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.

^ It will be interesting to see where AOS stands one year from now, and if it will be scaled-back in the event of a post- introduction lull.

That is, if the world is still here judging by these meteorite rumors...

Shadowstrife wrote:
^ It will be interesting to see where AOS stands one year from now, and if it will be scaled-back in the event of a post- introduction lull.

That is, if the world is still here judging by these meteorite rumors...

To be honest, I'd much rather not see these giant non-40k blobs of releases. I mean, at this point, I'm just dying for the Tau stuff! Yeah, I know, the Fantasy folks would say the same thing about months and months of 40k releases they care not for.

I'm sure that interest will drop significantly post-introduction, and plateau at some level. The only question is whether it will be above or below WHFB, and if it's above, whether it's enough for GW to continue supporting in the way of new models. It essentially costs them nothing to just print books and repack existing stuff.

I do believe that at some point, they'll add in some kind of "official tournament system", especially if sales are soft.

It will definitely be more popular among non-competitive players as it doesn't have the insane entry barrier WHFB used to have.

 Sigvatr wrote:
It will definitely be more popular among non-competitive players as it doesn't have the insane entry barrier WHFB used to have.

That's actually a point I'd like to dispute. I should be clear from the start here; I absolutely, 100% advocate WHFB being played at large sizes. I spent many years with the game and wouldn't consider anything below 1200pts to be indicative of how it's 'meant' to be played. Yes, the rules allowed you to slap 2 Core, a General and a Chaff piece together and call 300pts an army. But the game was designed to mix in BSB's, Magic, Monsters, War Machines....
I wholeheartedly agree that WHFB needed an investment to >2000pts if it was to be enjoyed 'properly'.

However, just because the small games did not work as well, is no criticism that they did not exist. You could certainly slap down an 'army' of 16 models in most cases and have a legal, ready-to-go force. The reason that players did not choose to do so is because the rules were written for a larger scale and while the game was possible at a small scale, it was better at the larger because that is when unit interaction and player decisions become more important than unit choice. Essentially you have fallback options for the mistakes you make in list-building because the restrictions are not so suffocating by moving beyond the bare minimum of the game's rules.

This is an argument that can be applied to Age of Sigmar too, and it's being held up as an advantage of the new game that I feel is totally unjustified. Just because you can choose to play a single box of infantry, does not mean that the game is as fun, challenging or worthwhile as a larger game. The Realmgate Wars has given some indication that 100 models is a good ballpark for the size of a 'typical' game- This is not a small force from a single box. This is going to be a size as large as anything built under 8th Edition. The difference is that with no FOC, the 8th Edition is 'forced' to include some bulk of Core units, so that ~50 of those models might be blander grunts where the Sigmar force can be all elites. But again, this is not an argument that the Sigmar force is cheaper, and in fact it's almost certainly going to cost more because of GW's wacky pricing for quality stats.

I think it's misleading to say that Age of Sigmar has a cheaper buy-in simply because your first 2 boxes can be anything you want, rather than the requirement for Core infantry. The final product is going to cost just as much and there is absolutely nothing I can see that makes a small AoS game better than a small WHFB game.

Mozzamanx wrote:


I think it's misleading to say that Age of Sigmar has a cheaper buy-in simply because your first 2 boxes can be anything you want, rather than the requirement for Core infantry. The final product is going to cost just as much and there is absolutely nothing I can see that makes a small AoS game better than a small WHFB game.

I agree with you on the "proper" WHFB point ranges.... However, I disagree with the part I left quoted. I can see this both ways, honestly. If you get some good opponents, extremely small games can be as fun/challenging as larger games. Honestly, a bad opponent is bad regardless of whether you're playing a 10 warscroll game, or a 4 warscroll game.

Where AOS can really come into its own is game 'variety'.

By that, I mean anything other than average games of pitched-battles and sieges. It would be great to see rules for a more diverse type of battle.

AoS is a lot cheaper than WHFB just because the rules and war scrolls are free. It would cost £80 (-ish ?) just to get the rulebook and an army book for WHFB, before buying a single figure.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
AoS is a lot cheaper than WHFB just because the rules and war scrolls are free. It would cost £80 (-ish ?) just to get the rulebook and an army book for WHFB, before buying a single figure.

