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.

I can sort of see where you're heading with it but at the same time you're sort of boiling some elements down into their basic definitions - which can vary depending on how one interprets them - eg in Warmachine you had 360movement but facings were critical for the warmachines themselves.
Meanwhile any game that isn't rank and file is mostly 360 movement unless its a ship/starship game.


Also visually both had a key difference in so much as synergies and structure was very forced in warmachine because of the hero - machine or mage - monster mechanics which Age of Sigmar hasn't copied

The argument on warmachine vs AOS has been done about 1000 times and always comes down to semantics.

This is something that is a "feels like" opinion. Feels like opinions and semantics don't mix well, because fees like is taking similarities and each person has a personal boundary of how many similarities make a valid "feels like" comparison. For some its only a couple perhaps, for others it has to damn near match bullet by bullet down the line or else they have nothing to do with each other.

AOS is definitely closer to Warmachine than say Lord of the Rings, WHFB, or Kings of War, or Warmaster (all fantasy games)

Someone that loves a game purely about manuever and prefers uber heroes not be a part of the game will not like warmachine or AOS (and could potentially be cranky with LOTR)

Someone that loves deckbuilding synergies and synergy chains and god-like heroes walking around won't like Kings of War or warmaster or even whfb in 6th edition when heroes were toned down.

Someone that is very sensitive about balance would likely have issues with WHFB other than 8th, AOS for sure, and Warmachine because the tolerable imbalances are often beyond what is acceptable for a balance-oriented player, whereas a player that likes imbalance and likes deckbuilding to create imbalance would be bored with warmaster or kings of war or whfb 6th edition largely.

auticus wrote:
* movement is not restricted or very minimally restricted and 360 degrees

* the game has no ranks and is skirmish based 100% in its movements

These are almost the same thing. Already addressed, and not really unique to WMH. Actually it is closer to 40K, because facing is still important in WMH, so it is restricted there. In addition, WMH units require being with a distance of the Leader to be in Cohesion, while AoS it is the distance to each other that is important.

auticus wrote:
* the game hinges on powerful heroes popping buffs at the right time

A staple of WHFB at times, too. Some were not buffs, but direct attacks, and that is no different than in WHFB. Now, in WMH there are buffs that don't come from the heroes, such as the Protectorate's Choir, the Trollblood's Krielstone, and Skorne's Master Tormentor. Even then, the amount of game-changing power in the Warcaster/Warlock is larger than most of those Characters in AoS such that the approach to the game changes if the only thing that changes is the Warcaster/Warlock. Admittedly, WMH's armies are also much smaller due to the mechanics, so it is easier for a Warcaster/Warlock to have that affect.

auticus wrote:
* the game hinges heavily on deckbuilding skills and synergy spamming

WHFB was as "deckbulding" as AoS is now. The synergy aspect I will admit has been and is still far better in AoS than in WHFB, but WMH is still better than AoS. I consider this a good thing, actually. In WHFB, the synergy was more about providing a flank attack more than anything. Synergy also can be quite painful if taken too far in WMH, leaving you little to work with. Take it from a Skorne player where we have a lot of support options and are getting more support options in the next release.

auticus wrote:
* characters are independent and cannot be part of units

Oddly enough, there are some Characters that CAN become part of units in WMH. They are "solos" that are listed as "Attachment" and must start the game attached to either another Character (ex: Mercenary Reinholdt), or another unit (Cygnar's Murdoch). And it's not like some Characters could join units in WHFB (to be fair, they were monsters or riding monsters). Honestly, I don't see this as "joining the WMH band wagon" as much as "let's get rid of the 'Independent Character' problem that was a hugely contentious issue in 40K (yes, AoS was a test bed for 40K rules).

auticus wrote:
* units all have their own magic the gathering style card with their own unique rules as opposed to universal rules

The card is for convenience, and many WHFB had their own unique rules as well as universal rules. And its not like AoS literally provides a deck of cards like WMH did.

auticus wrote:
* the game is designed by a tournament oriented development group and the company focuses heavily on the tournament aspect of the game and promotes heavily the tournament aspect of the game

* the game's balance at the tournament level is the primary focus of the development group, with a kind of page-5 mentality among the fans for dealing with imbalances outside of the tournament level

This isn't to say that AOS *is* warmachine. This is to say that it feels that the developers wanted to build a tournament-centric game and directly compete with warmahordes so borrowed heavily from its structure and created their version of it.

