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'm just very curious how competitive the game is. I am not a fan of 40ks competitive scene for a few reasons but I was under the impression AOS had rules that were purely fun and almost anti-competition yet here I see a grand tourny?

Would love some comparisons as someone who pretty much is only painting atm

eosgreen wrote:
I'm just very curious how competitive the game is. I am not a fan of 40ks competitive scene for a few reasons but I was under the impression AOS had rules that were purely fun and almost anti-competition yet here I see a grand tourny?

Would love some comparisons as someone who pretty much is only painting atm

Age of sigmar has multiple ways of being played:

-You can play matched play which can be seen as "balanced" (pick up games) and competitive (system for tournaments.

-You can play narrative play, which revolves around re-enacting scenarios. Your objective is experience the event and try to prove history right or wrong.

-You can play open play. No points, no limits. Bring whatever you want. Play morathi themed armies if you so desire (I for sure do). This one relies on your opponent and you pre-agreeing what you want to bring (mainly so you don't bust open the match).


Narrative play can be combined by the above.

Lord Kragan wrote:

eosgreen wrote:
I'm just very curious how competitive the game is. I am not a fan of 40ks competitive scene for a few reasons but I was under the impression AOS had rules that were purely fun and almost anti-competition yet here I see a grand tourny?

Would love some comparisons as someone who pretty much is only painting atm

Age of sigmar has multiple ways of being played:

-You can play matched play which can be seen as "balanced" (pick up games) and competitive (system for tournaments.

-You can play narrative play, which revolves around re-enacting scenarios. Your objective is experience the event and try to prove history right or wrong.

-You can play open play. No points, no limits. Bring whatever you want. Play morathi themed armies if you so desire (I for sure do). This one relies on your opponent and you pre-agreeing what you want to bring (mainly so you don't bust open the match).


Narrative play can be combined by the above.

but do these matched points games have gameplay that lend itself to competition? fantasy for example had a lot of hard to manage rules for newcomers that allowed better players to beat them, do such rules exist in AOS?

Matched play itself can be made in two ways: one is without scenario (just use the rules of the base system, plus whatever rules the units have) and the other is with scenario (replace victory condition with objectives-no tabling, no bs- just make the objectives.... at worst you add a page of rules, half of which is telling you how to place the objective markers, about the other half is telling you how many points you get). There's traits and relics too, but you're adding only a line or two per players, so no big issue.

Both only have points in common.... oh and you must pay for summoninng.

If the question you are asking is "does AOS have difficult to master rules that a player can screw another player over on" then the answer is it would depend on the players, but with the rules being so light I would say it was a lot easier to pull the rules lawyer wins over newbs in the old system than it is in the new system.

 auticus wrote:
If the question you are asking is "does AOS have difficult to master rules that a player can screw another player over on" then the answer is it would depend on the players, but with the rules being so light I would say it was a lot easier to pull the rules lawyer wins over newbs in the old system than it is in the new system.

that isn't at all what i meant. "rules lawyer"

I meant for example in fantasy you could bait charges and failed charges etc to lead to flanks. You could build armys that had movement which lead to certain potential movements. 40k is more about "lists" so i'm wondering if AOS has anything like this now with the points system or is it more like 40k

The listbuilding matters to see what power level the army is on. A top-tier tournament list is dramatically more powerful than a random casual list. In a casual or lightly-competitive setting lists are somewhat balanced with one another, meaning that many groups find the balance to be 'good enough' that the game is not won or lost during listbuilding. However, if someone comes to the table with a hardcore tournament list then a solid 2/3 of the armies out there outright won't be able to compete and what's remaining needs to be designed well.

Put differently, there's a lot of variation in how competitive people are in AoS and on the highly-competitive end things aren't much improved from 40k, while on the low-competitive end things are much better.

Sorry, I was unsure based on the wording. There are folks that complain that the rules are so easy and that that is a turn off for them because they enjoyed "rules mastery" as a "skill" (which is knowing obscure rules and being able to take advantage of them)

Listbuilding matters in AOS. It matters as much as WHFB lists mattered IMO.

I find that in 40k, two evenly matched up lists makes for an exciting and deeper game. I find that a power list vs a casual list is typically a one sided barn-burner.

I found that to be true in WHFB classic.

I find that to be true in AOS today.

I find that the bell-curve for the power lists is a lot smoother in AOS than it was in WHFB or 40k right now, meaning that there are a lot more viable armies in AOS as compared to the old WHFB or 40k of today though.

The game is easy to learn and difficult to master. There are still plenty of neat tricks you can pull out to swing a match in your favor. Just the fact that you don't HAVE to go into base to base on the charge can be huge.

Currently the tournaments are pretty tame at the moment basic stuff is winning and no one has figured out some of the dirty tricks yet and definitely haven't figured out how to stop them.

