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.

Thread locked to merge into main thread here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/655877.page

Thanks!

So my hiatus on this forums has been ended by a HUGE change to my favourite game and Im worried that I probably wont enjoy it anymore! Im aware theres loads of threads here about it and I will get through them all eventually, lol, but for now Im trying to see what the general reaction is now that the rules are out.

Personally I think it looks like an alright game but so different to normal WHFB Im not sure ill like it, so what are the general views of veteran WHFB players towards it? Have you played any games yet and are you enjoying it? Is it an easy system to fix the rules of or are people just going to stick to 8th edition or go and play kings of war? I see a lot of people are coming up with rules to adapt the game and get around the lack of points values... will the game be worth this time or are we all better off doing something else?

Interested to see what dakkadakka thinks!!

I've not played since 3rd ed and was hoping to get back very soon (as soon as I rebuild an army and get permission from the missus)
So when I heard about AoS and started reading the rumors and leaked info about it, I was not very happy.
I think the new models look ugly as heck.
Not sure about the "bring as many models as you want" thing (Leaning towards not liking it)
The rules might just be to simplified for me.
And lastly, I'm not liking the backstory which is really having a huge negative impact on my immersion/view of the game. (I just can't get over this bubble-verse thing)

All-in-all, I'm really not sure if I'll try it or not. It does make for an easy "get into the game right away" for beginners and would definitely make for a good intro-game. But once you've had time to get used to the game and learn more complex rules system, I think this will be very lacking.

I'm in a similar boat, started building an army with a view to returning to WFB about a month ago, after a long hiatus (left near the beginning of 6th shortly after my first of four children was born).

I've been reading all the various threads on Age of Sigmar, and have looked at the rules and warscrolls. It looks like a decent game such as it is. Very 40k-ish, but with a fantasy twist. The biggest problems for me are: (1) the lack of points/balance, and (2) the lack of customization.

I agree with kaotkbliss that is seems like a good intro game, but is not the game of fantasy battles many of us are looking for in a game.

However, it seems like lots of people are sticking with 8th, and it also sounds like GW is not discouraging this and are going to allow people to play WFB 8th edition in their stores. So I have hope that there will still be opportunities to play. And if Age of Sigmar is successful and keeps miniatures in circulation, then that helps 8th keep going although it will be somewhat frozen in amber without any further development. Maybe some fan rules that a large concensus can agree upon will develop and be used in tournaments? One can hope.

I'm hoping that soon, a more in-depth rulebook can be written for AoS to bring us back to what we are used to. (I might be able to pretend the backstory doesn't exist and simply play in the old world)

GW can have their intro game to get new players in quickly, and then a more advanced system for vets.

Probably won't get around to play it any soon because most people I know are too prejudiced towards it (maybe it'll change when starter set kicks in).

I like the little scrap of rules we got - will take some reason to try balance it with friends. Currently I'm considering using those pre-made formations from warscrolls in basic forms (no unit size modifications, just varying equipment) to see if they're any balanced.

I'm quite pumped because beastmen look like they could actually be playable now!

Far from a vet, more a 40k player these days, but I got my start with the hobby a decade ago with WHFB and now do see this new game take it's place, I'm sad. I was a Bretonnian player, but the lack of codex update and model updates brought me to the Empire. Even though I didn't play much I still collected with the thought that someday I'll return. Sad to see WHFB die, not to crazy about AoS, it doesn't look very in-depth as others have said, very basic and generic and good for bringing people in but not for what some of us older players like.

Also mad they stole my gold color scheme that I was going to use for my SM chapter (called the Ghal Maraz, after the Emperor's Hammer) so now when I field them it'll look like I'm just coping the AoS army.

great game, got me back into miniature gaming... it has LOTS of potential because of how simple it is, you can make it as complex or as skirmish as you want to make it, nothing stops you from taking all the rules you loved from previous editions and adding them into the game, heck make up a few of your own rules now and enjoy.
I am sure in the long run they will release more books with more complex rules that could be used or not but it all depends on the people you play with.
GW more or less gave us the freedom to play exactly how we want to play.

oh and you can now create as many fun armies as you want...
you want and RAF army?
get a few Pegasus knights, get a Few giant eagles (or the aels riders), get a phoenix thingy from the "aelfs" BOOM... you got your RAF themed army... heck stick in a few lizard fliers just for kicks.

 NWansbutter wrote:
I'm in a similar boat, started building an army with a view to returning to WFB about a month ago, after a long hiatus (left near the beginning of 6th shortly after my first of four children was born).

I've been reading all the various threads on Age of Sigmar, and have looked at the rules and warscrolls. It looks like a decent game such as it is. Very 40k-ish, but with a fantasy twist. The biggest problems for me are: (1) the lack of points/balance, and (2) the lack of customization.

I agree with kaotkbliss that is seems like a good intro game, but is not the game of fantasy battles many of us are looking for in a game.

However, it seems like lots of people are sticking with 8th, and it also sounds like GW is not discouraging this and are going to allow people to play WFB 8th edition in their stores. So I have hope that there will still be opportunities to play. And if Age of Sigmar is successful and keeps miniatures in circulation, then that helps 8th keep going although it will be somewhat frozen in amber without any further development. Maybe some fan rules that a large concensus can agree upon will develop and be used in tournaments? One can hope.

Several managers have said no wfb after the 11th in the UK, if you want to keep playing I hope there's a flags with a big table near you.

bitethythumb wrote:
great game, got me back into miniature gaming... it has LOTS of potential because of how simple it is, you can make it as complex or as skirmish as you want to make it, nothing stops you from taking all the rules you loved from previous editions and adding them into the game, heck make up a few of your own rules now and enjoy.

I see a lot of people supporting AoS using the idea. The thing is that you can do this with absolutely any wargame at all, the difference is that you need to do it with AoS to make it enjoyable and not so samey.

