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.

Hey guys, I've been looking over AoS recently and thinking of getting into it but I wanted to ask a couple of questions:

1) Is it still copping flak or have recent fixes drawn people (such as myself) to the hobby?
2) Branching from question 1, is it popular? I want to know whether it's worth getting into or if it'll be discontinued.
3) Do battles stay interesting? I've only played 40k, which boasts a lot of customisation. Without that I'm sure it's 50 billion times more balanced, but at the same time, does the game stay interesting? I've noticed that factions such as the Ironjawz only have a couple of units to choose from as well. I know you can mix and match within the orders as well, which could help keep it diverse, but still wanted to know if the lack of customisation hinders the game at all.
4) Are the simple rules as fun as they seem? I actually love the idea of having a set To Hit and To Wound roles and that each unit has a special rule or two. On paper it seems really fun and nice. But in practice, does it get old?
5) Do the Matched game rules, like adding the points system, make the game any better? The lack of a points system to me seemed really weird, as I've only played 40k. Is it robust or really general?

Sorry if these are dumb or have been answered a lot in the past.

One thing I am certain of though is that the Ironjawz and Stormcast Eternals are my top contenders for best looking armies. The models are so good!

Cheers guys

Maybe, maybe not.
We started an AoS league with the pt system GW has implemented recently. If you play only infantry, the game can be rather smooth to play, i.e., it can be worth playing.
One player had a Sigmarine monster which made our day. Not really funny to play against. The league fell apart and AoS has been postponed to better days to come.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Maybe, maybe not.
One player had a Sigmarine monster which made our day. Not really funny to play against. The league fell apart and AoS has been postponed to better days to come.

There are definitely things that are imbalanced within context. For example, if all of your opponents are bringing basic infantry and you show up with a huge nasty monster, it's not going to be fun. Even with matched play, negotiating with your opponents is important. I'm sure the same is true in 40k -- if everyone is bringing weaker/fluffy lists and someone shows up with a bunch of forgeworld stuff it's not going to be much fun.

Also keep in mind that a lot of people are playing the game in ways that very clearly make it less balanced.

ALL of the Matched Play scenarios are based on objectives. According to the rules, tabling your opponent does not score any points at all (except as a tiebreaker if the objective-based points are tied). The matched play points values are balanced around this idea. Giant monsters seem overpowered (and some actually are overpowered), but their raw power is mitigated by the fact that they can't take and hold objectives. Infantry is great at holding objectives but a bit less efficient at killing (typically).

However, a lot of people just use the points values in the GHB and play "smash our armies together and whomever kills the most wins" type battles. In these types of situations the game is going to revolve MUCH more around giant monsters and heroes.

swarmofseals wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Maybe, maybe not.
One player had a Sigmarine monster which made our day. Not really funny to play against. The league fell apart and AoS has been postponed to better days to come.

There are definitely things that are imbalanced within context. For example, if all of your opponents are bringing basic infantry and you show up with a huge nasty monster, it's not going to be fun. Even with matched play, negotiating with your opponents is important. I'm sure the same is true in 40k -- if everyone is bringing weaker/fluffy lists and someone shows up with a bunch of forgeworld stuff it's not going to be much fun.

Also keep in mind that a lot of people are playing the game in ways that very clearly make it less balanced.

ALL of the Matched Play scenarios are based on objectives. According to the rules, tabling your opponent does not score any points at all (except as a tiebreaker if the objective-based points are tied). The matched play points values are balanced around this idea. Giant monsters seem overpowered (and some actually are overpowered), but their raw power is mitigated by the fact that they can't take and hold objectives. Infantry is great at holding objectives but a bit less efficient at killing (typically).

However, a lot of people just use the points values in the GHB and play "smash our armies together and whomever kills the most wins" type battles. In these types of situations the game is going to revolve MUCH more around giant monsters and heroes.

Well I was more interested in the troops and heroes anyway, rather than the large monsters, mostly due to cost haha. I like that it's all based on objectives as well.
And 40k is horrifically unbalanced, with a lot of armies able to take too many very powerful units, with a crazy amount of powerful special rules.

