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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I am not comparing AoS with WHFB, a game I despised. I am comparing it with all wargames.

AoS may well have a surprising amount of tactical depth but it will have less than a game that includes rules for C&C, morale, weather, supply, training, hidden movement, and so on, that add more depth to the game by providing mechanisms to facilitate tactics that depend on these additional factors.

You aren't finding what you want with age of sigmar in regards to tactics because you want a WAR game, whereas AoS is a BATTLE game. If you want that level of tactics for age of sigmar, you will want to do a campaign wherein your battles have direct causality to the next game. Weather rules can be decided on the fly, and the difference in training can be shown by limiting certain options in your army based on fluff. (civilian militia being upgraded to men at arms after surviving 2 battles, a unit of silver helms getting to use dragon princes of caledor statlines after eliminating a certain number of units without themselves being killed, etc.)

And yes, there aren't rules in the 4page book for ongoing campaigns. That has never stopped someone from playing those sort of things before in any other gaming system.

I just dont see how AoS is considered even complete, there are so many holes and confused nonsense in its 4 pages to make the game virtually unplayable. I have heard people enjoying it, so far none of them are playing it as written, they always seem to have had to add something to the game. GW can and should have done better, they half arse tossed out a incomplete pdf, spit shined these "Warscrolls" and have GW apologists believing they made solid gold out of stripping down to barely legible "rules". I was very eager to see AoS come out and was looking forward to it. but what they did was make trash. They had a great thing with warhammer and its setting, but are beating the hell out of that poor dead horse. They should have let warhammer die with some dignity and came up with something new. Sigmar and his sigmarines are uninspired drivel at best. I liked the age of legends books about him enough, but he has ascended to "Drizzt" level crap. not at all the most interesting of their characters. GW let past success get to them and they lost the creativity that made them so great. Overall AoS is just mediocre. but it could have been THE revolution in gaming, maybe it will be in the future but not with this model. GW deserves the wallet punches they get from this. I live in a major metro area and we have 1 gw, it is the only place AoS gets played, barely.

Been playing it rules as written, no issues. What holes are you referring to?

shooting, movement, melee, pretty much the complete lack of any real clarification. adding the most obnoxious part, charging vs just walking up and hitting them, the charge phase seems almost just a tacked on thing. especially the whole if you cant get within 1/2 an inch the charge fails even though melee is within 3 inches.

thekingofkings wrote:
shooting, movement, melee, pretty much the complete lack of any real clarification. adding the most obnoxious part, charging vs just walking up and hitting them, the charge phase seems almost just a tacked on thing. especially the whole if you cant get within 1/2 an inch the charge fails even though melee is within 3 inches.

You can't just "walk up and hit somebody" since you can't move within 3" of a unit without charging. Charging works just like any other GW game, what's the problem exactly?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I am not comparing AoS with WHFB, a game I despised. I am comparing it with all wargames.

AoS may well have a surprising amount of tactical depth but it will have less than a game that includes rules for C&C, morale, weather, supply, training, hidden movement, and so on, that add more depth to the game by providing mechanisms to facilitate tactics that depend on these additional factors.

As an AoS "hater" I actually find I can't particularly agree with that view. I find all those things you've listed very desirable in a game (and FYI you should consider looking at the Darklands rules if you haevn't), but not having those things doesn't make a game more or less tactical, more or less realistic perhaps. For me, I see the way AoS works as a TTWG-equivalent of something like Magic (or, ironically, given Kirby's drivel in the Chariman's ramble, Pokémon) where you're looking to stack combos and efficiencies. It's just different tactically -- it might be that when you stacked everything up it is more or less tactical than other games, but the mere existence of such things does not an argument make.

Conceptually I don't have an issue with that, but there's too many other problems (summoning, lack of points, measure-to-model, shooting into combat - for starters) that break the deal.