Whilst I appreciate AoS for what it is - a fun, casual wargame for kids - and have no doubt that it will be financially successful for GW, the lack of depth really puts me off and the fact it has replaced fantasy saddens me. If this had been a new expansion or system, I may be inclined to give it more of a go. As it is, I'll probably play a few games but will ultimately be sticking with 8th WHFB. If I wanted a skirmish game I'd play, well, anything but AoS.

 The Shadow wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:
great game, got me back into miniature gaming... it has LOTS of potential because of how simple it is, you can make it as complex or as skirmish as you want to make it, nothing stops you from taking all the rules you loved from previous editions and adding them into the game, heck make up a few of your own rules now and enjoy.

I see a lot of people supporting AoS using the idea. The thing is that you can do this with absolutely any wargame at all, the difference is that you need to do it with AoS to make it enjoyable and not so samey.

Whilst I appreciate AoS for what it is - a fun, casual wargame for kids - and have no doubt that it will be financially successful for GW, the lack of depth really puts me off and the fact it has replaced fantasy saddens me. If this had been a new expansion or system, I may be inclined to give it more of a go. As it is, I'll probably play a few games but will ultimately be sticking with 8th WHFB. If I wanted a skirmish game I'd play, well, anything but AoS.

that is your choice and best of luck to you but even 8th edition was for kids, its has always been a kids game played by adults

AoS is a new franchise GW introduced. It uses the same models WHFB uses but operates on a more skirmish-ish scale. The rules are currently incomplete and lack rules for army composition.

I really feel sorry for all fantasy players.
AoS has no depth and no internal balance.
How would you measure how good a unit is?
Measure wrt what? Point costs?

Thanks for starting this thread. I'm coming back, just settling down from my 1st ever game of AoS. There's a lot going through my mind right now, so much to process, but I think this is the crux of most threads:

 Druchii wrote:
So my hiatus on this forums has been ended by a HUGE change to my favourite game and Im worried that I probably wont enjoy it anymore!

Just IMHO, a lot of the comments are because there IS a genuine concern, a rationale worry.

And IMHO, my feedback at this particular moment is: don't worry about this...YET.

Let me explain why, but ultimately the reason is a little bit indirect, so see if you agree with me.


--- The Game Itself, In Its Current State ---


Let me preface by saying I'm not a WHFB veteran. I'm a 40k player, but I always respected WHFB.

My impression of WHFB in the past is that it was more about tactical formations, maneuvering, traditional battlefield stuff. 40k in comparison, even in this age of Formations and Lords of War, has a little more focus on army composition, guerrilla warfare. I know I'm oversimplifying, but I'm trying to talk about AoS asap, which is the focus of this thread.

1st, AoS is an extremely streamlined version of WHFB in terms of learning the rules. I think we've completely done away with looking up tables; everything you need is in your units' profiles. It is simplified, and your units will not feel the same as with the old rules, there is a little bit of relearning and tbh, UNlearning to be done. That said, it's actually kind of clever, to the point of I wouldn't mind if 40k got a similar treatment. The basic rules are very simple; the complexity comes from each unit's own special rules, each army's own special rules, that give them a distinct flavour.

Comparison - IMHO, if WHFB is like a sophisticated yet complicated piece of Microsoft software, AoS is like an Apple/Android App.

2nd, the focus is shifting away from tactical formations and maneuvering to interactions between your units. There's a lot of "buffing" bonuses between characters and regular units. A character designated the General is giving commands, another character is buffing units around him in a certain way, another character is doing a different buff, while another is debuffing the enemy they're all attacking, etc. It's a network of effects, beyond what was simply one unit protecting another's flank. You'll hear people talk about Herohammer. It's true! But it's not that regular units are useless, except they're so further enhanced with Hero figures around them.

Comparison - IMHO, it's a lot like the Imperial Guard/Astra Militarum in 40k, with their Command system, but much more sophisticated.

Is it unconditionally better? At the moment, I'm not certain. The impression I got was it'll be as jarring to you as 40k's big leap forward from 2nd to 3rd ed. In fact, I think there's some flaws in the game right now, even beyond the balance issues, like how units can fire even when engaged in melee (as there's no rules prohibiting that right now, and even my FLGS managers said they noticed that, assume shooting is possible for now). However, again, don't worry about that...YET.


--- Why Did the Game Change ---


It's impossible to accurately say right now what the future holds. However, by asking why, we can better analyse the general direction of Fantasy.

1st, the obvious one...GW is trying to introduce The Hobby to new players with an entry-level product. Revenue, greed, invisible hand...fine, but ultimately this is right and proper for a publicly listed company to increase shareholder value and, to their great credit, IMHO THIS is the right way to do it. More players, more armies, different armies, more variety, more fun...this is the scenario that benefits the maximum group of people the most amount. I don't dare say AoS is the right path forward, but I absolutely believe GW is at least looking at the right direction.

Comparison - I know you're veterans, but I don't know if you're familiar with this reference: AoS is like the new Heroquest.

2nd, I think GW realises computer games changed how people see tabletop games. They're adapting. It's a complex issue. If you remember Magic: the Gathering, it's like how they adapted by making a Pokemon card game, that was based on a Gameboy game...and in their case, it was even a bigger success than anything at the time. It was NOT just making the game simpler; it WAS about making the game more DYNAMIC. The traditional approach of tactical formations and maneuvering does seem more static. The AoS system of interaction between your own units is much more like the Punch-Counterpunch style that Warmachine previously advertised itself with. AoS really kept me on my toes more than 40k.

Comparison - WHFB is like Warcraft, which a lot of people played, but not anymore...because people play MOBAs. AoS feels a little like that (with an increased emphasis on characters and terrain, like you use terrain not just as cover, but for spells and buffs and summons).

That's the direction, IMHO. Is it the right one? Hard to say at the moment. It worked great with the Pokemon card game, it utterly failed with D&D 4th edition which tried to be World of Warcraft. However, it's this same challenge GW is facing...and what AoS shows is at least they're taking it on.