1) It's generally getting better, also GW is in general also getting a lot better at handling its games so there's hope in that as well.
2) It depends a lot on your local gaming groups. AoS is still rather polarizing. Some love it, others hate it.
3) Battles are interesting, but it still depends a lot on how you play the game and who you are playing with. I have played a lot of great games that started out with large armies that gets huge swings and reversals of fortunes that end up neck and neck down to the last turn having only a couple of battered units left fighting it out for the minor victory difference of maybe only 100 pts. I have also played a few games that were still fun despite one side getting totally flattened (usually me) because of the sheer hilarity of it (5 silver helms thread through a 7 inch gap between 2 enemy units that let me that charge a single grot warboss with a pet squig only to not get a single hit on it for 3 rounds!)
4)I find that the simplified to hit and to wound rolls just makes rolling dice simpler.
5) Matched play helps a lot if you are used to playing at least semi-competitively. The ones in the GHB are good enough, but house rules would really help in improving the game experience depending on what you are playing. Also some of the multiplayer battleplans can be a lot of fun with matched play rules as well.

its worth a try, but its not popular everywhere, so definately check your area. The GHB is a big improvement in a lot of ways, but AoS still has a play style that is unique to it. If you are looking for the aesthetic of it and dont mind its peculiarities I say go for it.

I feel like you're getting a very warped representation in this thread.

AoS is all kinds of fun and growing from strength to strength. The scene is massive in the UK now with multiple tournaments every month all selling out (or close to). I don't know about the scene in Oz but you should get games in your GW (which wasn't always guaranteed with WHFB).

GHB is great. The rules are solid and there are lots of tactics to sink your teeth into. There's a disparity between good and bad lists but pretty much every faction is viable (especially if you bring in a few extra units from your Grand Alliance).

If you want fun competetive games, you're best off trying to make the strongest list you can and then scaling it back once you get a feel for how cutting edge your local scene is.

Lastly, 2000 points is the tournament size, but 1000 points is really fun too. If you build an elite army, 1000 points can be around 20-30 models.

Go for it!

Mechanically, I prefer it to WHFB and it's wildly popular (except in places where no one at all plays it and there seems to be little middle ground between the two.)
I have found that the few games I've played tend to have really wonky balance issues that are crying out for a fix and I've found that it's almost unplayable without the 'general's handbook.'

 Tiberius501 wrote:
Hey guys, I've been looking over AoS recently and thinking of getting into it but I wanted to ask a couple of questions:

1) Is it still copping flak or have recent fixes drawn people (such as myself) to the hobby?

Not as it was last year. You still have one or two people who are still crying about it. But that speaks more of their character than the game it's self.

2) Branching from question 1, is it popular? I want to know whether it's worth getting into or if it'll be discontinued.

I don't think it will be discontinued any time soon. That said, anything can happen. After all who would have thought that Fantasy would have been canned and replaced with Fantasy Space marines? I would say AoS can be discontinued just like 40K can be discontinued. Not anytime soon is my guess, but you just never know. This is GW after all and they never go through what their "plan" is and see it through.

3) Do battles stay interesting? I've only played 40k, which boasts a lot of customisation. Without that I'm sure it's 50 billion times more balanced, but at the same time, does the game stay interesting? I've noticed that factions such as the Ironjawz only have a couple of units to choose from as well. I know you can mix and match within the orders as well, which could help keep it diverse, but still wanted to know if the lack of customisation hinders the game at all.

I haven't played any games so can't really comment on it. All I can say is I tried to get the people who played 40K to give AoS a try. I was laughed out. Even the store owner laughed at me and basically since I am coming back to 40K and don't know how to play it very well, I can see he said I didn't know what I was talking about without actually saying it. That said he did say without saying it, he was wrong and he and a few people are playing it now. So it's slowing picking up in my area now.

4) Are the simple rules as fun as they seem? I actually love the idea of having a set To Hit and To Wound roles and that each unit has a special rule or two. On paper it seems really fun and nice. But in practice, does it get old?

