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.

 Accolade wrote:

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.

That's what I don't get I liked Fantasy because of the blocks of units and the cool looking ranks of troops with pointy spears. If I want to play a game where Orc's shoot at elves over the ruins of a town I'll play 40k where my Space orks can shoot space elves over a ruined city.

Daston wrote:
That's what I don't get I liked Fantasy because of the blocks of units and the cool looking ranks of troops with pointy spears. If I want to play a game where Orc's shoot at elves over the ruins of a town I'll play 40k where my Space orks can shoot space elves over a ruined city.

This is exactly my view. I don't know why they are trying to make 40k players happy when 40k players were already buying 40k, surely they'd want to make WHFB happy so they buy more stuff as well

But yes, the whole reason I played Fantasy was because of the regimental combat system, not in spite of it, getting rid of it destroys the game for me (let alone all the other crap like no points, ill thought out rules like measuring from the model instead of the base, the loss of depth in different units or silly rules like comparing beards ).

 Accolade wrote:

 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?

Let's see. Epic was apparently by Jervis Johnson and Andy Chambers. Jervis is still there, though Andy has moved on. I'm not sure what Jervis' job there entails now. The Lord of the Rings rules were apparently written by Rick Priestly & Alessio Cavatore; both of them have since left Games Workshop. The Hobbit game book (mainly a slightly revised version of the Lord of the Rings rules) only has one person named: "Written by Adam Troke." I'm not sure if he still works there.

So it seems that Jervis Johnson and (maybe) Adam Troke are the only ones credited that still work there. I'm not sure how successful Adam was at his modifications with The Hobbit game. I guess YMMV.

The rules pdf doesn't credit anyone with the design of the rules (or anything else). Maybe one of the physical books does?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Daston wrote:
That's what I don't get I liked Fantasy because of the blocks of units and the cool looking ranks of troops with pointy spears. If I want to play a game where Orc's shoot at elves over the ruins of a town I'll play 40k where my Space orks can shoot space elves over a ruined city.

This is exactly my view. I don't know why they are trying to make 40k players happy when 40k players were already buying 40k, surely they'd want to make WHFB happy so they buy more stuff as well

But yes, the whole reason I played Fantasy was because of the regimental combat system, not in spite of it, getting rid of it destroys the game for me (let alone all the other crap like no points, ill thought out rules like measuring from the model instead of the base, the loss of depth in different units or silly rules like comparing beards ).

I think they hoped to get

1) more new players who were put off by the rules and apparent complexity of WFB/40K
2) 40K players who like the freedom of movement etc in their game to try WFB - given the ease of making new Warscrolls - likely at least some 40k scrolls will be made - fan if not offcial

Loved the "fun" rules in the free war scrolls - takes me back to the old old days of Warhammer

Rule 1, be polite, is an important rule on this forum. Thanks, motyak

Just cleaning up, motyak

Wow - is it really neccesary to insult people who dont like the things you do?

 Mr Morden wrote:
nsult people who dont like the things you do

The internet in a nutshell.

Results so far. 194 votes from Warseer, 176 from Dakka. In both cases we see that there are few Overwhelmingly Positive, and few on both Slightly Positive and Slightly Negative, but apart from that there results are quite different.

Weird. Though like last time it's trending towards around 1/3 positive and 2/3 negative combined.

Wow, they really hate it over on Warseer Warseer is about 75% negative.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Wow, they really hate it over on Warseer Warseer is about 75% negative.

43% of the votes are 'Overwhelmingly Negative'. Yikes.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

The rules pdf doesn't credit anyone with the design of the rules (or anything else). Maybe one of the physical books does?

An Alan Smithee production......

Matt Ward wrote a lot of the LoTR books and he has also left the building.

The only long standing games designer left at GW is Jervis and aside from Epic meh....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Wow, they really hate it over on Warseer Warseer is about 75% negative.

I'm surprised given that Warseer used to be a white knight bastion, things have evidently changed

 Bottle wrote:
Stormcast Eternals and the invincible realm of Azyr are super boring though.

This is almost exactly how Chaos was portrayed for 30 years. I hated it then, and I'll probably grow to hated it for Azyr, but so far I just love the fact that the goodish guys are the ones with an advantage for a change.

The inevitable victory of Chaos was the absolute worst part of WHFB for me, and it was done to death at every single opportunity. I'm somewhat glad it's finally over. (However, in my head-canon, the Storm of Chaos will always be Chaos' last hurrah before the might of mass produced Empire and Dwarf firearms finally made them irrelevant.)

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
Stormcast Eternals and the invincible realm of Azyr are super boring though.

This is almost exactly how Chaos was portrayed for 30 years. I hated it then, and I'll probably grow to hated it for Azyr, but so far I just love the fact that the goodish guys are the ones with an advantage for a change.