Now I have to go shower for the rest of the day as being positive about AoS makes me feel dirty

 Mymearan wrote:

thekingofkings wrote:
shooting, movement, melee, pretty much the complete lack of any real clarification. adding the most obnoxious part, charging vs just walking up and hitting them, the charge phase seems almost just a tacked on thing. especially the whole if you cant get within 1/2 an inch the charge fails even though melee is within 3 inches.

You can't just "walk up and hit somebody" since you can't move within 3" of a unit without charging. Charging works just like any other GW game, what's the problem exactly?

That GW's charge system is poorly designed because of the randomness involved. Fantasy had a similar problem which was a large part of the mass exodus when 8th landed from the old timers I've spoken to, but at least you added your movement to make it a little more reliable. As well charging being the first thing you did in a turn required you to plan ahead instead of moving then charging like AoS/40k.

Significantly less tactical depth in that alone compared even to GWs older games.

 jonolikespie wrote:

That GW's charge system is poorly designed because of the randomness involved. Fantasy had a similar problem which was a large part of the mass exodus when 8th landed from the old timers I've spoken to, but at least you added your movement to make it a little more reliable. As well charging being the first thing you did in a turn required you to plan ahead instead of moving then charging like AoS/40k.

The charge in AoS, in terms of how much you move is not that different. On a successful charge you move M (because you moved in the movement phase) + 2d6 and on a failed - only M. In 8th on a successful charge you again move M+2d6 and lets say 4"(the higher of the 2d6) on a failed. The other differences are there, though...

quiestdeus wrote:

jonolikespie wrote:In Lord of the Rings you'd line your sword and shield men up then park your spearmen behind them where they were relatively safe with their lower armour and your enemy unable to engage them in melee (it was all base to base). Your spearmen then got the advantage of adding supporting attacks to someone they were in base to base contact with.

Very basic unit formation yes, but it's pretty realistic and isn't "nonsensical rules shenanigans" but rather an actual intentional part of the rules.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I have done the spears behind swords technique. Sword masters of loeth in front, high elf spearmen behind. With a single line of swordsmen, two lines of spearmen, the spears can all reach because their bases are less than an inch accross. My opponent has the choice of hitting the swordmasters, who do more damage individually but are harder to kill, or the spearmen who are gaining bonuses for being twenty strong but still not as crippling as the swordsmen.

With high elf banners giving bonuses for other banner carrying units within 8" it really helps the army to combing units into groups that way.

Can anyone in the "AoS is not tactically deep" crowd respond to this for me? I'm genuinely curious where the bar is at, as to someone trying to catch up a bit on this thread, it seems to have been met.

If you define tactics as having unit formations and placement meaning something, this is one very clear example of AoS having tactical decisions (and by no means the only one, I do similar things with Eternal Guard screens for Dryads). Age of Sigmar is also the first game I have played were you can actually Calvary charge in waves. The ability to retreat with one unit of cavalry while charging (to cover them) with another is phenomenal, and something you could never do in WHFB. Being able to actually employ hit and run tactics seems like it should also refute AoS is not tactically deep hypothesis, no?

Obviously this is the internet and I have little expectation of actually changing anyone's mind, but for people who are reading and not participating I'd like them to be able to make an informed judgement.

Noone said AoS doesn't have tactical decisions, or that the "formations" and placement are meaningless. That's actualy quite impossible when you have unit stats and movement ranges. Like reach of weapons, it obviously will crudely simulate some interactions and can be played around, it's just nothing exceptional or particularly challenging and finding a tactical or realistic element and claiming it proves the "AoS is shallow" crowd wrong is strawman. I for example was mainly reffering to claims that gaming the pile in is oh so tactical and more realistic than whfb, which is rubbish.

Yes I agree hit and run is great, or rather would be if it wasn't AoS. The implementation is bad, there's no penalty for disengaging and it's a no brainer. Also it's still directionless blobs we're talking about, the unit you disengaged from may charge something else and not worry about having a cavalry unit on it's back. It's all too simple to matter too much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Baragash wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I am not comparing AoS with WHFB, a game I despised. I am comparing it with all wargames.