I mean we are just seeing basic turn 1 charge armies now and no body takes chaff units or uses speed bump or bubble wrap tactics. Its mind boggling.

Look at won the GT heat 1, Trip stone horn, some chuds, and 3x 20 goblins with fanatics. It steam rolls anyone that doesn't know what they do, which leads to the main problem right now; Nobody knows all the armies well enough yet.

Here's my undefeated in tournament list and hopefully will stay that way if I can make heat 2 or 3.

Vampire lord on zombie dragon
Vampire lord on abyssal terror
Necromancer
Corpse cart
3x 20 Zombies
2x 5 Dire Wolves
12 Crypt flayers.

Since crypt flayers are ghouls (mordant) you can cast danse from the mancer. The draglord gives them reroll hits and the Abysslord gives them hellish vigour. All that adds up to a unit with 49 attacks, 6s are mortal wounds, rerolls to hit, moves 24" and piles in and attacks twice.

It is literally a one punch victory if your opponent doesnt chaffwrap their army.

EDIT: Also hopefully GW gets their tournament scene going before ITC gets their greasy hands on AoS and taint it for any sensible person with their sociopathic turd hordes.

I see bubble wrapping tactic all the time in my tournament scene, quite common even on the casual side, so it may be a localized thing.

There are some cheesy exploits that have been discovered though. Skyryefyre comes to mind though I don't think anyone has actually brought it full-on to a major tournament yet, Stormcast lightning strike shenanigans are also a big deal. But for the most part the OP stuff is simple taking advantage of a units and battalions that cost far less than they should; mounted beastclaw characters, Kunnin' Rukk, skeletal chariots, kurnoth hunters, a number of big chaos monsters, etc.

We have a kunnin rukk in my group, after playing it a bunch you really get a good idea how to deal with it.

I was running a mournbomb a few months ago but it suffers getting objectives.


Side note: The one thing I'm really enjoying about AoS is that even these "Broken" armies aren't unbeatable, the random turns and good tactics can take them apart.

My issue with playing against the Kunnin Rukk isn't its actual performance but how long it ends up taking to roll that many dice. Through the whole game I've seen it add up to 20 minutes or more of extra time.

In regards to your side note, while I agree that its nice random turns can screw over (almost) anyone, its still an issue. Telling someone that to beat the opponent they have to get lucky on a single d6 roll isn't going to go over well, especially not at a tournament.

Somewhat of a tangent into initiative, but on the inverse if you were attending a tournament and knew the winner got there because of lucky double-turns, would that rub you the wrong way?

Eh, competitive? Yes, skill and or tactics required? No not really.

It's pretty much a, who can get their wombo combo off first and take out the most units.

Since shooting into melee is a thing, having a few of them can make quite the difference.

But yes it's competitive, but there is not much depth.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
It's pretty much a, who can get their wombo combo off first and take out the most units.

I am curious, what game would not be this then?

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Eh, competitive? Yes, skill and or tactics required? No not really.

It's pretty much a, who can get their wombo combo off first and take out the most units.

Since shooting into melee is a thing, having a few of them can make quite the difference.

But yes it's competitive, but there is not much depth.

I completely disagree. Having played it myself since release I have seen a surprising degree of depth that may not be initially apparent.

 TheIronCrow wrote:
EDIT: Also hopefully GW gets their tournament scene going before ITC gets their greasy hands on AoS and taint it for any sensible person with their sociopathic turd hordes.

Off-topic but what is wrong with ITC? Genuinely curious as they seem to have done a lot of good for the 40k tournament scene. I have no direct experience with it, there are no ITC events near me, but it seems like it's a good thing.

Feel free to start a new thread, perhaps in Dakka Discussions, if you'd like. I'm genuinely curious about this as I was looking at the ITC restrictions as a basic guideline for building my 40k army.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Eh, competitive? Yes, skill and or tactics required? No not really.

It's pretty much a, who can get their wombo combo off first and take out the most units.

Since shooting into melee is a thing, having a few of them can make quite the difference.

But yes it's competitive, but there is not much depth.

I completely disagree. Having played it myself since release I have seen a surprising degree of depth that may not be initially apparent.

Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to imply there is not some kick ass synergy move you can pull off, but really it's about getting those moves pulled off before your key units for that move get killed, for example wombo combo of reavers, bloodsecator and wrathmongers. Who's gonna get their wombo combo first? Taking out the bloodsecator or those reavers getting to unload.

Wayniac wrote:

 TheIronCrow wrote:
EDIT: Also hopefully GW gets their tournament scene going before ITC gets their greasy hands on AoS and taint it for any sensible person with their sociopathic turd hordes.

Off-topic but what is wrong with ITC? Genuinely curious as they seem to have done a lot of good for the 40k tournament scene. I have no direct experience with it, there are no ITC events near me, but it seems like it's a good thing.