--- Finally, IMHO, Here's Why I Suggest You Shouldn't Worry Yet ---


What was just released online are the FREE rules, NOT the FINAL ones.

There's a lot of debate going on about balance, or the lack thereof. They would cite the Sudden Death rule that allows unequally matched armies a sort of handicap system. I understand their points, I respect our fellow Dakkamites, but all of that misses the point. This is NOT the final, final product yet. I only came to the realisation after both playing and talking to other players in my FLGS. Having been a frequent beta tester for games even before the idea of Early Access, the conversations we had was very much like the feedback we used to send to game developers for the next iteration of their product.

The AoS rules were always described as a "living document". We are at a stage of Early Access.

Notice the method of distribution for AoS: everything is basically online, which means everything can be changed and updated. One of the managers at my FLGS, a real smart kid, very astute, used the word "hotfix". Soon, there will be these new and improved e-books that should fix the current issues. The final point of confusion is, they released all the "army books". I don't think that's what they are, they're just interim rules for you to use so you can simply play with your existing army. It's a temporary measure...and we had the same thing in 40k 2nd ed. The boxed set came with a small booklet with all the army units at the time, that you could use until the actual army book Codices came out.

All the current complaints ARE valid. But don't worry about them yet. IMHO, it's honestly going to change. If it doesn't, I'll join you in the panic.

bitethythumb wrote:

 The Shadow wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:
great game, got me back into miniature gaming... it has LOTS of potential because of how simple it is, you can make it as complex or as skirmish as you want to make it, nothing stops you from taking all the rules you loved from previous editions and adding them into the game, heck make up a few of your own rules now and enjoy.

I see a lot of people supporting AoS using the idea. The thing is that you can do this with absolutely any wargame at all, the difference is that you need to do it with AoS to make it enjoyable and not so samey.

Whilst I appreciate AoS for what it is - a fun, casual wargame for kids - and have no doubt that it will be financially successful for GW, the lack of depth really puts me off and the fact it has replaced fantasy saddens me. If this had been a new expansion or system, I may be inclined to give it more of a go. As it is, I'll probably play a few games but will ultimately be sticking with 8th WHFB. If I wanted a skirmish game I'd play, well, anything but AoS.

that is your choice and best of luck to you but even 8th edition was for kids, its has always been a kids game played by adults

If WHFB was for kids, then AoS is for toddlers.

I understand that GW games are the wargames that kids play, as it's really the only wargame accessible on the high street and, generally, you need to have played wargames for a while and be active in the online wargaming community to have heard of the others (neither criteria being fitted by most kids). However, WHFB was a far more complex, in-depth and tactical game and went off the assumption that its players had enough attention span to flick through a rulebook, look up figures on a chart or to count to 2400. AoS does none of these things and with its overly simplistic and silly rules you can tell that it's aimed almost entirely at younger players. That's fine, mind, and I'll say again that I appreciate AoS for what it is. but you have to understand that, and why, many veteran WHFB players are annoyed at the drastic downwards turn their game has taken.

People keep peddling that line, but it's blind faith not fact. We've been told on good authority(a reliable store owner speaking to his rep and his rep's bosses, at length) that there is no "AoS: Advanced Edition" coming, there is not going to be an expanded ruleset for massed battle, there isn't going to be a points system.

This. Is. It.

It's likely the Warscrolls released for existing factions will never be updated, since those factions mostly don't exist any more in the AoS fluff, the eventual rules for Aelfs and Seraphons and Grumblesnoorks or whatever could bear virtually no resemblance at all to existing Elf or Lizardmen or Ork & Goblin armies, either in terms of rules or models.

And OP, I'll leave you with a wee observation from which you can draw your own conclusions: there are suddenly a fair few brand-new accounts popping up here and on other websites starting just before the AoS release, all of whom seem to think AoS is just swell and we should all buy it right away. A cynical person might think that's no accident, and might further conclude that a company employing such tactics evidently doesn't have much confidence in their product's ability to attract custom on its own merits.

Well from watching some people play games and reading the rules myself I think it's just a bad game. I don't think that an expanding rulebook could fix the mess really. I really wanted to like the game so please don't think that I'm a "hater" or anything. I've actually pre-ordered the box but I think I will return or exchange it now.

I feel like a lot of the community are really trying to like this game and so are defending it. The game is really bad and I will tell you some points as to why :p

- There is no point or balancing. Everything is just considered to be a model (large or small). So benefits are given to the army that is "outnumbered". So basically an army of 30 goblins is considered to be outnumbering an army of 20 bloodthirsters! And yes you can take whatever you like. In fact take 100 bloodthirsters if you want.

- Everything is a mosh pit in the middle of the board! There are very little in the way of tactics in the game. You don't get any bonus for charging your enemy. So it's not a huge issue if you fail a charge because everything will mosh eventually anyway. You cant get hit in the rear or flank or anything. So the games I've seen are just 2 players moshing in the middle of the board :p

- There are no tactics in the way of how you roll the dice. Everything from your unit will always hit on a set number for anything that it fights. 4+/3+ or whatever. The reason this is bad, is because you will notice in other games that there are factors and variables that create strategy in the game. So for instance, in 40k I'm not going to shoot at your terminators with my rocket launcher because it is ap3 and wont punch the armor. AOS throws this out the window and makes the game just about rolling dice that never change.....kind of like the difference between playing poker and playing war (the card game where you just flip a card and see if it's higher).

- Games don't have clear objectives and can sometimes never end! So if both players have an "equal" size army, then the game is decided by tabling your opponent! However there are a lot of crazy summoning in the game. So for instance chaos can summon more warriors (of any unit size) and Undead is just ridiculous as well! It does say however that if the game can't be finished (and it wont) then the player with more models wins. Therefore giving the game to the player who summoned the most :p So idk, I think I will have an army of 50 necromancers.....sure why not.

So yeah this is just my opinion. I think that the gamers that are defending this game will eventually have to concede that it's just bad. I get that the game is supposed to be like Dungeons and Dragons, and the players are supposed to build the narrative and just have fun. I understand that argument. However that does not fix the issues with the core game and lack of strategy and maneuvering. It just seems like a game designed by a 10 year old on the spot, when he brought his green men to a friends house or something.