AoS may well have a surprising amount of tactical depth but it will have less than a game that includes rules for C&C, morale, weather, supply, training, hidden movement, and so on, that add more depth to the game by providing mechanisms to facilitate tactics that depend on these additional factors.

As an AoS "hater" I actually find I can't particularly agree with that view. I find all those things you've listed very desirable in a game (and FYI you should consider looking at the Darklands rules if you haevn't), but not having those things doesn't make a game more or less tactical, more or less realistic perhaps. For me, I see the way AoS works as a TTWG-equivalent of something like Magic (or, ironically, given Kirby's drivel in the Chariman's ramble, Pokémon) where you're looking to stack combos and efficiencies. It's just different tactically -- it might be that when you stacked everything up it is more or less tactical than other games, but the mere existence of such things does not an argument make.

Conceptually I don't have an issue with that, but there's too many other problems (summoning, lack of points, measure-to-model, shooting into combat - for starters) that break the deal.

Now I have to go shower for the rest of the day as being positive about AoS makes me feel dirty

Meaningful movement phase makes a game times more tactical than combos especialy if the movement is hidden. It's finding combos that might be trickier, executing is banal actualy in a game like AoS, how many combo variables will there be after you deploy. And what's the point of whole blobs of miniatures if you're going to make it combo based on units level lol. Primary school level math I guess.

The other factors mentioned in mr.Kilkrazy post also stack up to give you multiple options in the end and more to take into account when predicting enemy movement, not to mention it's not exclusive with "combos" as units still can have abilities.

 CoreCommander wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

That GW's charge system is poorly designed because of the randomness involved. Fantasy had a similar problem which was a large part of the mass exodus when 8th landed from the old timers I've spoken to, but at least you added your movement to make it a little more reliable. As well charging being the first thing you did in a turn required you to plan ahead instead of moving then charging like AoS/40k.

The charge in AoS, in terms of how much you move is not that different. On a successful charge you move M (because you moved in the movement phase) + 2d6 and on a failed - only M. In 8th on a successful charge you again move M+2d6 and lets say 4"(the higher of the 2d6) on a failed. The other differences are there, though...

Alright, I'll pay that M+2d6 in one phase is little different from M in one, 2d6 in another.

However I stand by charging as the first thing you do is much more tactical than charging after the movement phase. It allows you to deliberately move your models away from your opponent's charge arc, or out of range. You can also screen your units better as your opponent can't shoot your models out before charging.
Hell, even just charging in the movement phase still means you have to have a lane to reach your opponent through, moving and charging separately allows you to move around an obstruction then charge after that.

Having a 360 degree charge arc is less tactical too, most other games require you to at least be facing your opponent when you activate your model if you want to charge.

From what I understand of the rules there is little actual benefit in charging too. Obviously things like cavalry will get bonuses but that is on a unit by unit basis. I can't see any standard 'you get to attack first', 'you get an extra attack' or anything like that in the rules. Please correct me if I am wrong on this but it looks like charging is simply the way to get into combat instead of being rewarded for making the charge with some kind of buff or benefit.

Equally there is no penalty for charging. You don't have to spend a command point, or take a morale test that you might fail, and there is no defensive fire or counter-charge.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Equally there is no penalty for charging. You don't have to spend a command point, or take a morale test that you might fail, and there is no defensive fire or counter-charge.

I'm trying to think of games that have this kind of stuff..
Fantasy had morale tests when charging terrifying iirc.
They also had the stand and shoot reaction. Neither played a huge deal. The fleeing reaction saw more use on the tables I played on, with the risk vs reward of causing your opponent to fail the charge vs losing your unit (which was cool when it was just chaff screening your larger units).

Infinity also has reaction fire which can be negated by approaching from outside their fire arc, smoke grenades, that kind of thing.

