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 Age of Sigmar has been out for a week, so I thought it would be good to make a poll to see how people feel. Please choose the option that you feel best fits your reaction.

Please try to limit your reaction to what we have actually seen (the starter box, legacy scrolls, additional book and the additional Sigmarite models + terrain), and not focus on rumours for things that may or may not happen further out. Try to stick to what we know.

Also, if you come across the same poll again on another website, please do not vote a second time.

Needs another option

Neutral or indifferent

That's how I feel about it

There is deliberately not a neutral option. That way you can't pick the easy option, and instead have to think about how you feel.

Like the models, for the Diablo feel (hope all releases at least push the aesthetic good for 40k conversions)

Dislike the main game itself.

AoS is good for spare parts from kits only.

I still don't like it. At all.
It's been greeted with palpable apathy in my area.

Loved the old Warhammer world - well most of it - hated halflings.

Liking the AOS stuff so far.

Like the AoS stuff so far too.
Oldhammer is dead. Bad for vets but good for people who want to get into the game.

Loved the old warhammer lore, this new stuff leaves me feeling cold. Maybe it's due to growing up with Lord of the rings, hobbit, terry pratchet and warhammer.

I feel they are screwing over old players by changing scale, changing aesthetics and making up stupid names for everything. To me its proof GW have lost the plot.

As for the game I can't think of a good thing about it.

Never played WHF nor AOS. Really wanted to get into WHF for the models and had been waiting for this new edt.

Now, with the odd rules and from what i've read so far, i have no intent on going with AOS. The mass multiple WHF armies was something that 40k lacks imo. AOS doesn't appear to offer anything others games now do.

Just my opinion, if slightly off topic sorry.

 Mr Morden wrote:
hated halflings.

Good news, then.

I picked Slightly positive. I like the starter set and really like new Chaos models but with GW's secrecy and limited amount of releases so far it's hard to be more confident.

I want to see more than what we've been show so far before making my mind up but it looks like that might take a while.

I wanted to get into fantasy because a number of my friends were into it but I didn't like any of the models or feel of any army. Ago of Sigmar came out and I hit taken through an intro game and I loved the models for the sigmareens, love the idea of an angelic host thundering in. I like the simplicity if the game. Not having played fantasy, I'm enjoyed ying AoS.

I'm going to miss the trickle of information about the Old World. The setting is still there--I can read the army books and FFG supplements any time-- but it doesn't feel so alive any more.

The Age of Sigmar doesn't feel as real to me. Depending on how the fluff develops, it might grow into quite a setting. I like the bigger scale of the conflict, the larger than life heroes, but it could wear thin if GW isn't careful.

The minis are great quality and exciting. Their prices...not so much. I look forward to seeing what else they put out. Most kits will mostly find a home in my Permanent Storm of Chaos Old World collection. Or in my space marine chapter.

The game sounds like the kind of game I have been waiting for since 2003; a casual hack-and-slash diversion that lets me use my minis on a tabletop. I'll get a game in August and find out if it works for my purposes.

So far, I feel very positive, but not overwhelmingly positive, about AOS.

AoS got me to buy first new Warhammer models in over almost 20 years:

Love the rules - simple, silly, and easy (and free!)

Enjoying the fact that I can bring anything I want in an Army List.

I appreciate the free army lists.

So yeah, I voted mostly positive.

The old WFB wasn't really fun for most people (it wasn't that popular). As a result, it didn't make much money. It looks like GW made a good decision switching it up.

I really wish that GW would do the same thing to 40K, but it still makes too much money (is popular), so unfortunately, they won't.

Mez

Mildly positive. I love the Khorne models. I enjoyed painting my WD Sigmarine. The rules (after the dev's dropped point system was revealed) are passing decent. But it's such a drastic change to something that was so awesome before. GW's fluff was tons of fun. Was it high fiction? No. But it was incredibly fun. And now it's destroyed for something else. Change can be good, but this is such a drastic one that I think it went too far. So mildly positive.

Mostly positive for me.

Love the new game rules, models and fresh approach.

