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 now have 3 games under my belt, so I feel like I can weigh in a bit more here and will try and summarize my opinions on key issues

Points and balance: not needed and already built into the game respectively. On a model to model basis they are already balanced. For every 10 infantry you have the equivalent of 5 cavalry. Monstrous models will have more wounds and will have devastating attacks, but can be easily focused down and killed in a turn. Heroes, while good on their own, are force multipliers for your army as a whole. What distinguishes units are special rules and how they synergize with other models in your army. TOs will find eventually figure out some system, others will adopt, simple as that.

Strategy and Tactics: This game is more then omg turn 3 mosh pits in the middle. Every part of your turn has consequence. What spells do I need to cast, which unit needs my command ability? Where do I need to move my units for charge, or conversely, what combats do I need to pull units out of this turn. Swapping out combatants in the movement and charge phases can be huge. I'd much rather have my Bleakswords in CC then my Darkshards, even if it costs me my shooting for a turn. Shooting can take out whole units or weaken monstrous models, reducing their effectiveness in all phases. Combat is probably the biggest part of the game. What is the order I need to do my combats in? Should I split my attacks between two units? What units can I kill enough of to possibly destroy in the Battleshock phase? Did I succeed in piling my units with farther reach behind the ones with shorter reach? Spear units behind sword units for example.

Magic: Far far easier to do and not nearly as powerful, though there can be an argument that summoning is OP right now. Mystic shield can save units.

I'm going to repeat some advice the owner of my GW I go to said: Go in with no expectations, treat it as the new game it really is. Play with the models you think are cool and you want to play with, forget list building and tweaking and min/maxing your army. Although I personally understand that there are people that love that part of the game as well.

I love AoS. There's so much potential for the game. I love not having to memorize table after table. I love not having to worry about Str vs Tough WS and BS. I've only played against friends so far, but I can't wait to play against my first random. I really, honestly, want GW to incorporate parts of the game into 40k, and might suggest doing that the next time me and my friends play 40k.

BomBomHotdog wrote:
On a model to model basis they are already balanced.

Just want to speak on this point: A Dwarf Hammerer is not worth a Phoenix Guard or a Sword Master of Hoeth (in the latter case, they're the same statline except the Sword Master re-rolls 1s to hit). There's also nothing stopping you from taking more than 5 cavalry per your opponents 10 infantry, as Warscrolls only describe a minimum unit size.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Talys, it is not correct to compare the higher prices of Warhamchine models with Warhammer Fantasy models, because you don't need as many of them.

Except that AOS doesn't need that many models.

And no Warmachine players actually limit themselves to a minimum force.

By any measurement, it is perfectly valid to compare the prices of Warmachine (Hordes, since I mentioned a Trollbloods hero) models to AoS models. The model counts for averageish armies will be in the same order of magnitude. Anyone playing Sigmar with WHFB sized armies intact will be some new kind of masochist

And the 4 models I mentioned are Sigmarites - Lord Celestant and 3 Prosecutors. You can't even use them in Fantasy Battle, because there are no rules for them in Fantasy Battle.

Borka + Bear and Lord Celestant + Drakoth are comparable in both size and unit type -- though the mounted Lord Celestant will be significantly larger than Borka. Not to mention all plastic, and in my opinion, a technically superior kit in resolution casting, unusual shape of finished model -- most metrics an unbiased modeler would judge by.

Also, I think at this point, it's perfectly fine to compare the starter kit for Warmachines (or Hordes) with the starter kit for Age of Sigmar. Both give you a pretty good place to start the game. Though, for a non-beginner, I would highly recommend the new single faction war boxes, either in addition to or instead of the two-faction starter box for WMH as an excellent model/dollar value.

As I noted earlier, the WMH players never consider it valid.