All of which felt much more tactical.

thekingofkings wrote:
I just dont see how AoS is considered even complete, there are so many holes and confused nonsense in its 4 pages to make the game virtually unplayable.

And yet people are playing it. Maybe something else is going on?

MongooseMatt wrote:

thekingofkings wrote:
I just dont see how AoS is considered even complete, there are so many holes and confused nonsense in its 4 pages to make the game virtually unplayable.

And yet people are playing it. Maybe something else is going on?

Nothing is universally hated.

I think the "something else going on" is simply the GW logo. Without it this game would have been laughed at and then ditched by whatever company lazy enough to try it.

 Swastakowey wrote:

MongooseMatt wrote:

thekingofkings wrote:
I just dont see how AoS is considered even complete, there are so many holes and confused nonsense in its 4 pages to make the game virtually unplayable.

And yet people are playing it. Maybe something else is going on?

Nothing is universally hated.

I think the "something else going on" is simply the GW logo. Without it this game would have been laughed at and then ditched by whatever company lazy enough to try it.

Aye.

Where this not a GW game no one would give it a second thought.

 jonolikespie wrote:

Where this not a GW game no one would give it a second thought.

Are you completely satisfied with that explanation?

I would have. Large scale skirmish is literally my favorite style of wargame, and I had backed three different kickstarters looking for a similar alternative before this came out.

Also, why is spending a moment to search out the enemy before charging the less tactical option?

With charge bonuses, some units benefit form a charge (cavalry, big animals, berserker types, etc.) And others gain bonuses from not being the ones who charged (most spearmen, dwarves infantry, anyone in terrain, empire troops, etc.) So all of these thing need to be taken into account when making tactical decisions, their position relative to heroes and other threatening units.

As for no negatives for retreat, you can only do it if you can get totally away from your opponents 3" control zone, and don't get to make any attacks that turn. Meaning if you don't have another unit tying the unit you just escaped from up, you are wasting your time retreating. So if you want your elven archers to fire double shots with +1 to wound next turn you had better have support for them nearby to hold down the target.

Well the problem is, AoS doesn't do large skirmish well and it doesn't do small skirmish well either. I have no problems with a gaming being bad in either size. Warmahordes scales bad over 50pts for example. 100pts is a horrible to play. Old WFB was horrible to play at lower points, and ok when big armies were used. AoS seems to be bad for both. To make it work one needs to do some strange scenario narrative play thing with terrain that doesn't fit any other game, with an hour or two before every game to agree on every rule and house ruled being used. In fact the more house rules a system requires to work, the worse for new players who want to start. Old players will know that FW is not acceptable or that the store uses this or that comp, a new player may turn up with a chaos dwarf army and get realy rude reality check.

MongooseMatt wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

Where this not a GW game no one would give it a second thought.

Are you completely satisfied with that explanation?

Yes actually. I stand by that as a reason for why 40k is still popular too as a matter of fact. It is probably the easiest game to actually find an opponent for in most parts of the world (not here, but once upon a time it was).

It doesn't matter how good a ruleset is, if you can't find an opponent for it it's worthless. Alternatively it doesn't matter how bad a ruleset it, if you can be guaranteed a game every time you are looking for one you'll make it work.

Also there is the whole 'GW hobby' angle where GW have systematically isolated themselves and their fans from the wider industry in an apparent attempt to make their customers believe that there are no other games on the market and that GW invented miniature gaming.

 jonolikespie wrote:

MongooseMatt wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

Where this not a GW game no one would give it a second thought.

Are you completely satisfied with that explanation?

Yes actually.

See, this is the problem.

Much of what you have just said is absolutely correct, no argument.

However, I would humbly venture that it is possible that it might be that you have not considered whether there is anything beyond this. This part of the debate started, not with you Good Sir, but with someone else saying they could not see how they considered AoS to be complete (holes, confused nonsense, etc). On the other hand, it is also apparent that others have taken to AoS like ducks to water and are not finding holes and nonsense (caveat: beyond what might be reasonably expected from any new game, and I would opine a good deal less, but I digress).