This was the only way for GW to get AoS going.
Now we see that also 40k players get interested in AoS.

Personally I like age of sigmar I feel that in some ways it actually rewards bringing semi balanced lists (a mix of close combat and ranged attacks). Now as a dark elves player I'm happy that it allows me to bring alot of infantry with some cavalry chariots and warmachines mixed in and have a fun game. Now for example I had a game today 9 war scrolls I brought
Dread Lord on Cold One as my general
25 dreadspears with full command
25 dread spears with full command
10 dark shards
Reaper bolt thrower
Reaper bolt thrower
15 cold one knights
2 cold one chariots
5 warlocks
Now in 8th ed this list would not have worked most likely yet now it does. Overall I feel people should give the game a chance there's actually alot more strategy to it than you would think

AoS definitely has a lower 'buy in' than WFB - but that doesn't mean that a 'standard' game will necessarily be any smaller.
All it means is that if you bought (say) 2 units of 10 infantry and a character on foot, you'll be able to play a more flexible game with AoS than you would with WHFB.

Due to the nature of how units move and are organised, you don't need 'big' units to maximise them so AoS'll probably see more variety with comparable model counts between the two systems.
Whether this is enough in the long run, we'll see.

It's soooooo much cheaper. Standard games are closer to 1000pts of 8th from my experience. I don't think 100+ models will ever become a standard game size.

 Bottle wrote:
It's soooooo much cheaper. Standard games are closer to 1000pts of 8th from my experience. I don't think 100+ models will ever become a standard game size.

Moving 100+ models per side with no movement trays? No... I dare say that doesn't fit with a "fast and friendly" skirmish game.

Valete,

JohnS

So use a movement tray...hop on and off as needed.

Snapshot wrote:
So use a movement tray...hop on and off as needed.

Yeah... there's a guy in my store who runs an undead list that "starts" with two blocks of 100 skeletons... he runs them on trays, only moving them in for the "pile in" moves...

I'm all for AoS. I never played WHFB so I'm obviously unaware of the sting that came with the death of the old world , but I did love many of the novels set in that time.
While folks have left it provided a prime opportunity for me to jump into the fantasy scene by snatching up cheap VC force in need of some TLC. Using this army and a few addidtion I've been able to build a army to not only play various style but also have enough models that the wife has taken to having VC vs VC with me.
While it took her awhile to pick up 40k, the learning curve for her with AoS was nigh non existant. Now she has taken to beating me with my own army...

10/10 would let the missus beat me with my own models again

 Kilkrazy wrote:
AoS is a lot cheaper than WHFB just because the rules and war scrolls are free. It would cost £80 (-ish ?) just to get the rulebook and an army book for WHFB, before buying a single figure.

The books maybe cheaper, but the game isn't. Because there are more combinations and no points limits, you actualy need to buy just as many boxs as before.The difference is that when before one had to buy 5-6 boxs of the same models, now you need to buy 5-6 different boxs.

Idk If we count crew as well I fielded around 90 models yesterday was quite a fun game. Imho this game can work well for large amounts of models it's actually rather flexible

Mozzamanx wrote:


I think it's misleading to say that Age of Sigmar has a cheaper buy-in simply because your first 2 boxes can be anything you want, rather than the requirement for Core infantry. The final product is going to cost just as much and there is absolutely nothing I can see that makes a small AoS game better than a small WHFB game.

The primary difference is meta based really and has nothing to do with the rules. After so many years WHFB was established in a lot of places with a high point total/number of models as the baseline for the game. So sure people could play smaller battles if they wanted, but if they wanted to fully join in to a local WHFB meta they had to have an army of 2000 points or higher. That lead to a massive startup cost for new players. This was not because of the game rules being bad for small numbers of models, but the meta. As a new player you can't just jump into game day at the local store where all armies are multiple thousands of points with your 500 points and expect to be able to take part.

Now AoS comes out and the meta is starting around 10 to 20 models, so regardless of one of the campaign books talking about 100+ models being on the table, the baseline meta is for much smaller forces at this point, thus it IS cheap to start up AoS right now. That could change if it establishes itself and people adapt to it more and raise the number of models most places for bigger battles. Again, though, this has nothing to do with how the rules are written, but with how the game is played.