The inevitable victory of Chaos was the absolute worst part of WHFB for me, and it was done to death at every single opportunity. I'm somewhat glad it's finally over. (However, in my head-canon, the Storm of Chaos will always be Chaos' last hurrah before the might of mass produced Empire and Dwarf firearms finally made them irrelevant.)

I'm not so sure. Chaos in the old WHFB were akin to the Viking raiders or Mongol invaders. A massive foreboding force where the common man had rally together to protect their home.

With the Stormcast Eternals it's more like the crusades. All the "good" guys off on campaign. If they lose, too bad - home is still safe and sound.

I don't mind the forces of Order being on the attack this time, but as others have said there are no stakes. Nothing to lose.

I doubt the chaos realm is going to be any less impenetrable than the old 'realm of chaos' too.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
Stormcast Eternals and the invincible realm of Azyr are super boring though.

This is almost exactly how Chaos was portrayed for 30 years. I hated it then, and I'll probably grow to hated it for Azyr, but so far I just love the fact that the goodish guys are the ones with an advantage for a change.

The inevitable victory of Chaos was the absolute worst part of WHFB for me, and it was done to death at every single opportunity. I'm somewhat glad it's finally over. (However, in my head-canon, the Storm of Chaos will always be Chaos' last hurrah before the might of mass produced Empire and Dwarf firearms finally made them irrelevant.)

We just need a worldwide event where the Sigmarines are losing in stores but then [Insert Named Sigmarine Leader] and his forces suddenly have made a ton of ground in the fluff.

After much consideration Ive decided to drop the idea of using the new box of AoS to convert a blood angels army up. I'm just going to avoid AoS all together and focus on 40k and Warmachine which I recently started collecting. Thanks GW! you've pointed me at another games system entirely now my money goes to them. For all we know GW was secretly bought up by Privateer press and Mantic Games and purposely driven its fantasy section into the ground to force players into buying up warmachine/kings of war stock.

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 love the no points part. List building is great and all but you always see the same models in the same formations and various point scales.

X pt game:
Oh your playing "insert army here" then you are probably bringing "insert formation/units here" so I'm gonna bring "insert unit/formation here"

When you properly deploy for AOS its more like betting or ante for a card game. Your bringing a unit of infantry? I'll bring a unit of Calvary. You take a warmachine? Well I'll bring one too, or maybe a Wizard.

Every unit can be good, unlike 40k or WHFB where you look at the cost-benefit relationship for models. I've never seen a Tau player take Kroot or Vespid because there are better alternative for the point cost. Armies are also very fluffy. Banners, shields, musicians all do something different depending on what faction you bring.

Game play is very similar to 40k, but I like that I don't have to try and memorize a bunch of Special Rules out of 2+ books just so I know my army. All the army specific rules come from the warscrolls and are easy to look up. I do wish they would put them out as cards though. If they had some decent artwork I would totally buy some.

After talking to some people, having played a few games, and having some time to think on it I've come to a few conclusions. AoS is not for the competitive gamer. If you are all about tourneys or "power gaming" then forget AoS and move on or keep playing 8th. AoS is a social game, and a thematic game as well. While the rules are simple, there's enough variation between armies and units that can make the game complex in its own way. I've had people tell me they hate that the rules are only 4 pages long and overly simplistic. A game does not need a long list of complex rules to be enjoyable or fun. Next week my group should be diving into the new scenarios that came out so we should get and even better idea of how the game will play overall.

BomBomHotdog wrote:
I love the no points part. List building is great and all but you always see the same models in the same formations and various point scales.

After talking to some people, having played a few games, and having some time to think on it I've come to a few conclusions. AoS is not for the competitive gamer. If you are all about tourneys or "power gaming" then forget AoS and move on or keep playing 8th. AoS is a social game, and a thematic game as well. While the rules are simple, there's enough variation between armies and units that can make the game complex in its own way. I've had people tell me they hate that the rules are only 4 pages long and overly simplistic. A game does not need a long list of complex rules to be enjoyable or fun. Next week my group should be diving into the new scenarios that came out so we should get and even better idea of how the game will play overall.

qft

As for the list building, I agree. I know some people need order (no pun intended) to be provided to them for tabletop gaming. I actually like it, having a balance of pts and whatnot. And while I appreciate people - local or otherwise on the net - coming up w/ ways to balance AoS, I still think the eyeball test is the most fun. I've done it w/ the couple games I played. The people at my local GW store seem to be doing it. And so far it seems almost every unit is viable in some sense.

Assuming you're actually talking w/ your opponent about eyeballing the balance, it's fun, social, and gives you the freedom to field what you want.

The people on Warseer wants to know why you are so more positive than they are.