The way I see it (yes, I know ), to anyone who has been brought up on Warhammer and related games (which includes the likes of Warmachine, Kings of War and all the rest - they all have common roots), AoS is a _massive_ shift in concept. The switch from points-led games to narrative-based is a fundamental change, a real system shock.

It is not for everyone, though I would say everyone should probably try it. However, the idea that you _don't_ go into a game thinking 'I am going to win and this is how I am going to do it' is, in part, what's pulling people into Age of Sigmar.

For them, the game is complete (we always want more, natch) and is not nonsense.


Not saying you are wrong Just pointing out this is why some people do not have a problem with the game, and asking you to see things from their point of view.

MongooseMatt wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

MongooseMatt wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

Where this not a GW game no one would give it a second thought.

Are you completely satisfied with that explanation?

Yes actually.

See, this is the problem.

Much of what you have just said is absolutely correct, no argument.

However, I would humbly venture that it is possible that it might be that you have not considered whether there is anything beyond this. This part of the debate started, not with you Good Sir, but with someone else saying they could not see how they considered AoS to be complete (holes, confused nonsense, etc). On the other hand, it is also apparent that others have taken to AoS like ducks to water and are not finding holes and nonsense (caveat: beyond what might be reasonably expected from any new game, and I would opine a good deal less, but I digress).

The way I see it (yes, I know ), to anyone who has been brought up on Warhammer and related games (which includes the likes of Warmachine, Kings of War and all the rest - they all have common roots), AoS is a _massive_ shift in concept. The switch from points-led games to narrative-based is a fundamental change, a real system shock.

It is not for everyone, though I would say everyone should probably try it. However, the idea that you _don't_ go into a game thinking 'I am going to win and this is how I am going to do it' is, in part, what's pulling people into Age of Sigmar.

For them, the game is complete (we always want more, natch) and is not nonsense.


Not saying you are wrong Just pointing out this is why some people do not have a problem with the game, and asking you to see things from their point of view.

Well said, exalted.

MongooseMatt wrote:

It is not for everyone, though I would say everyone should probably try it. However, the idea that you _don't_ go into a game thinking 'I am going to win and this is how I am going to do it' is, in part, what's pulling people into Age of Sigmar.

I agree with (and love) everything you said MMatt, and will even go one step further... Mike Brandt (Organizer of NOVA, one of, if not the, largest WarGamingCon on the east coast) correctly identified Age of Sigmar as a "tournament organizer's wet dream." For those of us with a bit more slant towards competition, we have unparalleled freedom to draft up missions and composition packs that result in fair, balanced, competitive play that scratches our community's itch. We have enough of a backbone to work from to develop missions, and the sheer scope and uniqueness of the FREE warscrolls provides players plenty of variety to approach our missions...

It is, frankly, glorious!

quiestdeus wrote:

MongooseMatt wrote:

It is not for everyone, though I would say everyone should probably try it. However, the idea that you _don't_ go into a game thinking 'I am going to win and this is how I am going to do it' is, in part, what's pulling people into Age of Sigmar.

I agree with (and love) everything you said MMatt, and will even go one step further... Mike Brandt (Organizer of NOVA, one of, if not the, largest WarGamingCon on the east coast) correctly identified Age of Sigmar as a "tournament organizer's wet dream." For those of us with a bit more slant towards competition, we have unparalleled freedom to draft up missions and composition packs that result in fair, balanced, competitive play that scratches our community's itch. We have enough of a backbone to work from to develop missions, and the sheer scope and uniqueness of the FREE warscrolls provides players plenty of variety to approach our missions...

It is, frankly, glorious!