Personally, I have a number of problems with the rules. All of them are overshadowed by the total lack of a points or equivalent balancing system. If that is implemented (even in the normal, far-from-perfect GW fashion) I can easily overlook what I don't like about the rules in favor of what I do. I have read (and heard in person) over and over how AoS works/can work with gentlemen's agreement on forces, or how this is a good thing because it drives away ultra-competitive players. The thing is, the solution to those players has been and always will be to simply not play with them. AoS is easily broken down to one-sided conditions but since people can simply not play against such players the problem is resolved. There was absolutely nothing stopping anyone from doing that before (outside of formal competitions, of course), the implied idea that AoS somehow newly incorporates such options is false. Further, I see constantly reiterated that the points system was hardly balanced before, which is true. However, AoS took a balance scale varying from 1 to 10 and made it 1 to 100. There isn't even a baseline for what's balanced beyond wound count, which seems to be the basis for all of the house-rules that attempt to replace point costs. Yet even that is a poor comparison since wound to wound is far less balanced than points to points was (going with the previous example, maybe 1 to 50).

My first trial of AoS had me and a friend bring what we honestly believed were two evenly-matched armies to the table, both with the same wound count. It was completely one-sided. My theoretically balanced force dominated his, and by the end of the game it was clear that he didn't really stand a chance from the onset. I suppose that now we have a better idea of what's better than what, but without a balance system there is no indicator for why someone won the game. Did I win because I played with more skill than my opponent? Or just because my army was better? At least with points cost there was skill going into making a list, AoS strips that away. It was also very easy to pick out the handful of overpowered options from the Army Books and have a gentleman's agreement not to abuse them, but with AoS even that can lead to one side being vastly outmatched without any intentional optimization. It seems like we have gone from something where the WAAC armies were intentional and identifiable as such where now that can not only be made intentionally (and more effectively at that, infinite Fateweaver summoning anyone? tomb scarab-sudden death combo?) but can also be done by complete accident. The solutions to this have gone from being casual to being absolutely required to reasonably play the game. Besides, it has been stated many times over that the biggest strength of GW games is the ease of finding pick-up-games, but when the balance hinges entirely upon player agreement rather than at least having a basis of point cost to start from, that ease-of-gaming largely evaporates since each players definition of balance is different.

For me the most disappointing thing is not what Age of Sigmar is, but what it could have been. There is so much potential for a really great game and for some people it makes the mark, but for many it falls short. It seems to underscore just how far Games Workshop's view of reality is separated from reality itself. Maybe it will sell well, maybe it will flop, or crash and burn. But whatever it does, GW will have no idea why it did that aside from whatever concoction of ideas they brew up for themselves in their corporate offices, which is only going to lead the company (and their games) further downward in the long run as they continue to ignore feedback of any sort.

 primalexile wrote:
I have played the starter set and actually had a lot of fun with it. Some rules I don't like is measuring weapon to weapon (we will likely do base to base).

I enjoyed being able to roll of for the turn, it bit me in the ass but had I won the roll it would of been glorious, I am stoked to see some of the scenerios.

I realize this is a whole new game and treat it as such, I have no intention of ever breaking out my old WoC army and likely will just sells it for whatever I can get and buy more Ininity or Age of Sigmar models.

Model to model measurement simply allows WHFB based armies to be used without any unfair advantage due to the much smaller size of their bases. Once people convert their armies to the new bases it will make a lot more sense to measure base to base.

Movement costs for pivoting models are irrelevant as there is no facing. There may be cases where a long thin model gains an advantage by approaching head on or side on, in which case it is worth measuring accurately, and this will continue to be the case for oval based models if we change to base to base measurement. But for most models I doubt it is worth slowing down the game to measure accurately model to model.

 Talys wrote:

By any measurement, it is perfectly valid to compare the prices of Warmachine (Hordes, since I mentioned a Trollbloods hero) models to AoS models.

Agree. Even if you needed less, it's still a price for a few mehly casted metal or terrible quality resin miniatures.