Nope. Wrong. AoS was designed to be a simple beer & pretzels game. Tournament orientation is added on. WMH is designed from the ground up as a competitive game. AoS may be getting better at the tournament scene, but it still isn't at WMH's level yet. It's been out for several years now and numerous factions still have not received a book, including the previous poster child, Empire/Free People. With a couple of exceptions, every WMH Faction had received their own list of Themes (the rough equivalent of Batttalions) within 6 months of Mk 3's launch, and they are all targets of dynamic updates.

Nope. Wrong. AoS was designed to be a simple beer & pretzels game.

Is there a dev blog or podcast that states this? I've never seen a dev post that it was designed to be a simple beer & pretzels game. I've seen the community discard it as ssuch, but never backed by a developer actually stating that was the design goal.

Additionally - regardless of if that answer is "yes and here it is", the overwhelming majority of the community seems to be very much a warmahordes style player in their desires and wants of the game.

auticus wrote:

Nope. Wrong. AoS was designed to be a simple beer & pretzels game.

Is there a dev blog or podcast that states this? I've never seen a dev post that it was designed to be a simple beer & pretzels game.

The fact that the first incarnation of AoS didn't even include point values and was just 'both players shove a load of models on the table and see what happens' would seem to be pretty solid evidence that it wasn't intended to be even remotely competitive.

We're not on version 1.0 any longer, we are on second edition of AOS.

Second edition of AOS is a whole different beast than 2015 AOS and has a totally different design ethos.

auticus wrote:
We're not on version 1.0 any longer, we are on second edition of AOS.

Granted, but the point still stands. No one looking to make a competitive game leaves out something as basic as point values (or any equivalent balancing mechanic).

Yes, they patched on in eventually, but it still speaks highly of their design ethos that balance was initially considered entirely irrelevant.

auticus wrote:
Second edition of AOS is a whole different beast than 2015 AOS and has a totally different design ethos.

That's debatable, I think. It has point values, sure, but the attempts at balance still seem token at best.

Especially when you consider that it still has stuff like one player being able to take two turns in a row (it's hard to imagine any game - bar a beer and pretzels one - putting so much weight into what is basically the result of a coin flip).

I'm going off of their development team, which have made public statements that their goal is a competitive tournament ruleset that is regularly tuned and balanced for tournament plaay.

auticus wrote:
I'm going off of their development team, which have made public statements that their goal is a competitive tournament ruleset that is regularly tuned and balanced for tournament plaay.

What they say needs to bear on what they do, and they're not properly addressing the game for tournament play in any rapid manner. The fact that 16 armies have Battletomes (and a few are from before GHB 1), while the rest do not is one indication of such. They've added several specialized armies as well as a new spell system in that time, but have done nothing for the rest of the armies aside from some light patch work. Since those Battletomes add a lot to the competitiveness of an army, that's makes it a vital production point, but they are releasing them at an abysmally slow pace while making no efforts to correct that.

The army organization is a complete mess. If I just look at the faction list for models, I see some with as much as 65 entries and some as small as 2-4, and that's just in the Order Alliance. And that's all existed since Age of Sigmar first launched with little to correct them!

And that's just what an outsider sees, without seeing the subtle interplay between the factions on the tabletop.

I might play AoS at some point, but not until the Bretonnians are brought back in. That sealed my decision not to play sigmarines.

 Charistoph wrote:

auticus wrote:
* the game hinges on powerful heroes popping buffs at the right time

A staple of WHFB at times, too. Some were not buffs, but direct attacks, and that is no different than in WHFB.

Not at times, it was the thing for a couple armies (Daemons and TK basically), with most armies having little or none. There were beatstick characters, because a game that lets you field dragons and vampires and daemon princes needs to reflect them but it's a different thing from the whole game revolving around character/unit synergies delivering combo abilities.

Herohammer died a well deserved death with the advent of 6th edition.

auticus wrote:
I'm going off of their development team, which have made public statements that their goal is a competitive tournament ruleset that is regularly tuned and balanced for tournament plaay.