Feel free to start a new thread, perhaps in Dakka Discussions, if you'd like. I'm genuinely curious about this as I was looking at the ITC restrictions as a basic guideline for building my 40k army.

ITC has a tendency to go with the community's knee jerk reactions to new rules, though in a somewhat biased way. See the extensive Tau nerfs that exist in spite of the continued existence of Eldar Wraith and Scatbike spam. Overall, I think ITC does a lot more good than harm, but it's far from perfect.

@Backspacehacker what you present is the classical obstacle. How does one deal with a problem and let his or hers own advantages shine.

With the wobocombo situation you descripe you can either hit it harder (see destruction with stonehorns), be harder (stormcasts with 2+ re-rollable, heal on 5+), alpha strike it with ranged or lightning strike/tunneling. Then how does one counter the counter? That is how tournament meta develops.

There's more to it than that. I couldn't count the number of combats I've won because I made better pile-in moves than my opponent, for example. Things like pulling casualties, distance between different units, how much front you expose, etc. Go a lot further than X vs Y. A match between identical forces would be pretty one-sided if one player was a newbie and the other a veteran.

Wayniac wrote:

 TheIronCrow wrote:
EDIT: Also hopefully GW gets their tournament scene going before ITC gets their greasy hands on AoS and taint it for any sensible person with their sociopathic turd hordes.

Off-topic but what is wrong with ITC? Genuinely curious as they seem to have done a lot of good for the 40k tournament scene. I have no direct experience with it, there are no ITC events near me, but it seems like it's a good thing.

Feel free to start a new thread, perhaps in Dakka Discussions, if you'd like. I'm genuinely curious about this as I was looking at the ITC restrictions as a basic guideline for building my 40k army.

I've been a competitive gamer since1998 and played all over the world. It was only after ITC came on the scene did I see painting go out the window, sportsmanship drop, and the crappiest attitudes and rules lawyering get injected with the most soulless BS junk. Before ITC I'd say I only had 6 games against completely intolerable nobs over the course of 14 years, after ITC it was literally every other weekend. I have never experienced the level of cheating, and blatant rules manipulations trying to be passed off with a straight face as I have in ITC events.

Best example of the attitude was some canhammer dip**** rolling a dice and rerolled it on a live stream when his opponents head was turned.

That and nearly ever major event this year has had drama, from winners having special emails allowing them to cheat and no one knowing about it prior, to people flat out going over points and hoping no one noticed.

It also doesn't help they meddle with the game rules and its entirely based on their skewed and proven to be manipulated polls. They've got the biggest tournaments sure, but the mindset has killed 40k for a lot of people. Its why I'm looking forward to 40k getting the AoS matched player treatment. Bare in mind this is just my experience, I'm sure some people don't mind but I stopped enjoying ITC events, so I stopped going, and I know I'm not the only one that is sick of it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
My issue with playing against the Kunnin Rukk isn't its actual performance but how long it ends up taking to roll that many dice. Through the whole game I've seen it add up to 20 minutes or more of extra time.

In regards to your side note, while I agree that its nice random turns can screw over (almost) anyone, its still an issue. Telling someone that to beat the opponent they have to get lucky on a single d6 roll isn't going to go over well, especially not at a tournament.

Somewhat of a tangent into initiative, but on the inverse if you were attending a tournament and knew the winner got there because of lucky double-turns, would that rub you the wrong way?

I played a lot of lord of the rings years back so the double thing has never bothered me, its just a matter of placement. It does suck when you NEED to get the turn and lose but thems the breaks. I tend to play hyper aggressive turn 1 and defensively after that, relying on the turns to go your way is not a sound tactic. A friend of mine exclusively goes for second turn everytime, totally mind F's his opponents.

Oh man, I've never found more depth and smarts required in a wargame ever. Seriously.

TheIronCrow wrote:

Spoiler:

Wayniac wrote:

 TheIronCrow wrote:
EDIT: Also hopefully GW gets their tournament scene going before ITC gets their greasy hands on AoS and taint it for any sensible person with their sociopathic turd hordes.

Off-topic but what is wrong with ITC? Genuinely curious as they seem to have done a lot of good for the 40k tournament scene. I have no direct experience with it, there are no ITC events near me, but it seems like it's a good thing.

Feel free to start a new thread, perhaps in Dakka Discussions, if you'd like. I'm genuinely curious about this as I was looking at the ITC restrictions as a basic guideline for building my 40k army.

I've been a competitive gamer since1998 and played all over the world. It was only after ITC came on the scene did I see painting go out the window, sportsmanship drop, and the crappiest attitudes and rules lawyering get injected with the most soulless BS junk. Before ITC I'd say I only had 6 games against completely intolerable nobs over the course of 14 years, after ITC it was literally every other weekend. I have never experienced the level of cheating, and blatant rules manipulations trying to be passed off with a straight face as I have in ITC events.