 Talys wrote:
Also, I think at this point, it's perfectly fine to compare the starter kit for Warmachines (or Hordes) with the starter kit for Age of Sigmar. Both give you a pretty good place to start the game. Though, for a non-beginner, I would highly recommend the new single faction war boxes, either in addition to or instead of the two-faction starter box for WMH as an excellent model/dollar value.

I dare you to make Men-o-War viable! I double dare you! Or at least they were only remotely close to being playable under eIrusk, but even then terribly overcosted for how easily they died and how few of them you had.

But yeah, I agree, one can compare those three. Although AoS set seems to be superior in terms of useful content and definetely in terms of sculpts.

Here were my quickfire thoughts from last weekend:

- I need to print my warscrolls
- Set up is super quick and simple
- Stopping deploying first to go first is a nice trade-off
- All models are useful (I finally played Masque of Slaanesh and she was top)
- Minimal chart checking
- Monsters getting weaker is neat
- A lot of 4+ then 4+ then 5+
- Shooting into and out of combat is vital
- Spells are simple and powerful. My Tzeentch Herald took out a Dwarf Lord in one phase (fire cast on a 10, enabled me to use the tome for 3D6 to do 1D6 more mortal wounds).
- Commands are, again, simple and powerful
- The first game with more models wasn't as fun
- Not sure of what the optimal table size is (appears like 4x4)
- Still concerned about turn 2 pile-in; thankfully this wasn't as heavy in game two
- Measuring from any point of a model wasn't an issue
- Units getting a bonus at 20+ models worked as a trade-off (as that caused me to get SD in the second game)
- Heroes can run around solo and feel important; they also act as buffs for light infantry units
- Rolling off who goes first from turn two on wards had us both holding our breath for those rolls
- There's something rather RTS about it...

Have some more games booked in this weekend so will see how it goes.

I went down to my local G.W yesterday and had my first game of AOS.I played my Chaos warband against a High elf force, we started by agreeing the size of forces by weiging up each in size ( no counting wounds etc ) and remaining fair and not trying to out weigh each other.

I used ; 5 Putrid blight kings, 5 slaanesh marader horsmen, 5 Tzeench Chaos knights, 3 Khorne chaos ogres, and a Chaos Giant all held together with a Chaos Lord with a mark of Nurgle.

He Used 10 Silver Helms, 10 Pheonix Guard, 15 sisters of averlon and 2 High elf mages on mounted.

The game lasted for about 2 hours give or take and flowed well. We had a little confusion of rules ( I think the more we play the more it wil become easy as we are learning a new stat line system). Over all I think it is a great new style of a old favourite game easy to pick up and just as fun to play. If you dont beleive me have a go at your local shop....

I have a great deal of love for the old 8th edition and the creativnes that is allowed in character creation. However I am happy to try a new system (and go back to 8th if need be) after all the rules cost nothing and I already have all the minatues I need to start !

Over all I like AOS it is uncomplicated and fun

So here is full video I did on the models, rules and armies that are for the new game AoS. Also so a few ideas in there on what I want to do with it and if you want to join in. More the merrier.

I started playing fantasy well over 20 years ago, for a good while it was my main game, and I have spent thousands of pounds and hundreds of hours on it over the years.

The sharply declining quality of the rules and the horrific balance turned me away from WHFB during 7th and the 'improvements' of 8th killed off any desire that I had to play the game completely.

None the less I still like the Old World and I am still interested in the type of game that fantasy used to be. Large armies with an emphasis on movement and maneuver with enough fantasy craziness to keep things interesting without going completely overboard.

AoS has extremely shallow rules that are clearly not designed for 'serious' wargaming, I can see little of worth with the game itself and the models themselves are far too stylised and cartoonish for my tastes so I have no interest in them either.

Most unforgivably though is the complete destruction of the Old World and literally decades of world building just so that GW can knock out some half arsed experimental game rather than actually put real effort into fixing the horrible mess that they had allowed WHFB to become after years of cack handed neglect.

