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.

bouncingboredom wrote:

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

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

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

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

bouncingboredom wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Overread wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

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

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

That would be something...

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

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

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

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

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

bouncingboredom wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The only AOS. Ight I'm working :(

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

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

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

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

Lord Kragan wrote:

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

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

Did any other new faction get them after fyreslayers?

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

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

jouso wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

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

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

Did any other new faction get them after fyreslayers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which army is it?

 Overread wrote:

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

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

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

Which army is it?

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

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

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

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Overread wrote:

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

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

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

Which army is it?

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

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

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

 Overread wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Overread wrote:

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

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

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

Which army is it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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