We need to realise the target market for this new game. I remember playing with green army men when I was a kid (probably aged 8-10). Next time you see kids taking turns flicking marbles with a ruler at each other's green army men, ask them how many points they are playing. Ask them how the internal balance works with different units. Ask them what mission they are playing, or what tactics they are using, and all you will get is blank stares. AoS has no points because the concept is totally unnecessary to most children.

GW used to grudgingly sell a game called Warhammer Fantasy Battles in order to sell models. It no longer makes this game, it now gives away a game called Age of Sigmar in order (they hope) to sell even more models. That's the way it is. WHFB won't be coming back, it never sold enough models.

So you make some valid points but some seem to be ill-considered. In the interest of giving "both sides" I'll try to refute them here so readers can make their own decisions.

- Everything is a mosh pit in the middle of the board! There are very little in the way of tactics in the game. You don't get any bonus for charging your enemy. So it's not a huge issue if you fail a charge because everything will mosh eventually anyway. You cant get hit in the rear or flank or anything. So the games I've seen are just 2 players moshing in the middle of the board :p

A lot of units get bonuses for charging the enemy. Some chariots/monsters will get free Mortal Wounds if they successfully charge an enemy, most Brettonian units hit easier/harder if they charge, etc. Sure, no rear or flank charges but there ARE charge bonuses.

- There are no tactics in the way of how you roll the dice. Everything from your unit will always hit on a set number for anything that it fights. 4+/3+ or whatever. The reason this is bad, is because you will notice in other games that there are factors and variables that create strategy in the game. So for instance, in 40k I'm not going to shoot at your terminators with my rocket launcher because it is ap3 and wont punch the armor. AOS throws this out the window and makes the game just about rolling dice that never change.....kind of like the difference between playing poker and playing war (the card game where you just flip a card and see if it's higher).

You're ignoring the Rend characteristic, there. You're not going to charge a 4+ save unit with a unit that has a rend of '-' unless you have a ton of attacks and wound on 3+/3+ or better. Likewise, your -2 Rend unit probably doesn't want to charge the 6+ save unit when it could be fighting the 4+/5+ save units. Or the units that ignore Rends of UNLESS they're -2 or better.

Also there is the whole series of synergistic Command Abilities, Spells, and normal Abilities. For example, Prince Apophas gets +1 to hit and to wound vs Heroes. A Tomb King's Command Ability, "Who Dares Disturb My Slumber" lets him pick an enemy unit. Your units get +1 to hit and to wound vs that unit. Wow! Apophas now wounds that Hero on a 1+, aka, guaranteed 5 damage in combat! So do you stack those modifiers onto Ungrim Ironfist? Probably not, Apophas has no Rend and Ungrim has 4+ Save and discounts wounds on a 6, so you'll only be doing about 2 wounds, and his response will be about 4.3 wounds, nearly killed Apophas! But that Runelord is looking appealing for Apophas... and that Organ Gun that's been peppering your army all game is about to be swooped upon by your Carrion, so maybe THEY should be the target of "Who Dares Disturb My Slumber"?

Also! In Combat, you alternate between picking which units fight, which adds thinking even to the "mosh pit" situation. Do I attack with this unit before he attacks with that unit? Or is it more important for me to get wounds in THAT unit? If I go with this unit first, he'll crush my other unit and I won't even get to attack with them, but if I attack with THEM then he'll cause a lot of wounds to this unit and my retaliation will be weaker...


So, there's some stuff to think about

 Yodhrin wrote:
People keep peddling that line, but it's blind faith not fact. We've been told on good authority(a reliable store owner speaking to his rep and his rep's bosses, at length) that there is no "AoS: Advanced Edition" coming, there is not going to be an expanded ruleset for massed battle, there isn't going to be a points system.

This. Is. It.

It's likely the Warscrolls released for existing factions will never be updated, since those factions mostly don't exist any more in the AoS fluff, the eventual rules for Aelfs and Seraphons and Grumblesnoorks or whatever could bear virtually no resemblance at all to existing Elf or Lizardmen or Ork & Goblin armies, either in terms of rules or models.

And OP, I'll leave you with a wee observation from which you can draw your own conclusions: there are suddenly a fair few brand-new accounts popping up here and on other websites starting just before the AoS release, all of whom seem to think AoS is just swell and we should all buy it right away. A cynical person might think that's no accident, and might further conclude that a company employing such tactics evidently doesn't have much confidence in their product's ability to attract custom on its own merits.

I think you should not see conspiracy where there are none. Look me up and check my forum status, then take off the tinfoil hat and sit with me.


I myself have been playing WHFB since 5th ed. I've also played 40k since 5th. I've seen the advantages of both and the pain of some complicated rulesets. Is AoS perfect, not yet. But I think it could get there. One of the things I liked about 40k was the increased mobility of the game, the ability to change direction easily actaully lead to an amazing objective system, so that unlike fantasy (Who often just bashes each other in the head) 40k player had to learn tactics beyond just movement phase shuffling. Come up with unique army lists that could dominate different phases of the game. I truly felt like 40k (during 5th) was the epitome of tactical gameplay.

Now we have AoS. It brings forth the 40k style movement. Which I like, but it does one thing really well compared to 40k atm. It balances the phases of the game. Command/spells are important, movement is important, shooting is important, and combat is important. WHFB (imo) has become overwhelming for new people to get into, and 40k well fine to get into, has become a shootingfest only balanced by rock/paper/scissor/lizard/Spock armylists. (Yes thats a jab at flyers, and in fond memory of Leonard Nimoy)

Aos potential has a lot of depth in list building, but noone has played it enough to see the possibilities. It has a lot of potential in fun gameplay once the competitive players make some objective base scenarios instead of making half-ass attempts to try the game out with a bunch of melee units meeting in the middle as if this was WHFB 8th edition. This is not WHFB, You don't just smash melee troops together and attempt to manuever for the flank attacks and break units from combat. No this is a much more tactical game then that imo.