And anybody taking GW at face value is bound to be dissapointed. They don't tell truths anyway. They can and have lied "no we have no intention of releasing X" only to announce said product coming week later. They keep telling their games are good for tournaments to find out skill levels in balanced match while ignoring the fact that a) their games are nowhere near suitable for that b) if you use points games won't be balanced anyway.

jouso wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

auticus wrote:
* the game hinges on powerful heroes popping buffs at the right time

A staple of WHFB at times, too. Some were not buffs, but direct attacks, and that is no different than in WHFB.

Not at times, it was the thing for a couple armies (Daemons and TK basically), with most armies having little or none. There were beatstick characters, because a game that lets you field dragons and vampires and daemon princes needs to reflect them but it's a different thing from the whole game revolving around character/unit synergies delivering combo abilities.

Herohammer died a well deserved death with the advent of 6th edition.

Keep in mind that my exposure to WHFB began in 6th Edition, so the only knowledge I have of previous editions is anecdotal and hearsay, and my judgements on WHFB are from 6th through 8th.

But it was more than that. The General always provided a buff, no matter the army (admittedly, some armies needed them more than others, i.e. Skaven vs Dwarfs). Tomb Kings and Vampires both saw additional buffs that was not just Leadership or based on equipment. That also doesn't consider the things like Banners that only Characters could carry in some cases or even some of the magical equipment that provided other improvements. I won't bother comparing magic because those have always been there, but selection in WHFB was greater than AoS started with (and AoS is only now catching up to it).

Even then, when compared to what we see in WMH, AoS has far less synergy going on. AoS is in baby steps after learning how to stand and getting the base mechanics of their game under their feet when it comes to the synergies that WMH pulls off as a matter of course. At least there isn't much in the way of "Skornergy", though.

Realistically, that's what Characters should be doing when they aren't Monsters. So not as much "AoS is becoming WMH" more than "AoS is becoming what it should be".

txaggieof08 wrote:
I might play AoS at some point, but not until the Bretonnians are brought back in. That sealed my decision not to play sigmarines.

Then you will never play AoS as GW will not introduce a mundane fantasy faction (medieval knights) to their new setting. Sigmarines are the executioners of the Old World. Therefore I haven´t spent a single cent for this faction and I never will.

That seems like an unnecessarily combative way to look at them.

People have different reasons for liking or disliking models or even whole factions. Why should my reason be less valid than theirs?

Quite a few of my gaming group has picked up AoS with a good number really enjoying it and I'm glad they do. As for myself while I do enjoy looking at some if the new models (especially if there is a new Tyrion or Teclis) I do not play and don't ever intend to. As for the game itself the absence of ranked units is probably the thing that I dislike the most (aside from the removal of the Old World). I'm not saying it's a bad game it is just not for me. Now overall aside from its launch I think GW did pretty well with AoS especially with the handbooks. I wish they would bring back WFB after its video game success (I know they wont, but I still wish it) along side AoS so people could have both games. I do hope they make more AoS terrain and models I want to pick up.

 Charistoph wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

auticus wrote:
* the game hinges on powerful heroes popping buffs at the right time

A staple of WHFB at times, too. Some were not buffs, but direct attacks, and that is no different than in WHFB.

Not at times, it was the thing for a couple armies (Daemons and TK basically), with most armies having little or none. There were beatstick characters, because a game that lets you field dragons and vampires and daemon princes needs to reflect them but it's a different thing from the whole game revolving around character/unit synergies delivering combo abilities.

Herohammer died a well deserved death with the advent of 6th edition.

Keep in mind that my exposure to WHFB began in 6th Edition, so the only knowledge I have of previous editions is anecdotal and hearsay, and my judgements on WHFB are from 6th through 8th.

But it was more than that. The General always provided a buff, no matter the army (admittedly, some armies needed them more than others, i.e. Skaven vs Dwarfs). Tomb Kings and Vampires both saw additional buffs that was not just Leadership or based on equipment. That also doesn't consider the things like Banners that only Characters could carry in some cases or even some of the magical equipment that provided other improvements.