I had one game with my daughter to try it out. She had more fun with it than 40K. 40K is really not a good game in my opinion. So yes I say this is so much better than 40K rules. By that, you don't need this book or that book and these dataslates. Even if you just use one book you don't need to go to page 10 and then to page 142 back to page 83 to see how a rules work. All the rules for the minis are right on the data slate, and they are FREE.
5) Do the Matched game rules, like adding the points system, make the game any better? The lack of a points system to me seemed really weird, as I've only played 40k. Is it robust or really general?

Sorry if these are dumb or have been answered a lot in the past.

One thing I am certain of though is that the Ironjawz and Stormcast Eternals are my top contenders for best looking armies. The models are so good!

Cheers guys

No answers are ever dumb. I say start of small and see how it goes. At least with Stormcast Eternals there are new "starter boxes" that are like 5 or so in a box for about $30 or is $40 to start with. So the buy in costs are not so high now as well. Prices are high to stupid high if you want to keep continuing but that is just like 40K so you are use to that. So start small, and hopefully you have a find a good group of players and have fun.

AoS is awesome. I play pretty competitively in 40k and still love the game but as of november 2016 AoS is just a superior game. It's as complex or as simple as you want it to be in terms of tactics. It's not perfectly balance but it's much closer than 40k. The fact that everything can kill everything is a HUGE help to that. There are no deathstars but you can still get neat rules combos that make you feel clever. There are big monsters that are very strong but a unit of basic infantry can still take them down in a pinch. There are crazy strong tournament lists out there but each one gets hard countered by another list (stormfiends lose to blobs, sigmarines lose to bubblewrap, kunnin ruck loses to fulminators, etc). Skill is also a bigger deal than in 40k. In 40k the better player usually wins at a high level of play but casual gamea list takes it. Sigmar you are much more likely to win with a good plan and good execution even if the other list is better.

Plus the models are incredible, Have you SEEN the mawcrusha?

It offers a better new player experience than 40k for sure. 40k is such a mess right now. That said, it's still GW, and the points aren't amazingly balanced or anything. I actually preferred some of the fan made systems before the GHB dropped but they were all quickly abandoned. The underlying mechanics make it less important though. With a few notable exceptions, it's entirely playable which is more than I can say for 40k right now.

If you like the minis, have at least a few players in your area, and don't mind keeping it real casual it's worth a look.

For me AoS was a secondary game to 40k, but it's now most of what I play.

I still like the setting and the models more in 40k, but with the number of lunatics who go special-rule crazy with formations and all that jazz, nowadays it's hard to get a fun pickup game (Though I still very much enjoy plain good old CAD games with sensible players).

But with AoS I can just show up to the shop with my case of Angry Trees and be playing a game and having fun within twenty minutes. Sure, sometimes the balance is off and it can get awkward but 95% of the time it's beautiful, beautiful carnage.

Well thanks guys for all the awesome replies! Seeing the amount of positive in it, I might give it a go. My dad was thinking about getting it too, as he's an old fantasy fan and likes the new and simple direction as well. So we'll get the starter box between us and have a go with it.
I played a small tournament of 40k the other day which made me realise how messy it's gotten lately. I have no idea what's going on most of the time as people pull insane special rules from nowhere every 2 seconds and throw 50 Pie plates on my army from a single figure haha. So AoS seems quite refreshing in comparison, even if it has its own imbalance.

Thanks again for the great feedback

I'm a longtime 40k player who's played Fantasy a couple times and had my first game of AoS last week. I had an absolute blast and I can't wait to play again. My local Warhammer store seems to be doing pretty well on Sigmar stuff too.

In my opinion the real cool thing about AOS is that the rules are modular.

You start with a simple game and the more Scenery etc you add the more interesting (and sometimes complicated) the game becomes.

In my club in since the Generals Handbook it became just as popular as 40k an though we have some balancing issues, mostly due to lack of experience (we have no idea what the OP models are yet as we only have 10 players that are all constantly expanding and cannot say we have seen it all) the game is evening out more and more as we try to adapt to each others powerlevel. Like my mate says: For some armies and some models, they were smoking something very exotic while for others they seemed to have sobered up.