So whether it can change in the future right now AoS does have a much lighter startup cost than WHFB 8 did in most places, because right now the focus is on smaller forces. They already start way ahead of the curve by not needing to buy an $80 rulebook and a $50 army book before buying any miniatures either.

There is also the fact that you don't have to buy any of the books to play (legally, of course) so immediately you are saving $35 us per army book and about $80 on core rules. Now that cash can go into models

I've enjoyed AoS so far. What I haven't really enjoyed is house rules. Lots of the places I've played at have tried to enforce some sort of balancing and it never works. The most common one is a wound cap. Sounds good on paper, but I play Night Goblins and used to play Tomb Kings. When there's a '60 wound hardcap' or something my armies just crumble because, for example, 20 wounds worth of night goblins is not equal to 20 wounds of Sauras Warriors. It would seem, based on my experience and battle reports, lots of people haven't wrapped their heads around that concept yet.

Play the game as intended and don't be a dick then you got yourself a fun game, in my opinion.

On a final note, that's not to say there should not be balancing in competitive settings. I feel it's pretty essential there, but no in casual play.

 PaulTheFirewoodSalesman wrote:
I've enjoyed AoS so far. What I haven't really enjoyed is house rules. Lots of the places I've played at have tried to enforce some sort of balancing and it never works. The most common one is a wound cap. Sounds good on paper, but I play Night Goblins and used to play Tomb Kings. When there's a '60 wound hardcap' or something my armies just crumble because, for example, 20 wounds worth of night goblins is not equal to 20 wounds of Sauras Warriors. It would seem, based on my experience and battle reports, lots of people haven't wrapped their heads around that concept yet.

Play the game as intended and don't be a dick then you got yourself a fun game, in my opinion.

On a final note, that's not to say there should not be balancing in competitive settings. I feel it's pretty essential there, but no in casual play.

Yeah, my local store runs with a general "dont be a dick" rule, but most games are taken with Warscroll "balance". IE, both players typically set up their armies, and, as when I first started, one player adjusts his force up/down to roughly match the other player. Case in point, my last campaign game, I'm going up against a guy playing his Khorne army, who's had a couple three weeks longer in the campaign than me, and thus has more stuff available to him. Now, he could have run everything, and I'd play on the "Sudden Death" table, OR, as he did, he could cut out some stuff/numbers.


Only other "hard" house rule that we play by, is basically the same as every other card game, previous editions etc... and that is, named heroes are Unique and can only be taken once (So, if you have 2 Karl Franz on Deathclaw models, only 1 is KF, the other is a General or Wizard on Imp. Griffon)

Just read the fluff for the Celestsnt Prime. A warrior king and leader of men in a darkening time. The ultimate fate of Karl Franz, I suppose. Or it at least seems to imply it.

I haven't had chance to try it, but my local GW has been pushing more fantasy than they ever did during 8th. 40k is still more popular, but AoS is still a thing.

 Crazyterran wrote:
Just read the fluff for the Celestsnt Prime. A warrior king and leader of men in a darkening time. The ultimate fate of Karl Franz, I suppose. Or it at least seems to imply it.
.

IIRC in the end times Franz's soul is blasted apart, merged with Sigmar's, gone (or something) when he becomes the host of the wind of Heaven. It may be possible that Sigmar retained something of Franz to use later on, though...

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 PaulTheFirewoodSalesman wrote:
I've enjoyed AoS so far. What I haven't really enjoyed is house rules. Lots of the places I've played at have tried to enforce some sort of balancing and it never works. The most common one is a wound cap. Sounds good on paper, but I play Night Goblins and used to play Tomb Kings. When there's a '60 wound hardcap' or something my armies just crumble because, for example, 20 wounds worth of night goblins is not equal to 20 wounds of Sauras Warriors. It would seem, based on my experience and battle reports, lots of people haven't wrapped their heads around that concept yet.

Play the game as intended and don't be a dick then you got yourself a fun game, in my opinion.

On a final note, that's not to say there should not be balancing in competitive settings. I feel it's pretty essential there, but no in casual play.