What you bring to a battle makes a world of difference. Did you opponent bring Nagash? Bring some high damage warmachines, bring multiple units that can unbind and shut him down long enough to kill him. Did your opponent bring a unit of 120 skeletons? B ring forth your own blocks with multiple attacks, buff them, debuff the skeletons, bring forth the pain in hand to hand combat.

This game as the unique possibilities of tactically deploying counters to your opponents gameplans in real time. No longer do you have to build an army beforehand and hope you get a good matchup. You opponents gameplan unveils as you deploy and you counter as need, he does the same to you. Each game become very unique in this feature.

Honestly, if you come up with a objective base mission to play, using the rules as are, I think you will be pleasantly surprised at just how good this ruleset can be.


But above all else, give it a chance. Did you think WHFB or 40K was the best game ever the day after you attempted to play your first game? Most likely not. So play some games of AoS, come up with some objectives (I recommend using the age of 40k-ish ones.)
Try 6 rounds with a random 7th on 4+
1. Each person gets a objective in there deployment zone. Tie breaker being standard victory condition.
2. 3 objectives deployed within 6" of the centerline and at least 12" apart. Tie breaker being standard victory condition. (this is slightly modified from 40k)
3. Relic. But it has to be carried to your own deployment zone.

This game looks terrible on paper. Absolutely terrible. If you don't laugh at the silly rules and hold judgement until you play it the only other response is anger. The anger is valid as something that many of us here spent thousands of dollars/pounds/ect is unrecognizable as the thing we bought into. I personally don't like that balance and army building restrictions are left up to the players to work out. I just want to play, I don't want to design a game before I can play it (especially if I have already spent so much on the pieces). I gave up years ago trying to play GW games in tournaments so I do not have that source of anger to fuel my response.

Rihgu wrote:
So you make some valid points but some seem to be ill-considered. In the interest of giving "both sides" I'll try to refute them here so readers can make their own decisions.

- Everything is a mosh pit in the middle of the board! There are very little in the way of tactics in the game. You don't get any bonus for charging your enemy. So it's not a huge issue if you fail a charge because everything will mosh eventually anyway. You cant get hit in the rear or flank or anything. So the games I've seen are just 2 players moshing in the middle of the board :p

A lot of units get bonuses for charging the enemy. Some chariots/monsters will get free Mortal Wounds if they successfully charge an enemy, most Brettonian units hit easier/harder if they charge, etc. Sure, no rear or flank charges but there ARE charge bonuses.

- There are no tactics in the way of how you roll the dice. Everything from your unit will always hit on a set number for anything that it fights. 4+/3+ or whatever. The reason this is bad, is because you will notice in other games that there are factors and variables that create strategy in the game. So for instance, in 40k I'm not going to shoot at your terminators with my rocket launcher because it is ap3 and wont punch the armor. AOS throws this out the window and makes the game just about rolling dice that never change.....kind of like the difference between playing poker and playing war (the card game where you just flip a card and see if it's higher).

You're ignoring the Rend characteristic, there. You're not going to charge a 4+ save unit with a unit that has a rend of '-' unless you have a ton of attacks and wound on 3+/3+ or better. Likewise, your -2 Rend unit probably doesn't want to charge the 6+ save unit when it could be fighting the 4+/5+ save units. Or the units that ignore Rends of UNLESS they're -2 or better.

Also there is the whole series of synergistic Command Abilities, Spells, and normal Abilities. For example, Prince Apophas gets +1 to hit and to wound vs Heroes. A Tomb King's Command Ability, "Who Dares Disturb My Slumber" lets him pick an enemy unit. Your units get +1 to hit and to wound vs that unit. Wow! Apophas now wounds that Hero on a 1+, aka, guaranteed 5 damage in combat! So do you stack those modifiers onto Ungrim Ironfist? Probably not, Apophas has no Rend and Ungrim has 4+ Save and discounts wounds on a 6, so you'll only be doing about 2 wounds, and his response will be about 4.3 wounds, nearly killed Apophas! But that Runelord is looking appealing for Apophas... and that Organ Gun that's been peppering your army all game is about to be swooped upon by your Carrion, so maybe THEY should be the target of "Who Dares Disturb My Slumber"?

Also! In Combat, you alternate between picking which units fight, which adds thinking even to the "mosh pit" situation. Do I attack with this unit before he attacks with that unit? Or is it more important for me to get wounds in THAT unit? If I go with this unit first, he'll crush my other unit and I won't even get to attack with them, but if I attack with THEM then he'll cause a lot of wounds to this unit and my retaliation will be weaker...


So, there's some stuff to think about

Yeah, I mean you're right. And I have heard these counter arguments about the strategy. It's not that there's absolutely no strategy at all I guess I was just making generalisations about the flaws.

I mean some units have bonuses for charging but there are a lot that don't. And the game really does boil down to choosing the most optimal battle order to inflict the most damage. Which is fine but I don't think it's enough. And maybe this is more apparent in larger games, but it's probably because if you have a lot of models, then it doesn't seem to matter what order you fight them in. I noticed this in some games that were played. You can only fight with models that are within range so in the end everything got to attack anyways. So that's what I meant by a huge moshpit...and that's what I've noticed about the games that were played at my store and and battle reports that I've seen played out.

If your opponents unit is down to like 5 models and you have priority, then it makes sense to choose that fight and kill the 5 guys before they can attack. And those are the rare times you get to feel like you've done something tactical. And even still it might be so obvious a play that you just can't take pride in it. But when unit sizes are still healthy and you are just banging your heads together rolling the same 4+/3+ over and over.....this is not fun for me.

You did bring some points for me to consider for sure. But just the way I've witnessed games being played out leave a lot to be desired.