The cool fluffy thing is also that you do not have to play on a typical gaming table, but you can also do stuff like multiplayer skirmishes on Dungeon tiles, I even played using the D&D advance system for Dungeon exploration with an ever growing dungeon and an opponent who got to place a random unit at a time while we (4 other players) just brought one hero (no monster) . What furniture did was thrown on the scenery chart.
So really the game can be taken to a zillion directions. And can be simple and can become complicated. I think since the GHB the game is only getting better and more popular and for good reason and certainly worth getting into.

 Tiberius501 wrote:

1) Is it still copping flak or have recent fixes drawn people (such as myself) to the hobby?
2) Branching from question 1, is it popular? I want to know whether it's worth getting into or if it'll be discontinued.
3) Do battles stay interesting? I've only played 40k, which boasts a lot of customisation. Without that I'm sure it's 50 billion times more balanced, but at the same time, does the game stay interesting? I've noticed that factions such as the Ironjawz only have a couple of units to choose from as well. I know you can mix and match within the orders as well, which could help keep it diverse, but still wanted to know if the lack of customisation hinders the game at all.
4) Are the simple rules as fun as they seem? I actually love the idea of having a set To Hit and To Wound roles and that each unit has a special rule or two. On paper it seems really fun and nice. But in practice, does it get old?
5) Do the Matched game rules, like adding the points system, make the game any better? The lack of a points system to me seemed really weird, as I've only played 40k. Is it robust or really general?

1) You really wont find too many people complaining about it anymore. Anyone who had an issue with the loss of WFB has moved on to other games that popped up in the wake of AoS

2) Popularity depends on your area. Right now 40K (and Blood Bowl) is the hot thing where I play but will probably swing back to AoS about spring time.

3) Battles are always interesting and can be real nail biting. Customization depends on the unit. Most Infantry units have a few variations but there's a vein of "samey" that runs through most of AoS armies. Armies break down into 3 parts: Factoin, Race, Battalion. Its the last part that is important for army creation. Most armies have multiple "builds" that revolve around different Battalions (formations in 40k) but the Battalions usually don't synergize very well, even within the same Race. For example for my army I would fall under Order, Dark Elves (Exiles) with my Battalion choices being Darkling Covens, Daughters of Khaine, Order Serpentis, Scourge Privateers, Sadowblades, and if I wanted to I could use the Legacy Exiles. Each Battalion works a bit differently and uses different models from the Dark Elves line and don't cross over into any of the other Battalions. So getting back to your original question there is customization but it tends to be by unit rather then by model. You can also include units from the same Faction or other Factions if you don't use Matched Play.

4) Games play is fun and engaging. It's a lot easier to memorize a static To-HIt and To-Wound then a set a tables and go from there. Many of the early nay-sayers early on criticized AoS for being too simple because it has 4 pages of rules instead of a 100+ page book. The game can be very complex and it comes down to synergy. The units are designed to interact with each other in various ways, usually in a Hero to unit fashion. I've never found it boring

5) The point system is VERY loose compared to most other games, especially 40K. It added some balance into the game but I found it generally in-needed. Then again I dont play in a hyper-competitive community. The point system sharpened the min-max approach to the game, at least in my opinion. In the end, weather you play points or not, you should talk to your opponent if you feel like you might not have a fair/decent fight.

My last bit of info: get the scenario books. Scenarios really make the game and change the entire dynamic of how you approach a game. Playing a straight up kill game gets very boring very fast.

We have a good group going here. It is still fun in my eyes after probably a little over 100 games. The gameplay is easy to pick up but there are some tricks you can pick up to use everything well that aren't always obvious from the start. You will definitely want as many of the campaign books as you can get though because the scenarios are great. And if you want they can all be tweaked just a bit to make the game more interesting. There is one where players roll to control a few monsters every turn. We upped it to the monsters attack the nearest unit of ours and came in randomly because there were more monsters than there were our units. I also recommend at least testing out the times of war because they add some extra stuff as well.

The game plays really, really well. Smooth and simple, we rarely if ever stop to look stuff up (compare to 40k, which is often once per game). However, I'm not saying the balance is perfect in any way, it is a complex game after all.

But it's fun. It's a good time, a good dice rolling game. There's strategy to be had as well, and they seem to be pretty prompt at updating as well.