Yeah, my local store runs with a general "dont be a dick" rule, but most games are taken with Warscroll "balance". IE, both players typically set up their armies, and, as when I first started, one player adjusts his force up/down to roughly match the other player. Case in point, my last campaign game, I'm going up against a guy playing his Khorne army, who's had a couple three weeks longer in the campaign than me, and thus has more stuff available to him. Now, he could have run everything, and I'd play on the "Sudden Death" table, OR, as he did, he could cut out some stuff/numbers.


Only other "hard" house rule that we play by, is basically the same as every other card game, previous editions etc... and that is, named heroes are Unique and can only be taken once (So, if you have 2 Karl Franz on Deathclaw models, only 1 is KF, the other is a General or Wizard on Imp. Griffon)

That seems like an awful lot of effort to achieve balance that supposedly isn't necessary in a casual game.
I'm a very casual player and balance to me is essential in having a fun game. My narrative is ruined when my awesome army gets wiped off the table on turn two just because my opponent's army is simply much much stronger than mine. (Not list building, but that army is just nigh unbeatable no matter what I do.)

Every game feels balanced to me. Everything dies. Pretty much every match I've had has ended (with a 5 or 6 turn limit) with a handful of models left. The game swings massively between the sides based on double turns etc.

I pretty much quit AoS when my opponent put a unit of halberdiers on the table and I was able to match it with like 3 trolls and a mangler squig. Which apparently gave him a huge model "advantage" allowing me to get an autowin when I destroyed his unit turn 1 with mangler squig.

^^^ agree, that's a stupid rule and we just ignore it.

Ironically, AoS was designed for smallerskirmish battles, but its sucks under 80 wound IMO. Things die or become combat ineffective too fast. I have been playing around 100+ wounds per side and it's really solid, very back and forth.
Also, it plays very quickly. I get 2 games of AoS in the time that I get 1 game of 8th ed in.

Still gripes me that we have to balance the game ourselves, but then again I do like just taking what you have, and getting to use everything your units CAN take instead if being like "Hmmm, ok do I take this upgrade at +1 points per model..." having no actual point limit is very freeing in terms of getting to actually play the units with all their bells and whistles.

This game has to go more objective based though. Straight slug fests are just dull after the first few games. Things like the flee mechanic are really big now and need to be considered more heavily in objective based games.

Been watching batreps using the big book and Ghal Maraz and those missions seem to add a lot to the game.

I have mixed feelings about it.

A a skirmish game using a far lower model count than Fantasy Battle, I would have expected more in depth rules befitting a smaller scale game. (In the same way that Necromunda had more in-depth rules than mainline 40k). But instead the ruleset is simpler. That doesn't exactly float my boat, but I have yet to play it, so maybe that simplification makes for a more fun game, if a less tactical one.

Model wise I'm not mad about the Stormcast. They're good models, but suffer from all being a bit "samey." The Khornate models look great, and the new Sylvaneth are stunning. Those treemen in particular are the best thing to come out of the design room in a while. Ordered the army set for no other reason than I liked the models.

 More Dakka wrote:


Been watching batreps using the big book and Ghal Maraz and those missions seem to add a lot to the game.

It is a bit dangerous to say this but I would opine that, as things stand, those scenarios are the way AoS is 'meant' to be played. If anyone reading this has just tried the four page rules and nothing else, all you have seen is the freeware demo. There is a massive game behind that waiting for you.

 MWHistorian wrote:

That seems like an awful lot of effort to achieve balance that supposedly isn't necessary in a casual game.
I'm a very casual player and balance to me is essential in having a fun game. My narrative is ruined when my awesome army gets wiped off the table on turn two just because my opponent's army is simply much much stronger than mine. (Not list building, but that army is just nigh unbeatable no matter what I do.)

It's actually not as much work as you'd think... Usually, as guys are unpacking one will say, "that's all you're taking??" and if the other says, "yeah, it's all I got" then the first usually responds with, "ohh OK. I'll take some stuff out then"


And, at least so far, I haven't run into any "Wood Elf problems". And by that, I mean that, based on previous threads, in 7th/8th Ed. WHFB, Wood Elves were so incredibly under powered until they finally got a new book, that for most people, if you lined up a WE army, it was almost an auto-win for the opposing player.