 Kommissar Waaaghrick wrote:

Spoiler:

Thanks for starting this thread. I'm coming back, just settling down from my 1st ever game of AoS. There's a lot going through my mind right now, so much to process, but I think this is the crux of most threads:

 Druchii wrote:
So my hiatus on this forums has been ended by a HUGE change to my favourite game and Im worried that I probably wont enjoy it anymore!

Just IMHO, a lot of the comments are because there IS a genuine concern, a rationale worry.

And IMHO, my feedback at this particular moment is: don't worry about this...YET.

Let me explain why, but ultimately the reason is a little bit indirect, so see if you agree with me.


--- The Game Itself, In Its Current State ---


Let me preface by saying I'm not a WHFB veteran. I'm a 40k player, but I always respected WHFB.

My impression of WHFB in the past is that it was more about tactical formations, maneuvering, traditional battlefield stuff. 40k in comparison, even in this age of Formations and Lords of War, has a little more focus on army composition, guerrilla warfare. I know I'm oversimplifying, but I'm trying to talk about AoS asap, which is the focus of this thread.

1st, AoS is an extremely streamlined version of WHFB in terms of learning the rules. I think we've completely done away with looking up tables; everything you need is in your units' profiles. It is simplified, and your units will not feel the same as with the old rules, there is a little bit of relearning and tbh, UNlearning to be done. That said, it's actually kind of clever, to the point of I wouldn't mind if 40k got a similar treatment. The basic rules are very simple; the complexity comes from each unit's own special rules, each army's own special rules, that give them a distinct flavour.

Comparison - IMHO, if WHFB is like a sophisticated yet complicated piece of Microsoft software, AoS is like an Apple/Android App.

2nd, the focus is shifting away from tactical formations and maneuvering to interactions between your units. There's a lot of "buffing" bonuses between characters and regular units. A character designated the General is giving commands, another character is buffing units around him in a certain way, another character is doing a different buff, while another is debuffing the enemy they're all attacking, etc. It's a network of effects, beyond what was simply one unit protecting another's flank. You'll hear people talk about Herohammer. It's true! But it's not that regular units are useless, except they're so further enhanced with Hero figures around them.

Comparison - IMHO, it's a lot like the Imperial Guard/Astra Militarum in 40k, with their Command system, but much more sophisticated.

Is it unconditionally better? At the moment, I'm not certain. The impression I got was it'll be as jarring to you as 40k's big leap forward from 2nd to 3rd ed. In fact, I think there's some flaws in the game right now, even beyond the balance issues, like how units can fire even when engaged in melee (as there's no rules prohibiting that right now, and even my FLGS managers said they noticed that, assume shooting is possible for now). However, again, don't worry about that...YET.


--- Why Did the Game Change ---


It's impossible to accurately say right now what the future holds. However, by asking why, we can better analyse the general direction of Fantasy.

1st, the obvious one...GW is trying to introduce The Hobby to new players with an entry-level product. Revenue, greed, invisible hand...fine, but ultimately this is right and proper for a publicly listed company to increase shareholder value and, to their great credit, IMHO THIS is the right way to do it. More players, more armies, different armies, more variety, more fun...this is the scenario that benefits the maximum group of people the most amount. I don't dare say AoS is the right path forward, but I absolutely believe GW is at least looking at the right direction.

Comparison - I know you're veterans, but I don't know if you're familiar with this reference: AoS is like the new Heroquest.

2nd, I think GW realises computer games changed how people see tabletop games. They're adapting. It's a complex issue. If you remember Magic: the Gathering, it's like how they adapted by making a Pokemon card game, that was based on a Gameboy game...and in their case, it was even a bigger success than anything at the time. It was NOT just making the game simpler; it WAS about making the game more DYNAMIC. The traditional approach of tactical formations and maneuvering does seem more static. The AoS system of interaction between your own units is much more like the Punch-Counterpunch style that Warmachine previously advertised itself with. AoS really kept me on my toes more than 40k.

Comparison - WHFB is like Warcraft, which a lot of people played, but not anymore...because people play MOBAs. AoS feels a little like that (with an increased emphasis on characters and terrain, like you use terrain not just as cover, but for spells and buffs and summons).

That's the direction, IMHO. Is it the right one? Hard to say at the moment. It worked great with the Pokemon card game, it utterly failed with D&D 4th edition which tried to be World of Warcraft. However, it's this same challenge GW is facing...and what AoS shows is at least they're taking it on.


--- Finally, IMHO, Here's Why I Suggest You Shouldn't Worry Yet ---


What was just released online are the FREE rules, NOT the FINAL ones.

There's a lot of debate going on about balance, or the lack thereof. They would cite the Sudden Death rule that allows unequally matched armies a sort of handicap system. I understand their points, I respect our fellow Dakkamites, but all of that misses the point. This is NOT the final, final product yet. I only came to the realisation after both playing and talking to other players in my FLGS. Having been a frequent beta tester for games even before the idea of Early Access, the conversations we had was very much like the feedback we used to send to game developers for the next iteration of their product.

The AoS rules were always described as a "living document". We are at a stage of Early Access.

Notice the method of distribution for AoS: everything is basically online, which means everything can be changed and updated. One of the managers at my FLGS, a real smart kid, very astute, used the word "hotfix". Soon, there will be these new and improved e-books that should fix the current issues. The final point of confusion is, they released all the "army books". I don't think that's what they are, they're just interim rules for you to use so you can simply play with your existing army. It's a temporary measure...and we had the same thing in 40k 2nd ed. The boxed set came with a small booklet with all the army units at the time, that you could use until the actual army book Codices came out.

All the current complaints ARE valid. But don't worry about them yet. IMHO, it's honestly going to change. If it doesn't, I'll join you in the panic.

 obithius wrote:
We need to realise the target market for this new game. I remember playing with green army men when I was a kid (probably aged 8-10). Next time you see kids taking turns flicking marbles with a ruler at each other's green army men, ask them how many points they are playing. Ask them how the internal balance works with different units. Ask them what mission they are playing, or what tactics they are using, and all you will get is blank stares. AoS has no points because the concept is totally unnecessary to most children.

