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.

Is it just me or does anyone else also see similarities between AoS and Warmaster?

And i have to add this: from a tactical perspective i always liked Warmaster better then WHFB.

The similarities i see:
1) The simplified stats and combines states for monsters and war machines. Most armies have about the same types of units with small differences.
2) The role of the characters. They are individual models/units that give commands and/or upgrades to other units.
3) Magic is an easy set of options you roll for
4) The order in which close combat takes place is important (in a different way in AoS, but still...)

The rules are not complete yet.
If rules for closed formations are added to AoS including (dis)advantages of flanking and rearing, which do not apply when in skirmish formation, the only type we have now, this could very well become quite the interesting game...

I couldn't agree more!