I already had precious little regard for GW given that it can't seem to do anything right, seemingly willfully, but AoS has completely destroyed any lingering regard I had for them. I now sincerely hope that they go bankrupt as soon as possible on the off chance that someone competent picks up their IP. GW has proven time and time again that they simply can't be trusted to maintain and promote the worlds that they created and nurtured during their golden years.

I don't think that I will have long to wait as AoS will almost certainly not halt their diminishing fortunes, never mind reverse the trend.

TL: DR GW have lost what little good will they had remaining with me after destroying one of the most vibrant and venerable fantasy worlds in favour of this abomination.

AoS best thing to happen to fantasy in my opinion. Might not be shared here but both my local gw's have been packed with old and new players of fantasy all buying either AoS or new forces. Its gonna be a good summer of gaming for me. If only more folks gave it a chance and see that it is good and works then the game will go even further. So far its selling well just need to see if it continues. After my khorne force is complete ill be startingonba new force either undead or dwarfs

Age of Sig-meh.

I wouldn't be surprised if the product line was discontinued in a year or two. I have nothing against the game. If people like it, that's great. I hope it remains and remains entertaining for those folks. But nothing has attracted me to the game so far.

For me, AoS has me interested in buying Fantasy miniatures again. Ive loved the universe but hated the game. The mechanics were just too clunky for me and almost no one played around here. Those that did spent most of the game arguing over how X rules worked when Y and Z units were mashed up, and I swear 70% of armies were Vampires. As it was, people had armies but never played.

I sympathize with the old WHFB players, but am somewhat excited to see a more playable rules set (in my opinion of course; I know that others would disagree, and thats fine!)

I've played a half-dozen games now, and watched about the same amount. Most of my first impressions still stand.

1) No balancing mechanism = severe lack of interest from myself and those I played with. Most of the people I played/watched are WHFB vets, two of them weren't (one of those being completely new to wargaming). With that said, every single person said the same thing: without some sort of balance mechanism, there's no real point to the game.

2) Summoning is broken.... mostly. If you continue to play and accept the game without a balancing mechanism, then summoning is no big deal. You go right ahead and summon the hell out of those units! But assuming some sort of balancing mechanism is warranted, 'free units' usually break balance.

3) Shooting into combat = goofy. I guess GW considers this a 'tactic' now, but it just feels weird. The fact that you have zero chance to hurt your own guys seems silly.


- Rules are quick and easy to learn

- We still use movement trays, at least at the start, to make moving large groups very fast.

- Without scenario/objectives, most games ended up being a big scrum-fest in the middle of the board.

- Most folks were not keen on the 'roll initiative' at the start of each turn. Too random.

- Those folks I played with/spoke to you played 8th, are keeping their 8th edition stuff. It remains to be seen how much of 8th will continue to be played, but most folks I've spoken to consider AOS a different game to be -added- to their play-list, not -replacing- WHFB for them.

-Mort

JohnHwangDD wrote:And yet it's still vastly superior to the sack of gak that was 8th Edition...

Well.

That might not be saying much.

I think its an simplistic game with no depth and will be forgotten in a year or two. Its also a big middle finger to long time players and is indicative of what GW thinks of its customers; as children.

I tried Aos, I really did. I find it to be a big pile of steaming crap and laziness. What amazes me is how forgiving people are of this 'game'. I've had very little fun in the games I've played and will not be giving it another go in the near future.

It has only done a few things right in my opinion.

1) Free easily accessible rules.
2) made all units viable.
3) Gave Brets and Beastmen their... *cringe* updated 'army book'.

I would probably be a lot more forgiving of AoS if it didn't replace the only version of Fantasy I knew (8th.) It's just too different, and throws away too much of what I liked in old Fantasy.