GW used to grudgingly sell a game called Warhammer Fantasy Battles in order to sell models. It no longer makes this game, it now gives away a game called Age of Sigmar in order (they hope) to sell even more models. That's the way it is. WHFB won't be coming back, it never sold enough models.

well said for both.

I'll just say simply as this, OP: the game of list-building for tournaments or pick-up games/testing on Friday nights at your FLGS is gone. AoS is about calling up a friend or 2, coming up w/ different, creative ways to field/pick your army, and playing a casual game of killies.

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:

 Kommissar Waaaghrick wrote:

Spoiler:

Thanks for starting this thread. I'm coming back, just settling down from my 1st ever game of AoS. There's a lot going through my mind right now, so much to process, but I think this is the crux of most threads:

 Druchii wrote:
So my hiatus on this forums has been ended by a HUGE change to my favourite game and Im worried that I probably wont enjoy it anymore!

Just IMHO, a lot of the comments are because there IS a genuine concern, a rationale worry.

And IMHO, my feedback at this particular moment is: don't worry about this...YET.

Let me explain why, but ultimately the reason is a little bit indirect, so see if you agree with me.


--- The Game Itself, In Its Current State ---


Let me preface by saying I'm not a WHFB veteran. I'm a 40k player, but I always respected WHFB.

My impression of WHFB in the past is that it was more about tactical formations, maneuvering, traditional battlefield stuff. 40k in comparison, even in this age of Formations and Lords of War, has a little more focus on army composition, guerrilla warfare. I know I'm oversimplifying, but I'm trying to talk about AoS asap, which is the focus of this thread.

1st, AoS is an extremely streamlined version of WHFB in terms of learning the rules. I think we've completely done away with looking up tables; everything you need is in your units' profiles. It is simplified, and your units will not feel the same as with the old rules, there is a little bit of relearning and tbh, UNlearning to be done. That said, it's actually kind of clever, to the point of I wouldn't mind if 40k got a similar treatment. The basic rules are very simple; the complexity comes from each unit's own special rules, each army's own special rules, that give them a distinct flavour.

Comparison - IMHO, if WHFB is like a sophisticated yet complicated piece of Microsoft software, AoS is like an Apple/Android App.

2nd, the focus is shifting away from tactical formations and maneuvering to interactions between your units. There's a lot of "buffing" bonuses between characters and regular units. A character designated the General is giving commands, another character is buffing units around him in a certain way, another character is doing a different buff, while another is debuffing the enemy they're all attacking, etc. It's a network of effects, beyond what was simply one unit protecting another's flank. You'll hear people talk about Herohammer. It's true! But it's not that regular units are useless, except they're so further enhanced with Hero figures around them.

Comparison - IMHO, it's a lot like the Imperial Guard/Astra Militarum in 40k, with their Command system, but much more sophisticated.

Is it unconditionally better? At the moment, I'm not certain. The impression I got was it'll be as jarring to you as 40k's big leap forward from 2nd to 3rd ed. In fact, I think there's some flaws in the game right now, even beyond the balance issues, like how units can fire even when engaged in melee (as there's no rules prohibiting that right now, and even my FLGS managers said they noticed that, assume shooting is possible for now). However, again, don't worry about that...YET.


--- Why Did the Game Change ---


It's impossible to accurately say right now what the future holds. However, by asking why, we can better analyse the general direction of Fantasy.

1st, the obvious one...GW is trying to introduce The Hobby to new players with an entry-level product. Revenue, greed, invisible hand...fine, but ultimately this is right and proper for a publicly listed company to increase shareholder value and, to their great credit, IMHO THIS is the right way to do it. More players, more armies, different armies, more variety, more fun...this is the scenario that benefits the maximum group of people the most amount. I don't dare say AoS is the right path forward, but I absolutely believe GW is at least looking at the right direction.

Comparison - I know you're veterans, but I don't know if you're familiar with this reference: AoS is like the new Heroquest.

2nd, I think GW realises computer games changed how people see tabletop games. They're adapting. It's a complex issue. If you remember Magic: the Gathering, it's like how they adapted by making a Pokemon card game, that was based on a Gameboy game...and in their case, it was even a bigger success than anything at the time. It was NOT just making the game simpler; it WAS about making the game more DYNAMIC. The traditional approach of tactical formations and maneuvering does seem more static. The AoS system of interaction between your own units is much more like the Punch-Counterpunch style that Warmachine previously advertised itself with. AoS really kept me on my toes more than 40k.

Comparison - WHFB is like Warcraft, which a lot of people played, but not anymore...because people play MOBAs. AoS feels a little like that (with an increased emphasis on characters and terrain, like you use terrain not just as cover, but for spells and buffs and summons).

That's the direction, IMHO. Is it the right one? Hard to say at the moment. It worked great with the Pokemon card game, it utterly failed with D&D 4th edition which tried to be World of Warcraft. However, it's this same challenge GW is facing...and what AoS shows is at least they're taking it on.


--- Finally, IMHO, Here's Why I Suggest You Shouldn't Worry Yet ---


What was just released online are the FREE rules, NOT the FINAL ones.

There's a lot of debate going on about balance, or the lack thereof. They would cite the Sudden Death rule that allows unequally matched armies a sort of handicap system. I understand their points, I respect our fellow Dakkamites, but all of that misses the point. This is NOT the final, final product yet. I only came to the realisation after both playing and talking to other players in my FLGS. Having been a frequent beta tester for games even before the idea of Early Access, the conversations we had was very much like the feedback we used to send to game developers for the next iteration of their product.

The AoS rules were always described as a "living document". We are at a stage of Early Access.

Notice the method of distribution for AoS: everything is basically online, which means everything can be changed and updated. One of the managers at my FLGS, a real smart kid, very astute, used the word "hotfix". Soon, there will be these new and improved e-books that should fix the current issues. The final point of confusion is, they released all the "army books". I don't think that's what they are, they're just interim rules for you to use so you can simply play with your existing army. It's a temporary measure...and we had the same thing in 40k 2nd ed. The boxed set came with a small booklet with all the army units at the time, that you could use until the actual army book Codices came out.