A general lending leadership and BSB are staples of historical games, that goes back even before WH was a thing. A general is something you're required to take so it can't count as a buff, it's a baseline mechanic available to all armies in pretty much the same way. A BSB can carry a magic banner but so can many units (which is something for example KoW has as well)

It's obvious that AoS is in some ways still far from WMH but to me it's definitely closer to the WMH free-flow movement combo-release rather than the rank-and-flank, limited mobility classic WH when you look at the full package and game feel.

jouso wrote:
A general lending leadership and BSB are staples of historical games, that goes back even before WH was a thing. A general is something you're required to take so it can't count as a buff, it's a baseline mechanic available to all armies in pretty much the same way. A BSB can carry a magic banner but so can many units (which is something for example KoW has as well)

And your point? My point was that Characters did bring about buffs in WHFB, even if they weren't as much as we are seeing in AoS, much less in WMH.

jouso wrote:
It's obvious that AoS is in some ways still far from WMH but to me it's definitely closer to the WMH free-flow movement combo-release rather than the rank-and-flank, limited mobility classic WH when you look at the full package and game feel.

Granted that it is more free-flowing than Fantasy Battles, but it is still more following 40K's build than WMH's. Facing matters in WMH, while it doesn't in 40K or AoS. Actions are performed on a unit basis, and the individual model doesn't interact alone, while in WMH the models only activate at the same time, and unless they have a rule allowing them to combine attacks, they are otherwise left to what they have.

After the campaign my group is currently involved in I will be putting AOS away until they revisit the balance issues that I have. That will likely not happen, so I have been thinking of alternate uses for my model collection.

I need a game where I don't have to constantly buy models and paint new models to be able to have good games without getting rolled in the listbuilding phase, but the community at large finds this not only acceptable but desirable and thats just not what I find enjoyable.

So far that game is Kings of War and Middle Earth in regards to fantasy gaming. I may try to get warmaster going with a few of us as well.

In Kings I am able to put together a fairly competent list out of the gate and it being an enjoyable game win or lose without it being a one sided mudstomping. At least so far.

In AOS I can do the same simply because I know what armies are very strong, but none of them speak to me. Additionally the warmachine style of buff/synergy card game thing is really not something I like and why I also dont' play warmachine.

MIddle Earth is also fairly balanced once you learn the game and we dont' have one sided stompings there either with the same group of people where we have one sided stompings when we play AOS.

Go figure.

Because of this I'm actually getting back into the tournament circuit again for the first time since 2007 as these games are more suited toward that level of play without needing to constantly change armies to keep up with the GW drip-feed of new books and regularly changing meta, and where I feel playing the game is a bit more important than excel spreadsheeting the list.

auticus wrote:
After the campaign my group is currently involved in I will be putting AOS away until they revisit the balance issues that I have. That will likely not happen, so I have been thinking of alternate uses for my model collection.

I need a game where I don't have to constantly buy models and paint new models to be able to have good games without getting rolled in the listbuilding phase, but the community at large finds this not only acceptable but desirable and thats just not what I find enjoyable.

So far that game is Kings of War and Middle Earth in regards to fantasy gaming. I may try to get warmaster going with a few of us as well.

In Kings I am able to put together a fairly competent list out of the gate and it being an enjoyable game win or lose without it being a one sided mudstomping. At least so far.

In AOS I can do the same simply because I know what armies are very strong, but none of them speak to me. Additionally the warmachine style of buff/synergy card game thing is really not something I like and why I also dont' play warmachine.

MIddle Earth is also fairly balanced once you learn the game and we dont' have one sided stompings there either with the same group of people where we have one sided stompings when we play AOS.

Go figure.

Because of this I'm actually getting back into the tournament circuit again for the first time since 2007 as these games are more suited toward that level of play without needing to constantly change armies to keep up with the GW drip-feed of new books and regularly changing meta, and where I feel playing the game is a bit more important than excel spreadsheeting the list.

hold on to those models for the AoS rpg coming from C7 (if you are a roleplayer)

auticus wrote:
After the campaign my group is currently involved in I will be putting AOS away until they revisit the balance issues that I have. That will likely not happen, so I have been thinking of alternate uses for my model collection.

I need a game where I don't have to constantly buy models and paint new models to be able to have good games without getting rolled in the listbuilding phase, but the community at large finds this not only acceptable but desirable and thats just not what I find enjoyable.

So far that game is Kings of War and Middle Earth in regards to fantasy gaming. I may try to get warmaster going with a few of us as well.

In Kings I am able to put together a fairly competent list out of the gate and it being an enjoyable game win or lose without it being a one sided mudstomping. At least so far.

In AOS I can do the same simply because I know what armies are very strong, but none of them speak to me. Additionally the warmachine style of buff/synergy card game thing is really not something I like and why I also dont' play warmachine.

