indication that you think the opposite of what you just said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Technically speaking use of realm rules is the default, and not using them is a house rule. However your point still stands.

Technically speaking you are not correct. Nothing in the Matched Play rules forces players to use Realm rules as some sort of default state

I should rephrase; it isn't a house rule to not use realm rules it is simply something either player can initiate so is in play unless both agree not to, technically speaking.

However, if you believe both game systems are the same in that regard, then why bother issuing your "warning"? It gives a pretty strong indication that you think the opposite of what you just said.

Because if they think AOS is better than 40k in that regard they are going to be in for a sad and expensive conclusion.

 auticus wrote:
I was being sarcastic and passive aggressive. A poster on the previous page suggested putting me on ignore because i sometimes speak ill of aos and its gaktastic balance.

I fully agree that the amount of traps and negative play experiences can lead to a horrible time if players arent coached correctly and know how to minmax out the gate. Otherwise youre blowing a ton of money on a bad experience.

Further you may have to regularly change armies out as they cycle one army out for another in power.

The problem is that you are overly negative to a huge degree, that not only multiple topics have been warped from your posts, I think the entire AoS section has.

Here are some examples:

#1 AoS Wary example. Here Nels breaks down several of Auticus posts on the matter

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/778224.page#10525019

#2 Auticus' threatening to quit multiple times over a great timeline. Another great break down by Nels

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/765565.page#10196127

#3 Just have a read down this page, again warped around auticus

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/810/772521.page

#4 You were literally banned from another forum because of your posting habits.



Your posts are literally a negative black hole that consistently sucks and warps topics around it. It's like you have a pathological need to constantly have attention and be negative about AoS and GW.

Criticism Of GW is fair, and so is criticism of AoS. The System is not perfect, and there are much better game systems out there no question. The problem is you take it to the extreme, where you are so negative most of any criticism is lost because all you do post negative crap day in and day out.

It gets tiring. I don't like that TGA is overly positive and pro gw, but it's a hell of a lot better than every topic being drowned in your negativity and influx of posts. There are actual fruitful discussions over there on Tactics, balance, lore and other topics. Look at how this section of the forum is almost dead. I truly believe that is in large part due to the fact that almost every topic has you chime in with your negative opinion in some form or fashion.

It really is too bad, because you are clearly a thoughtful person and I have seen many posts that I agree with.

 auticus wrote:

However, if you believe both game systems are the same in that regard, then why bother issuing your "warning"? It gives a pretty strong indication that you think the opposite of what you just said.

Because if they think AOS is better than 40k in that regard they are going to be in for a sad and expensive conclusion.

lol, ok while I agree with your intent, you really need to work on your communication skills, hoss.

Think we are getting a bit hyperbolic here.

Certainly agree with Sasori on that regard, it's quite detailed that certain posters tend to be quite hyperbolic and drag some of the posts in the AoS forum down in general. It's why I tend not to post here much at all just because it can be so toxic.

AoS is quite fine in general to keep this slightly more on topic, I play both competitive and narrative and both can work well. Though if you are in a meta that just completely goes min-max it might not be fun to get into at the start for certain.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Certainly agree with Sasori on that regard, it's quite detailed that certain posters tend to be quite hyperbolic and drag some of the posts in the AoS forum down in general. It's why I tend not to post here much at all just because it can be so toxic.

Also agree.

We live in the new seal-clapping era of communication. Well I shouldn't say new. Its been that way for a few years now.

Debate and discussion are not desired. Reinforcement of what we like is what is desired. Those that do not reinforce what we like are toxic and cause us to not want to participate any longer. Politics, religion, gaming, sports teams, doesn't matter. A poster in the TGA actually laid it out quite well.

"I do not come to internet forums to debate or discuss the things that I like. I come here to read about news and forums and get excited about the things that I like. Criticism and negative posts about the things I like make me not want to read posts there any longer."

Which is a stark contrast to how forums were 10 or more years ago where the rule was openly debate and discuss (thats what discussion forums are for) but do not attack other posters. The times we live in and all.

The problem with that is that by not being allowed to voice criticism the company continues down its merry road surrounded by its echo chamber. If I did my games design and all of the projects that I have done in that environment, I would never have gotten to where I am professionally.

You were literally banned from another forum because of your posting habits.

I was most definitely not banned from that forum for my posting habits. At the time I was banned I was ranked #7 or so on their top posters in terms of the likes / exalts that they collect (they have a scoreboard, and I often "won the day" and had more likes than posts). I was banned explicitly because Ben Curry stated the TGA had a zero-tolerance on negative posts and that there would be NO criticism of AOS allowed on that forum. The funny thing is I have been posting on TGA for a few months now with nary a complaint, and some of YOU have even liked or agreed with things I have said over there.

I think the key isn't presenting a "Seal happy clapping fingers in ears" atmosphere, but that there is a time and place for complaining/moaning and not all threads are that place. Furthermore there are ways to present negative information in such a way that it is not overwhelmingly negative in tone nor attitude.

I guess what many are saying is that often times you shift beyond simple information exchange and into an attitude with typing that conveys a sense of discouraging people from the game. When regular posters see you also regularly saying that you're going to "abandon/leave" the game then they get the feeling that you've either moved on in the real world or you keep wanting to and that this is being projected through your choice of words into other threads. Ergo that you're more tryign to encourage others to give up or focus on the negative overly much.


A lot is in the choice of how you choose to phrase things and also in the element that you tend to drop negative posts with less/little/no positive reinforcement.




In the end its not about right nor wrong nor about hiding the problems the game system has (honestly show me ANY game system that has no complaints - even Chess has complaints if you go looking for them); its about not focusing only upon them and also choosing when and how to air them. Someone keen to get into the game and looking at a new army and such isn't quite the place to derail things with all the inherent problems of the system only -there ARE some good parts of the game worth talking about too