Very interesting, I've had the same thought actually. Lack of points could prove to be a blessing in disguise.

quiestdeus wrote:

MongooseMatt wrote:

It is not for everyone, though I would say everyone should probably try it. However, the idea that you _don't_ go into a game thinking 'I am going to win and this is how I am going to do it' is, in part, what's pulling people into Age of Sigmar.

I agree with (and love) everything you said MMatt, and will even go one step further... Mike Brandt (Organizer of NOVA, one of, if not the, largest WarGamingCon on the east coast) correctly identified Age of Sigmar as a "tournament organizer's wet dream." For those of us with a bit more slant towards competition, we have unparalleled freedom to draft up missions and composition packs that result in fair, balanced, competitive play that scratches our community's itch. We have enough of a backbone to work from to develop missions, and the sheer scope and uniqueness of the FREE warscrolls provides players plenty of variety to approach our missions...

It is, frankly, glorious!

It's great that NOVA organisers take time to fix the game and make it worthwhile but it's not a sign of a good game but a sign of a great community and GW is lucky to have one. The base ruleset is bad still and GW could have published a simple, open one but much better imo. Anyway I always liked NOVA aproach to terrain in 40k and would surely attend if it wasn't a bit complicated to get across the ocean on a vodka fueled bear but am not sure how I feel about tourneys embracing AoS tbh. It just helps GW slip with their bs, again.

On the other hand I used to love their plastics and although sigmarines shaked that a lot, it might be better that there are some GW fantasy models even cartoonish and videogamey than no fantasy at all, there's still a chance that I will get good daemons or sth to convert. I don't know really, can't even root for it to fail in peace ffs.

Also it's still NOVA format, I doubt it will be embraced everywhere and most places will still be left with default rules and some basic comp ie wounds.

I don't think the core ruleset is bad. I mean it covers the absolutely key bases -- movement, combat, magic -- and has actually only a few areas of ambiguity. (The less GW write for a game the fewer ambiguous points they can create.)

I just don't think it's very good. I think GW could have done a lot more in the same space by reducing the complication in combat and devoting the space to C&C, for example. A sadly missed opportunity for the world's largest wargame company with a design staff of 125 people working for supposedly two or three years to create the new system.

I don't think anyone has said that 125 people were working on the system, more likely it was a small project group doing most of the development.

quiestdeus wrote:

MongooseMatt wrote:

It is not for everyone, though I would say everyone should probably try it. However, the idea that you _don't_ go into a game thinking 'I am going to win and this is how I am going to do it' is, in part, what's pulling people into Age of Sigmar.

I agree with (and love) everything you said MMatt, and will even go one step further... Mike Brandt (Organizer of NOVA, one of, if not the, largest WarGamingCon on the east coast) correctly identified Age of Sigmar as a "tournament organizer's wet dream." For those of us with a bit more slant towards competition, we have unparalleled freedom to draft up missions and composition packs that result in fair, balanced, competitive play that scratches our community's itch. We have enough of a backbone to work from to develop missions, and the sheer scope and uniqueness of the FREE warscrolls provides players plenty of variety to approach our missions...

It is, frankly, glorious!

I disagree in it being a to's 'wet dream'.

I won't call it 'fixing', but the amount of work that is required to turn a 4 page rules set into a pack suitable for large scale and organised events is quite significant- op mentioned 22 pages of extra rules on top? Thsts a to being requires to add five times the workload of the parent company. To's should just be able to get on with running the event, they shouldn't have to design it all too. Having to essentially write up a governing set of rules, governing and universal missions, a scoring system, composition packs that are also fair, balanced and competitive and appealing to the community is a huge undertaking. Especially when this is needed to get everyone on board. Which won't always happen. there is also the problem of every to writing a different set of rules. Potential chaos. And requirement of workload certainly not a 'wet dream'. When the alternative is so much easier - a standard, defined and ready to go 'official' pack thst works across the world.There is a reason that privateer press' organised play and steamroller rules format is so successful and universally regarded within the WMH community.