MIddle Earth is also fairly balanced once you learn the game and we dont' have one sided stompings there either with the same group of people where we have one sided stompings when we play AOS.

Go figure.

Because of this I'm actually getting back into the tournament circuit again for the first time since 2007 as these games are more suited toward that level of play without needing to constantly change armies to keep up with the GW drip-feed of new books and regularly changing meta, and where I feel playing the game is a bit more important than excel spreadsheeting the list.

So since you dont really like AoS and dont play it anymore, are you also going to move to the Kings of war section here on Dakka instead?

It is hard to decide what to collect. There are so many good options among aos and 40k. I have some models from both but not for army (except marines).

So since you dont really like AoS and dont play it anymore, are you also going to move to the Kings of war section here on Dakka instead?

I post where I feel like posting depending on the topic. If you find what I have to say annoying ... use the ignore feature and you won't have to worry about it any longer.

 Strg Alt wrote:

txaggieof08 wrote:
I might play AoS at some point, but not until the Bretonnians are brought back in. That sealed my decision not to play sigmarines.

Then you will never play AoS as GW will not introduce a mundane fantasy faction (medieval knights) to their new setting. Sigmarines are the executioners of the Old World. Therefore I haven´t spent a single cent for this faction and I never will.

I'm aware I likely never will. I played 5th and 6th, had several thousand points of high elves and Bretonnians both. Absolutely furious that GW trashed my whole collection, mainly so they could claim new IP and change names. I will play 40k, fantasy, I'd even break out my warmaster again.... but AoS was a slap in the face tbh.

If all of us Fantasy players had continued to purchase models then WHFB would still be here. We didn't, so it isn't. Cycle of life.

If GW didn't overprice the models to the point of 10 models costing 30 when we needed 30 of them to make a viable unit, then perhaps we would have.
GW's greed and incompetence killed WHFB in the end, not us.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
If all of us Fantasy players had continued to purchase models then WHFB would still be here. We didn't, so it isn't. Cycle of life.

If GW had continued to support FB rather than decide to move all support away when game was still top 3 selling game they would have.

Since models sell most when they are released(majority of their lifetime sales) then no wonder when there's no new releases they don't sell.

GW brought down lack of sales themselves. They created the problem. They have only themselves to blame for FB not selling it. They decided to kill sales themselves!

This has been covered in other threads about why WHFB died. A bunch of contributing factors on why WHFB was not selliing, not just one.

AOS sells. From all indicators and anecdotes from gw managers, AOS sells exponentially better than WHFB ever did.

WHFB simply wasn't the type of game that the masses wanted anymore. Coupled with the high price of models, coupled with that you needed a lot of models in a unit, coupled with people were getting bored with rank and file, coupled with a desire for hero-hammer, coupled with a more skirmish style movement being desired, coupled with people not wanting to paint the same model 30-60x for a unit and wanting a return to MSU style gaming coupled with a deep and extensive 2nd hand market for models, coupled with a fairly robust collection of 3rd party models that were cheaper that covered the generic fantasy trope that WHFB used.

Ironically I don't think it has anything to do with price because an AOS tournament level army runs me as much (inflation covered) as any 2000 point army in whfb did. We mention price quite a bit but price seems to not stop AOS from selling the way it does today - so I don't think its really as much price as people like to say as it was the other points that are constantly complained about above.

When it comes to price hte price that balks people isn't the total price of a huge army; its the getting your foot in the water - getting started price.

It's why so many other companies built their games on the skirmish model; because it WAS cheaper to get people into and thus the price for trying it out is really small. It's why GW is now pushing Kill Team way more so than in the past. In the past Kill Team was just a few pages in the rulebook or an issue of White Dwarf - ergo it was optional rules for those already invested into the franchise. Now its a game mode with its own rule book, boxes and product advertising - its its own thing to lure and tempt people in with a really low price to get started.

Fantasy had its own system, but like early killteam it was only part of the mega rule book and structure. Plus most people tended to play with 2K armies and most agreed you needed at least 1K for most armies to "work" but you could do ok on 500 points ish. So the sticker shock at getting started was fairly high.

I fully expect to see GW pushing AoS skirmish once more when they've got more of the core armies of AoS rounded out with Battletomes and the like (right now its there but GW aren't pushing it because there's no point until you've got most of the game released and battletomed up - otherwise you're pushing a gateway product before the product is fully ready)