Easy to learn, tricky to master. I'm having an absolute blast. It's fun to be thinking about different armies, synergies and lists again, I spend as much time now on Scrollbuilder.com as I used to on Army Builder. That's not even getting into the hobby side yet!

It's a decent game. Not my favorite, but not bad. Since the rules are free, I'd advise downloading the app, giving the rules and warscrolls a perusal, and either using some of your models (if you have old Fantasy models), borrowing someone else's, or proxying, and play a game or two. (Also borrow a General's Handbook, so you can use points, or use this forum's PPC, so you can have it be balanced.)

That's probably the best way to tell-try it for free, and if you like it, fantastic! Have a blast playing it. If not, well, you only spent a little time doing it, and you probably had fun anyway, it just wasn't as good as expected.

It's okay. I find it more interesting than 40k (games take a LOT less time) but still has key balance issues, and while there are "three ways to play" there's only really one for the majority of gamers (i.e. Matched Play with points) so it has become IMHO a bit more bland and flavorless than it was pitched originally.

Still it's a good game I find, with the normal caveat with any GW game that it's as good as the people around you.

It plays way better than 40k right now, but gives a similar experience (or rather what I want to think 40k offers).

The balance is alright, a game this random will have a large margin of error on any balancing system. If you need a game to have really tight balance then consider not playing Warhammer, it does not seem to be designed for that kind of mindset.
If you just want a fun throw down then the rules and balance are as good as they need to be.

It really depends on your area.. If you can find player for games is half the battle.
The game is Okay.. at best.. and for me very hard to find a game locally so I have moved
on to other game that are more popular in my area.
Even if it was the best game going.. but if no one local was playing it or not interested, you have
a battle before you.

Played several games and had a blase, decent amount of tactical depth to the game too, It is a game of hard counters and most things do have their counters, So if you just do one thing like mass a horde of infantry expect it to be easily counter-able

I absolutely love AoS -- but why? The rules are straightforward, yet have a subtle brilliance to them in places. The models are a blast to paint. You can field a huge variety of hobby projects and it still, "works" and makes sense in the milieu.
But most importantly: my girlfriend, her daughters, my experienced grognard gaming buds -- most of them enjoy it and want to play again and again. These days with more systems out than ever before, that speaks soundly to me.

Have a great time!

Tbh, AoS was always worth playing if you were going into it open minded.
It's not WHFB 9th edition and it's not 40k.

Point systems existed before the General's Handbook. You just had to settle on a system for your group or play scenarios.

All General's Handbook did in my opinion, was giving an "official" point system (it existed before as the SCGT system, GW just copied it) and raise awareness for improving an existing game.

It's simple but has some details you have to master. It plays fast and gives you nearly no bounds in army composition. It's fun and easy to pick up. I know 40k players would hate it, but I'd love to see the next 40k edition move in the AoS direction, because right now, 40k lost all interest to me with tons of books, super-heavies walking around, unusable units and no real balance.

My issue with GHB isn't so much points, it's that anything that isn't explicit for Matched Play might as well not exist. So like all the cool Battleplans in the books, not "pitched battle" scenario so can't possibly be balanced, won't play. Something doesn't have points? Can't use it. I like points being added; I even like that battalions have points to try and curb what we saw in 40k with formations. But it cuts out big chunks of the game, not because of points themselves but because of the attitude that goes along with it, that nothing before points was balanced. I've seen people flat out refuse to play a scenario from a battletome because heaven forbid it's not lining up your models lengthwise across the table and having random objectives but specific victory conditions.

Wayniac wrote:
My issue with GHB isn't so much points, it's that anything that isn't explicit for Matched Play might as well not exist. So like all the cool Battleplans in the books, not "pitched battle" scenario so can't possibly be balanced, won't play. Something doesn't have points? Can't use it. I like points being added; I even like that battalions have points to try and curb what we saw in 40k with formations. But it cuts out big chunks of the game, not because of points themselves but because of the attitude that goes along with it, that nothing before points was balanced. I've seen people flat out refuse to play a scenario from a battletome because heaven forbid it's not lining up your models lengthwise across the table and having random objectives but specific victory conditions.

Agree. That is more of the community than GW fault. Pretty sad we are like that.