Best example of the attitude was some canhammer dip**** rolling a dice and rerolled it on a live stream when his opponents head was turned.

That and nearly ever major event this year has had drama, from winners having special emails allowing them to cheat and no one knowing about it prior, to people flat out going over points and hoping no one noticed.

It also doesn't help they meddle with the game rules and its entirely based on their skewed and proven to be manipulated polls. They've got the biggest tournaments sure, but the mindset has killed 40k for a lot of people. Its why I'm looking forward to 40k getting the AoS matched player treatment. Bare in mind this is just my experience, I'm sure some people don't mind but I stopped enjoying ITC events, so I stopped going, and I know I'm not the only one that is sick of it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
My issue with playing against the Kunnin Rukk isn't its actual performance but how long it ends up taking to roll that many dice. Through the whole game I've seen it add up to 20 minutes or more of extra time.

In regards to your side note, while I agree that its nice random turns can screw over (almost) anyone, its still an issue. Telling someone that to beat the opponent they have to get lucky on a single d6 roll isn't going to go over well, especially not at a tournament.

Somewhat of a tangent into initiative, but on the inverse if you were attending a tournament and knew the winner got there because of lucky double-turns, would that rub you the wrong way?

I played a lot of lord of the rings years back so the double thing has never bothered me, its just a matter of placement. It does suck when you NEED to get the turn and lose but thems the breaks. I tend to play hyper aggressive turn 1 and defensively after that, relying on the turns to go your way is not a sound tactic. A friend of mine exclusively goes for second turn everytime, totally mind F's his opponents

.

Really? People needing to cheat at a plastic toy soldier event? Talk about taking steroids. Nope that would be caffine. So this would be like "deflating the football then?"

VeteranNoob wrote:Oh man, I've never found more depth and smarts required in a wargame ever. Seriously.

I agree. While I only played 2 games so far but seeing how there is so many rules for everything, but it's on warscrolls instead of flipping through tombs of books, I agree, there is lots of depth to Age of Sigmar.

How ever Age of Sigmar started, good intentions or not, as a joke or not, thing is now it has lots of depth to the game. Maybe the problem is, instead of rules bloat, rules all over the place, Age of Sigmar has rules scatter? So instead of reading a tomb book and trying to find the "loop holes" or finding that "gotcha" tactic, it's scattered through out warscrolls now instead of a book. So while the rules are easy to learn, finding that "tactic" is so much hard because it's not in one place and therefore can't be seen right away.

Just like with Xwing, I prefer this method. A few pages of how the game is suppose to work and play. Unlike Xwing we just use the minis we want instead of the cards to get that "gotcha" moment. So even without these "upgrade cards" (which I hope AoS doesn't do) there is lots of depth and tactics to the game.

I don't think it has depth, it has breadth in my opinion.

There is a lot of options on how to queue up your own personal little wombo combo, but there is really only one way to really utilize it or bust it out.

No argument that AoS has more options in what to run but not much on how to run it with those many options.

It's like one of those new fountain drink machines with the touch screen, you know the one that lets you pick from a lot more drink and even ad flavor. AoS is like that with a crap ton of drink types but GW forgot to stock the flavors so you only get one kind of coke. 40 is like them only having 7 pop choices but like 7 flavors to add to each.

Weird comparison but just my observations and opinions :p I also really want a coke.

i'd love to read more about that cheating allegations and such with the ITC. Feel free to PM if needed to not clutter up the thread, I genuinely had no idea of this.

Wayniac wrote:
i'd love to read more about that cheating allegations and such with the ITC. Feel free to PM if needed to not clutter up the thread, I genuinely had no idea of this.

I want to read this as well. Please make a new thread of this in the Dakka Discussions.

I kind of want to hear it too. Just for the sake of seeing how low mankind can stoop to when there's competition of any kind involved.

As an aside I don't think the itc itself is to blame for a lot of the tournament scene issues this year. It does impact local events to a negative degree as people use them to boost their "points" and standings. The majority of the large tournament issues have stemmed from two players to my knowledge and they are both super Waac type players. That said I don't t want itc getting involved with aos either as I do think they are more than a bit biased and have a tendency to knee jerk.

From an aos competitive stand point I do feel like there is a ton of tactical breath to this game. Even outside of the varied wars rolls and battalions there is so much about movement and properly applied force it's crazy. Also it's combo light compared to war machine which is nice. The scenarios are great for balanced play as well as killing your opponent is secondary by a long shot. I think it's better than where 40k was at the height of its balance in 5th edition

I haven't played a wargame that had a ton of depth to it in a very very long time.

That includes my time tournament playing warmachine and xwing.

Good games they are, but really the market doesn't have any truly tactically deep games and has not for a very very long time.