I.. I just hate this game and everything it stands for. It reaks of laziness (the 4 page rule book is so simplistic, any reasonable wargamer could have written it.. lets be honest here,) and subtle contempt of the old fantasy. If they just put as much effort towards old fantasy as they have so far in AoS with advertising, teasers, etc, fantasy would have done better.

The new lore is just.. *sigh* I can sit here writting an essay on everything I dislike about AoS but it would be pointless. My experience is that AoS fanatics will defend this travesty of a fantasy game to the death while ignoring its very glaring flaws and shortcomings. The fact that the 'unofficial' tournament rules more than double the size of the official rules shows how incredibly lazy the 4 page ruleset is.

AoS leveled the playing ground. Literally. GW would now have the chance to put their fantasy section back on track. A skirmish level game was the perfect decision from a marketing point of view and AoS has the potential (!) to be an outstanding game with short, easily readable and simplified rules. It now has two fix its two main problems:

a) Incomplete rules: The game currently lacks complete rules as there are no rules on force organization, albeit those are necessary.

b) Large scale battles: AoS currently scales absolutely terrible to bigger scale battles. This closely ties in with a). A small battle with small forces is easily balanceable, a slarge scale battle with 150+ models and 10+ units isn't. Not only do you have to factor in individual unit strength, you also have to count in for added tactical options, more special rules / synergies etc.

AoS offers a neat little ruleset and the one thing it does have going for it is the synergy system it has - it usually is a good idea to keep your army together as units support each other. It has the potential to be a very good game. It definitely will not be a top tier game on X-Wing levels, as GW doesn't know how to properly write rules, but there is a chance that it gets back on track and provides a neat, little, non-serious entry-level tabletop experience.

GW's track record says otherwise, but maybe, just maybe, this time, they manage to not screw it all up again. 500 small, green thumbs are pressed.

Rihgu wrote:

BomBomHotdog wrote:
On a model to model basis they are already balanced.

Just want to speak on this point: A Dwarf Hammerer is not worth a Phoenix Guard or a Sword Master of Hoeth (in the latter case, they're the same statline except the Sword Master re-rolls 1s to hit). There's also nothing stopping you from taking more than 5 cavalry per your opponents 10 infantry, as Warscrolls only describe a minimum unit size.

Also the fact that BomBomHotdog is speaking about things being balanced going off wounds (10 infantry = 10 wounds = 5 cavalry) but the whole "wounds = points" system is absolutely nothing to do with GW or AoS, it's 100% unofficial and something the community had to come up with in order to give the game some semblance of balance. The fact that players are having to extensively house-rule AoS to make it playable on a fair level is the biggest indicator for me that AoS is simply a bad game.

 Sigvatr wrote:
AoS leveled the playing ground. Literally. GW would now have the chance to put their fantasy section back on track. A skirmish level game was the perfect decision from a marketing point of view and AoS has the potential (!) to be an outstanding game with short, easily readable and simplified rules. It now has two fix its two main problems:

a) Incomplete rules: The game currently lacks complete rules as there are no rules on force organization, albeit those are necessary.

b) Large scale battles: AoS currently scales absolutely terrible to bigger scale battles. This closely ties in with a). A small battle with small forces is easily balanceable, a slarge scale battle with 150+ models and 10+ units isn't. Not only do you have to factor in individual unit strength, you also have to count in for added tactical options, more special rules / synergies etc.

AoS offers a neat little ruleset and the one thing it does have going for it is the synergy system it has - it usually is a good idea to keep your army together as units support each other. It has the potential to be a very good game. It definitely will not be a top tier game on X-Wing levels, as GW doesn't know how to properly write rules, but there is a chance that it gets back on track and provides a neat, little, non-serious entry-level tabletop experience.

GW's track record says otherwise, but maybe, just maybe, this time, they manage to not screw it all up again. 500 small, green thumbs are pressed.

I agree with this wholeheartedly, especially the slim hope that GW does what's needed to improve the game rather than leaving it where it is (or perhaps more likely, letting it slide downward). To say that AoS is nothing but bad is an exaggeration, but to say that it can really succeed and surpass its predecessor without changes to the current ruleset is probably just as much of an exaggeration. We'll see...