All the current complaints ARE valid. But don't worry about them yet. IMHO, it's honestly going to change. If it doesn't, I'll join you in the panic.

 obithius wrote:
We need to realise the target market for this new game. I remember playing with green army men when I was a kid (probably aged 8-10). Next time you see kids taking turns flicking marbles with a ruler at each other's green army men, ask them how many points they are playing. Ask them how the internal balance works with different units. Ask them what mission they are playing, or what tactics they are using, and all you will get is blank stares. AoS has no points because the concept is totally unnecessary to most children.

GW used to grudgingly sell a game called Warhammer Fantasy Battles in order to sell models. It no longer makes this game, it now gives away a game called Age of Sigmar in order (they hope) to sell even more models. That's the way it is. WHFB won't be coming back, it never sold enough models.

well said for both.

I'll just say simply as this, OP: the game of list-building for tournaments or pick-up games/testing on Friday nights at your FLGS is gone. AoS is about calling up a friend or 2, coming up w/ different, creative ways to field/pick your army, and playing a casual game of killies.

I play backgammon religiously, that is my game of wits and tactics, when as a kid I first saw a GW store it was not the nerds rolling dice that made me stop and go "WOOOOW" (because none of their "tactics" are superior to a game of backgammon) it was the amazing models and painting, the gaming and lore was just an added bonus that I loved over time, nothing is changed, they are advancing the story and allowing for MORE growth (new races from the new realms that we have never heard of etc)... the new models look tasty even if they are "marine" like... which if you ask me is not a bad thing, space marines are pretty bad ass... sigmarines are cool... I am sure in the long run we shall get more and more tastier miniatures to drool over and the simplicity of the game as you said lets even the strangers come in, read the rules and play within 30 min... even if they are drunk ...

heck I am even starting to love the funny rules like beards and kneeling (use it when you are clearly going to lose)I used to play D&D and WoD back in the day so I am used to roleplaying a bit (or adding some flair to the games) this just makes it better...

sure a lot of the hardcore gamers are getting really mad about this but you know what, grow up.. its a game... what did they think was going to happen? the game continues on for years till they drop dead, imagine their reaction if GW closed its doors 3 years ago or something? would they blame GW for that as well

peace and love to everyone by the way

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:

I'll just say simply as this, OP: the game of list-building for tournaments or pick-up games/testing on Friday nights at your FLGS is gone. AoS is about calling up a friend or 2, coming up w/ different, creative ways to field/pick your army, and playing a casual game of killies.

But what happens to the large player base that liked fantasy for those very reasons and doesn't want to play this new totally different game just with fantasies face stretched over it? I mean I know what im going to do, switch systems but I wasn't invested in fantasy yet (was only just getting back into it) but I can imagine its a bigger loss for those who have invested heavily in the system they like with army lists and such buying that expensive model to work in a system no longer supported sure there's Local gaming clubs but they'll never be getting a new update, new army books or models that work with their system anymore. They played fantasy for fantasy, for the way it plays but now they're expected to pick up and play this new game that plays like a totally different system just because it has the fantasy name. It doesn't make sense. It would be like cancelling 40k but turning it into a card game and expecting all the 40k players to be ok with it as if it were the same game. They wanted to play 40k not a card game, same situation here. Best to go elsewhere for a system that resembles the game they liked to play over a different system with just the same name.

I think it would have been better to just do the hard drop, kill fantasy and make this AoS a totally new system, not fantasy in name only.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:


But what happens to the large player base that liked fantasy for those very reasons and doesn't want to play this new totally different game just with fantasies face stretched over it?

Kings of War: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/654528.page

We recently started switching our tournaments over to KoW and most have taken it pretty well. We will have the first regular tournament in 2 weeks and I am looking forward to hosting it.

Kings of War is a streamlined WHFB that keeps true to what WHFB is about (tactical movement of rank-and-file units and large scale fantasy tabletop) but reduces the immense complexity to a healthy level. It's well-balanced, fun, engaging and deep enough to keep you interested for a long time. Rules are free btw. Free AND good. Something GW continues to fail at

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:


But what happens to the large player base that liked fantasy for those very reasons and doesn't want to play this new totally different game just with fantasies face stretched over it?

Kings of War: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/654528.page

We recently started switching our tournaments over to KoW and most have taken it pretty well. We will have the first regular tournament in 2 weeks and I am looking forward to hosting it.

Kings of War is a streamlined WHFB that keeps true to what WHFB is about (tactical movement of rank-and-file units and large scale fantasy tabletop) but reduces the immense complexity to a healthy level. It's well-balanced, fun, engaging and deep enough to keep you interested for a long time. Rules are free btw. Free AND good. Something GW continues to fail at

yes but me and my friends have decided to grow mustaches to signify our unity... do you have a mustache of unity in KoW?

bitethythumb wrote:



yes but me and my friends have decided to grow mustaches to signify our unity... do you have a mustache of unity in KoW?

Rules like that are the reason for why we decided to found a private gaming club

In all seriousness, this might be an age thing. I'm in my mid-thierties...still..., a lot of other people at us are and the average age is about 34. Stuff like people yelling at gaming tables, swinging goblets around etc. just doesn't cut it anymore for us. It will work great in GW stores, but their target group is not even half our average age. Whatever floats your boat, and AoS certainly isn't aimed at us old farts.

No huge blocks of infantry was already a potential killer for me. I want to say I won't get into it but I have yet to thoroughly read through the rules plus the models don't look too bad.

Well...technically, it's still possible. On the other hand...imagine moving 150-200 individual models around on the table each turn.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Well...technically, it's still possible. On the other hand...imagine moving 150-200 individual models around on the table each turn.

You can still use huge blocks and movement trays. You just start piling out of the movement tray during pile-in moves.