Not a huge fan of communication. Im from a time where White Dwarfs had many communication pieces from the developers, and GW had their own forums where they responded to gamers daily. Sadly that is all gone. A clear direction of whats in the pipework would really help settle many nerves, especially considering the radical change.

Fluff is gone and what's replced it feels... uninspired.
Rules had some good ideas but laughably poorly executed, being the most bloated, unintuative mess I've seen in a while.
So far we've barely seen any models but the sigmarines are boring and while i love the chaos marauders the big chaos beast is confusing and very poorly designed.

Not a fan.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Fluff is gone and what's replced it feels... uninspired.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
GW's fluff was tons of fun. Was it high fiction? No. But it was incredibly fun. And now it's destroyed for something else.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I'm going to miss the trickle of information about the Old World. The setting is still there--I can read the army books and FFG supplements any time-- but it doesn't feel so alive any more.

The Age of Sigmar doesn't feel as real to me. Depending on how the fluff develops, it might grow into quite a setting. I like the bigger scale of the conflict, the larger than life heroes, but it could wear thin if GW isn't careful.

Daston wrote:
Loved the old warhammer lore, this new stuff leaves me feeling cold.

I'm w/ you guys/girls.

AoS just seems like 40k to me now, on the macrocosm level. It's just constant, unending war taking place between realms (akin to 40k planets). There is no more "normal" daily life. No more adventures in Bretonnia or treasure hunts in Nehekhara. No more stories of quirky, on a whim alliances between the various races.

Now it's just war. Sigmar's Alliance versus Chaos versus Destruction versus Undead in a constant 4-way battle to just control/destroy the Realms. It's turned into 40k, fluff-wise, sadly.

As for the game, I still like it.

Mostly positive. Love the freedom in army choice, love the circle bases, love the streamlined mechanics.

Negatives:

- After playing a 2 vs 2 pick-up game in my local GW last Friday that took over 3+ hours and still didn't finish, I am certain this game only works for under 50 models a side.

- for all the streamlined rules it's actually really hard to keep track of all the millions of modifiers floating around the game. So many abilities are +1/-1 to hit/wound, and then all the terrain has effects too...

- warscrolls need to be printed in decks of cards, all players flicking through their phones takes so much time.

- base to base measuring is needed and makes for a better game.

Fluff

- disappointing that the average joe seems to be missing from the fluff. Love the realms idea, the new style maps and room for infinite expansion. Stormcast Eternals and the invincible realm of Azyr are super boring though.

 Bottle wrote:
Mostly positive. Love the freedom in army choice, love the circle bases, love the streamlined mechanics.

Negatives:

- After playing a 2 vs 2 pick-up game in my local GW last Friday that took over 3+ hours and still didn't finish, I am certain this game only works for under 50 models a side.

- for all the streamlined rules it's actually really hard to keep track of all the millions of modifiers floating around the game. So many abilities are +1/-1 to hit/wound, and then all the terrain has effects too...

- warscrolls need to be printed in decks of cards, all players flicking through their phones takes so much time.

- base to base measuring is needed and makes for a better game.

Fluff

- disappointing that the average joe seems to be missing from the fluff. Love the realms idea, the new style maps and room for infinite expansion. Stormcast Eternals and the invincible realm of Azyr are super boring though.

The problem is the mechanics are a lot less streamlined than they could have been, and in some ways got slower than WHFB.

Base to base will only be fair when everyone's models are one the new official base sizes.

Slightly negative. I'm not a fan of the new armies or the new fluff, though I'm still trying to give it a fair chance. I'm hoping for more world building that moves the focus away from the Stormcast guys.

The ruleset could have used a lot more work. A four page ruleset should not have as much ambiguity and as many unfinished ideas as this one does.

I've played a few games, and while they're quick and can be decently fun, they really aren't for me.

It's a minium effort, underdeveloped game system that caters to absolute tabletop beginners and will have trouble in the long run due to its lack of depth.

Rules bear promise for the future but require further work.

 Mr Morden wrote:
hated halflings.

Why do you hate Haflings?