Well, I read the 96 page book. As some others have said, it sure doesn't take long, LOL.

There are plenty of awesome pictures and inspirational artwork. About half the book is fluff, the other half is game-related, and both halves have more visuals and big spacing than anything else. However, that being said, it was quite light and enjoyable. It's just enough to wet my appetite to find out what is happening in the world, without having too much detail for someone who isn't really invested in the game world.

In that sense, it's a better fluff book than the 40k one in the BRB set, which goes into a chronology and list of events that frankly, new players will just fall asleep reading. I like all that stuff, but save it for a later book, not the one that's supposed to get us excited to play a game and paint some minis.

It sure looks like many scenarios are coming our way, as, probably are many formations for each faction (battalions, I think they're called in Sigmar).

The fluff is pretty cool, and I liked the story of how it went from End Times to the Age of Sigmar. Oh, also, I like how there are Grand Alliances in addition to Factions. Storywise, it makes a lot of sense, and it has some gaming potential. I'm not sure if/when rules will take advantage of this. I enjoy how Chaos has basically won and taken over, and Order, led by Sigmar, is the underdog, but has a stronghold in Azyr and that now, with the Eternals is ready to go to battle with Choas (and perhaps win!).

I know there were all those people who didn't like the power creep or super-hero-isation of humans, but frankly, in my opinion, it makes more sense for an enhanced / magical humans to fight demons and the denizens of chaos, destruction and living dead than it does for 18th century common troops who should really scream and run at the first sign of the Nagash, a Necrosphynx, or a Putrid Blightking. Hell, I sure would.

So anyways, Skaven or Lizardmen aren't gone as factions -- those factions just participate at different levels of commitment to their chosen Alliance. Which is cool!

Somebody on a Warhammer Fantasy Facebook page called me a 'traitor' because I just so happen to like AoS despite the fact that I have great respect and appreciation for oldhammer as well.

I was on the fence about aos and then I saw the army design and scenario pdf that's been floating around and that one little document made something click for me and now I am actually psyched about aos.
if there's one aspect that I really like about aos it's the freedom to take what I want from a pure aesthetic aspect. You want to run a whole army of a super cool looking rare unit? In oldhammer no way but now go for it.

I haven't had the chance yet but I'm looking forward to trying equal points in wounds of grunts vs big guys.

Too many naysayers out there.

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
You want to run a whole army of a super cool looking rare unit? In oldhammer no way but now go for it.

Not sure what game you played before.

correct me if i'm wrong, but hasn't it been stated by the GW rep at Warhammer Open Day that this will be a living rulebook style, where things can be added and tweaked as time goes on???

this is day 2 of a whole new world...
i have a feeling there are a lot more changes to come, and some of them may even be good...

cheers
jah

 Sigvatr wrote:

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
You want to run a whole army of a super cool looking rare unit? In oldhammer no way but now go for it.

Not sure what game you played before.

I'm not sure what youre getting at but I've played every version of fantasy.

Like I said. I love the look of white lions and lion chariots. Now I can run an entire force of just those models if I want.

You could do the exact same thing before. Noone forced you to play at exactly even points or even follow the FOC. In WHFB, you could always choose between either playing a regular game w/ equal points limit or a free game with anything you and your opponent agreed on.

In AoS, you can only do the latter.

No, you can also make up house rules in Age of Sigmar. There are many variations of points in the Proposed Rules section, you can pick any of those or make up your own.

Rihgu wrote:
No, you can also make up house rules in Age of Sigmar. There are many variations of points in the Proposed Rules section, you can pick any of those or make up your own.

Neither are house rules part of the game, nor do they even come close to having an innate balance mechanism. Let alone the fact that a game requiring house ruling to work is as sad as it can get from a quality point of view.