The big issue for me is there is no 'governing body' or official 'defined' rules sets and tournament packs. As in sport, This is crucial in organised ttg play. There is a big potential for Everything ending up being variations of variations of a dozen different tournament formats. Because everyone is going to want something different. With no central organisation, I feel that there is big potential for fracturing what is already a very niche hobby into ever smaller circles that are not self sustaining for 'organised play' and general play, as well as breeding in intra-aos squabbling between adherents of different versions of aos what could essentially amount to different games, when everyone should be on the same page, pushing the same direction and playing the same game. This is a new game. You want it to grow. Not fracture into a thousand sub groups from the word go.

I agree with you though, because I think unparalleled freedom is great, but it requires the right mindset, people , huge effort and it requires the right conditions. I would also argue it has its limitations. It's not always the go-to choice. For me, tournaments are one of those areas thst offer massive hurdles.

MongooseMatt wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

MongooseMatt wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

Where this not a GW game no one would give it a second thought.

Are you completely satisfied with that explanation?

Yes actually.

See, this is the problem.

Much of what you have just said is absolutely correct, no argument.

However, I would humbly venture that it is possible that it might be that you have not considered whether there is anything beyond this. This part of the debate started, not with you Good Sir, but with someone else saying they could not see how they considered AoS to be complete (holes, confused nonsense, etc). On the other hand, it is also apparent that others have taken to AoS like ducks to water and are not finding holes and nonsense (caveat: beyond what might be reasonably expected from any new game, and I would opine a good deal less, but I digress).

The way I see it (yes, I know ), to anyone who has been brought up on Warhammer and related games (which includes the likes of Warmachine, Kings of War and all the rest - they all have common roots), AoS is a _massive_ shift in concept. The switch from points-led games to narrative-based is a fundamental change, a real system shock.

It is not for everyone, though I would say everyone should probably try it. However, the idea that you _don't_ go into a game thinking 'I am going to win and this is how I am going to do it' is, in part, what's pulling people into Age of Sigmar.

For them, the game is complete (we always want more, natch) and is not nonsense.


Not saying you are wrong Just pointing out this is why some people do not have a problem with the game, and asking you to see things from their point of view.

So in other words "because it has a GW logo on it".

Even you simply just said that.

Anyone who plays AOS should play a game that is actually scenario based. I bet once you try AOS again you will make many changes if what you really enjoy is scenario based games.

AOS is a mission based game. You get given a mission, you select your forces, then you slaughter the enemy until victory. This is not a scenario based game, this is a gamey game. This is warhammer 40k without points. This is like many FPS games with their missions and army set up. This is not a scenario game people.

The ONLY reason this game is played is because of a GW logo. No other game would have traction (as it would have been laughed at) with these rules.









IM still waiting for a batrep which shows these tactics people keep talking about too. Yet to see it...

Give me a month. I get one day a month to play, and my last game day was spent demoing age of sigmar and playing in a crusade of fire gladiator tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I damn well would play this game. I've backed kickstarters that had worse rules than this in an attempt to get a large scale easy to learn skirmish game out into the world.

I haven't been able to find people to play mageknight in forever. This game lets me play a game type I enjoy with some decent chance of actually finding an opponent.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Give me a month. I get one day a month to play, and my last game day was spent demoing age of sigmar and playing in a crusade of fire gladiator tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I damn well would play this game. I've backed kickstarters that had worse rules than this in an attempt to get a large scale easy to learn skirmish game out into the world.

I haven't been able to find people to play mageknight in forever. This game lets me play a game type I enjoy with some decent chance of actually finding an opponent.

Again due to the GW label. Do you think if this mageknight game had AOS rules it would even be funded? It would be laughed out of kickstarter.

Age of Sigmar is not skirmish either. It's group unit based... not individual unit based.

A unit must
be set up and  nish any sort of move as
a single group of models, with all models
within 1" of at least one other model from
their unit

By this logic 40k is a skirmish game, or Bolt Action...