Pretty interesting to see a fairly even split between positive and negative, but with more "haters" than "lovers". That isn't usually how polls like this tend to go - if you look at the usual "new edition" polls, the latest thing tends to be the most popular, even if there are a lot of people complaining.

 Da Boss wrote:
Pretty interesting to see a fairly even split between positive and negative, but with more "haters" than "lovers". That isn't usually how polls like this tend to go - if you look at the usual "new edition" polls, the latest thing tends to be the most popular, even if there are a lot of people complaining.

I'm actually surprised how positive the poll is when you think how negative polls were toward 7th ed 40k when it came out and to me AoS is far worse of a drop than that.

As someone who has been interested in Fantasy over the years, but never played, I started off with a negative impression. The Sigmarines didn't really appeal and I don't care much at all about Chaos. Reading threads here talking about how awful the rules are solidified that impression.

But then I read the rules myself and now I'm very interested, and having played Warmachine for the past few years... maybe it's worth paying a bit more to have models that are actually fun to assemble again. Having found out I can just run the Sigmarines or Chaos with literally anything I might be more interested in I'll almost certainly buy the boxed set this week and give it a try.

Can I just ask (I don't want this to turn into a war) the people who like the game what is it about the rules that you like that are "better" than WHFB or 40k?

I fear I may be missing something but from the games I played it played pretty much the same as 40k.

I've been feeling a bit disenchanted with points systems lately, so dropping them completely and trying something different - even if it turns out to ultimately not work so well - is interesting to me. And I really like the idea of a system that tries to be concise instead of bloated with rules like, say, Warmachine.

Compared to Fantasy, I like that it does not seem to ask me to buy four boxes of a unit or whatever to play, and that because it has no points system, hopefully it will be possible to actually run what you want to run without feeling burdened by the subpar units.

Also, this is kinda silly but I like that you can move up ladders and stuff. The thought of being able to do stuff like put archers on top of a battlement fills me with excitement after playing Warmachine for so long (Warmachine's rules don't really do 3d).

I'm cautiously optimistic about the rules because, while I find 40k's rules to be horrible, I know Games Workshop can write really great rules when they want to (e.g. Lord of the Rings, Epic) so I'm hopeful that they've attempted to do that here.

Also, I like that they used gender-neutral third person pronouns in the rules.

From my own perspective, being able to play with a small number of models and a hero or two and have it be an interesting and fun game to play is a huge bonus with these rules. I do actually like the core "skeleton" and I think it will probably provide a pretty light, combat heavy and fun game for those who don't mind the flaws. I also think it is good to have freedom to use whatever models you want within reason - I would prefer an open ended allies structure to the "take whatever you want!" approach, but I can appreciate the freedom.

Unfortunately, these positives are outweighed by the lack of any balancing mechanism (I do not see this as a "feature" but a glaring omission), silly rules like measuring model to model instead of base to base (when your game is this inherently unbalanced, why would you even care if bases gave some miniscule advantage to one player over another?) and the general "model by model" approach which I have grown tired of in games that have anything more than say 25 models a side these days.

The silly "dance around and talk to your minis" rules I also dislike, but recognise that they probably won't come up that often. But the real killer is the lack of balance and army structure rules which means whether or not you will have an enjoyable game depends entirely on the quality of your local community.

Daston wrote:
Can I just ask (I don't want this to turn into a war) the people who like the game what is it about the rules that you like that are "better" than WHFB or 40k?

I fear I may be missing something but from the games I played it played pretty much the same as 40k.

I think this was GW's goal- attracting enough 40k players over to make up for the (albeit few remaining) WHFB players. WH-AOS seems to be offered as a smaller, simpler game that 40k, that players can play when they need a break from their main system. The game is very familiar for 40k players (even more so now with the Space Marine analogs), so it's an easy jump over, maintaining the same sort of base style and game play, with a low price tag.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I'm cautiously optimistic about the rules because, while I find 40k's rules to be horrible, I know Games Workshop can write really great rules when they want to (e.g. Lord of the Rings, Epic) so I'm hopeful that they've attempted to do that here.

Just out of curiosity, are any of the old writers for these systems (Epic and LOTR) still around in GW?