I voted for "mostly positive" because at it's heart Age of Sigmar is a good game. I havn't played it yet but I have watched 4 batreps all the way through (about 4 hours of passive reseach) and it has some good strong elements:

These are they.

1) very low rule forgetting even with 1 week old game very few players accidentally forgot things realted to rules
2) simple system that posseses depth potential
3) utiltarian with respect to WHFB models
4) as a 40k player only I will probably buy it one day

The only negatives are:
1) general cynicism from player base
2) currently lacks points system but this will come

I always thought warseer was a more gw positive site

I'm currently putting together my aos boxset and really enjoying the khornate blood warriors. I haven't been this enthusiastic about wfb figures for some time.

Avian wrote:
The people on Warseer wants to know why you are so more positive than they are.

I would put it down to the inherent inaccuracies of small sample sizes and self selective polls.

I reckon Dakka is a more 40K focused site than Warseer, 40K fans like AoS more than Fantasy fans.

Sample sizes aren't so small that this kind of difference would be expected if the populations were indeed roughly identical. And if populations were roughly identical then self-selection shouldn't make a difference.


A theory that seems reasonable is that the average Dakka user is more likely to be positive towards round bases and lose formations, since Dakka is a more 40K-centric forum (40K topics outnumber Fantasy ones something like 7:1, compared to 2:1 for Warseer).

DakkaDakka used to be a 40K focussed site but in the past few years a lot of people have moved away from 40K and alternative forums like Infinity and Historicals have expannded and got a lot more traffic. I mean they really have reduced or dropped GW games and got into more alternatives.

I am all for a wide spread of interest. Our horizons would be cripplingly limited if they were bounded by 40K and/or WHFB.

There is still an emphasis on 40K though.

I voted Slightly Positive.


My crew has a dozen or so games under its belt now, and we've found the following things:

PRO:

I. the pace is fun. Playing formations vs. formations is also fun as it feels more or less balanced.

II. Most everything is at least pretty good now. There's very little that i look at and say "ugh, i'd never use that". Most (not all) of the things that were bonkers good have been toned down, and some stuff that was crappy has been buffed. Full Disclosure: i speak just from my armies, Elves of all shapes and sizes, (chaos) Dwarves, Ogres, and Lizards.



I. Measuring has to be base to base otherwise things get stupid in a hurry. See also engagement range.

II. The lack of a weight distribution mechanism to equalize what players take, we find most games played outside of the "Take x Formations" mechanic end up being a lopsided landslide one way or the other.




So far i'm leaning towards AoS for smaller games, but either sticking with End Times 8th, or Kings of War for larger scale combat. The large scale games i've played haven't been much fun.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Marlov wrote:
Seems to have attracted a lot of people who didn't like WMH, IMO because they sucked at it, and need an easier game.

Fail game for fail players?

This is probably one of the most insulting and ignorant posts i've seen in a while on Dakka, which is saying somethign as i hang out in OT a lot.

Why do you feel the need to sub marginalize gamers for what they play ? So let me get this straight, you're "more epic" or "cooler" than a "fail game player who plays AoS", because you push your metal / plastic / resin soldiers around while using mechanics from a different book ?


Grow up.


And before you label me a failgamer - I'm an ex-Infernal for PP, and i placed in several national level Hardcore events and was on their PT and Design team for several years - including the main switch from MK1 to MK2. My name is in the credits of several of their books.

Well, ok, maybe I was being a little harsh. Simple game for simple gamers... there you go. Glad you found a game you like Haight and as much as I hated this game when it came out first, I like that it is putting the people who never have fun with playing with my kind of group doing something else.

I'm not joking, games with people who are "simple gamers" or "casual gamers" or whatever are just freaking painful. well maybe not to you, but they sure are to me, because if you don't know that is what they are ahead of time, all they do is WHINE when they lose in a short amount of time.

I said it before, will say it again, I like wargames, I like them competitive, I don't like to babysit players or make them feel happy and fuzzy in side.

Marlov wrote:
Well, ok, maybe I was being a little harsh. Simple game for simple gamers... there you go. Glad you found a game you like Haight and as much as I hated this game when it came out first, I like that it is putting the people who never have fun with playing with my kind of group doing something else.

I'm not joking, games with people who are "simple gamers" or "casual gamers" or whatever are just freaking painful. well maybe not to you, but they sure are to me, because if you don't know that is what they are ahead of time, all they do is WHINE when they lose in a short amount of time.

I said it before, will say it again, I like wargames, I like them competitive, I don't like to babysit players or make them feel happy and fuzzy in side.

Simple Gamers!
I love some of the more Complex Games out there.
SFB [Star Fleet Battles] & ASL [Advanced Squad Leader]
ASL can be a test of person's will when you a rule comes into question

Why do I Love AoS, becouse I do no have to dedicate 4-6 hours to play a game.