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.

Yes you can. You can drop all restrictions on army building including points and play what you want using the rest of the rules.

@bitethythumb, yes it's basicaly ignoring KoW rules but balancing AoS with wounds is basicaly ignoring AoS rules. Fail to see the difference tbh.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Yes you can. You can drop all restrictions on army building including points and play what you want using the rest of the rules.

@bitethythumb, yes it's basicaly ignoring KoW rules but balancing AoS with wounds is basicaly ignoring AoS rules. Fail to see the difference tbh.

that is exactly the point :/ there is no difference... the tone of the other users posts make it out to be that "adding" rules is bad but taking them away is somehow "ok" I was simply pointing that doing both makes the game have no difference (in that certain aspect)l... if I have to add rules to enjoy AoS then by taking away rules from KoW to enjoy it makes them "equal"

the user I talked with more or less said that "its better to take away rules" :/ and I am saying "its the same as adding"...

I have also started to look into KoW and in all honesty its not as "awesome" as people make it out to be, the simple "unit" damage alone breaks immersion (apparently units do not get weaker if they take damage and function just as good until they are removed) which is weird, at the same time I do not see a point of painting models individually or even playing with 28mm sized models (which is the KoW standard) surely smaller models would make more sense and having them on one large base is better then individually... now I would be like a lot of users and go into the KoW forums and critique it but that would be counterproductive to the whole hobby.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

sarcastro01 wrote:
But can I field 5 copies of Nagash in KoW like I can in AoS? My super creative narrative depends on it and it' not broken at all!

if you own only 5 nagash models and want to use them I say GO FOR IT... there is a really good scenario for one player you could play in the corner of your club whilst everyone else plays against someone else.

Obviously it's better to take away rules than add them because it's easier and faster.

I was answering the part where you claimed that taking away points is somehow against the game concept of KoW and there's no point. Balancing AoS seems to go against the concept of AoS so it's the same in that context.

 bitethythumb wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Yes you can. You can drop all restrictions on army building including points and play what you want using the rest of the rules.

@bitethythumb, yes it's basicaly ignoring KoW rules but balancing AoS with wounds is basicaly ignoring AoS rules. Fail to see the difference tbh.

that is exactly the point :/ there is no difference... the tone of the other users posts make it out to be that "adding" rules is bad but taking them away is somehow "ok" I was simply pointing that doing both makes the game have no difference (in that certain aspect)l... if I have to add rules to enjoy AoS then by taking away rules from KoW to enjoy it makes them "equal"

the user I talked with more or less said that "its better to take away rules" :/ and I am saying "its the same as adding"...

I have also started to look into KoW and in all honesty its not as "awesome" as people make it out to be, the simple "unit" damage alone breaks immersion (apparently units do not get weaker if they take damage and function just as good until they are removed) which is weird, at the same time I do not see a point of painting models individually or even playing with 28mm sized models (which is the KoW standard) surely smaller models would make more sense and having them on one large base is better then individually... now I would be like a lot of users and go into the KoW forums and critique it but that would be counterproductive to the whole hobby.

Honestly dude, this concept is incredibly basic, yet you seem to be trying so hard to be contrarian that you refuse to listen. It's like talking to someone playing the fool.

A simple question for someone who thinks removing rules is easier then adding them. Take a game with a points system and structure system. Now time yourself how long it takes to remove them (if it takes longer than 10 seconds im gonna assume you are lying), Now take AOS and add a points system and structure system and time yourself. Write it all out and have it readable for anyone who wants to play with points. I bet the time ti takes will be huge.

A wounds cap is not a points system, the equivalent of adding a wound cap would be adding a nerve cap in KOW. Likewise the equivalence of removing points from KOW is adding points to AOS.

"there is no difference"

As for KOW, damage is more often than not fatigue and break down of discipline like in real life. Yes a few die here and there but the dying historically doesn't start until until a unit breaks and gets cut down by the other side. It only breaks your immersion if you think of them as killing each other the whole time, which to me would be immersion breaking. Makes complete sense. As for the basing, nobody at my club plays KOW with individual bases, we have one base for whole groups of soldiers, which Mantic does as well. They have a tutorial for doing so. You can also play it in smaller scale (I do). Nothing here is a critique but simply weird judgement and a little ignorance to warfare of the period.

You missed your chance to critique KOW when it was being Beta Tested... how it is now is largely because the players made it that way. It is in no way counter productive.

Have you played KOW? If not, go play it. It is free. Then you can critique all you want.

 bitethythumb wrote:

sarcastro01 wrote:
But can I field 5 copies of Nagash in KoW like I can in AoS? My super creative narrative depends on it and it' not broken at all!

if you own only 5 nagash models and want to use them I say GO FOR IT... there is a really good scenario for one player you could play in the corner of your club whilst everyone else plays against someone else.

This kind of mentality seems to be what led us to AoS in the first place.

I call it the 'no one be a d*ck' mentality.

And I consider it absolutely ing toxic for a game.

The idea is the game isn't in charge of keeping things fair, you and your opponent are. If you feel your opponent does something unfair then the rules don't help you, you simply don't play that person. And that is ing stupid as people WILL be d*cks. It leaves you having a bad time and killing enthusiasm for the game.

It also encourages a bunch of really horrible situations, like when you don't get a game because the only other guy at the club/store looking for a game is someone you don't want to play. What if you don't think bringing a pair of bloodthirsters is wrong but your opponent sees you put them on the table and decides you aren't playing fair and decides he doesn't want to play you.

That kind of gak is how you get poor communities where people are excluded or chased off by people who should be excluded. Alternatively you can have the game rules do their job and keep things fair so that when a d*ck does show up he can't ruin everyone else's fun.

 bitethythumb wrote:
Blocks vs skirmish, take your pick... The thing I do not get is why did ye olde players not play KoW before AoS... KoW is clearly better than WHFB so why did they not just play that instead of "jumping ship"

Because 1st edition KOW was just ok. 2nd edition was improved drastically and is really well thought out. Also, because of the GW name. Lots of warhammer players have a hard time giving up GW. They've been described as abused wives who loyaly return to their husbands (GW) no matter how much GW fuks them over. Its the same reason why people even gave AOS a look and constantly make exscuses for it. Truth is, If the AOS rules were written by any other company, no one would give 2 gaks about it. But times are slowly changing, the GW name is becoming more and more tarnished. Not only are there better and cheaper games available, more and more LGS are dropping their line because of GW's insane and ridiculous trade agreements.

 bitethythumb wrote:

the simple "unit" damage alone breaks immersion (apparently units do not get weaker if they take damage and function just as good until they are removed) which is weird,

It is the same like in Warhammer

A unit of 20 needs 11 "wounds" until it loose 1 attack.
A KoW Regiment with 11 wounds would be already destroyed (average role of 7 with nerv 14)

So in Warhammer, removing models has the same effect like adding wound markers in KoW. It just reduces the passive boni (Nerv = Leadership + rank bonus)

Leaving the rules apart, I don't really see where is the trouble here.

The two games have different viewpoints on how to play your models. It has nothing to do with "narrative" or "competition" plays, those are players' preferences.

KoW considers everything from the unit. Individual models aren't the centerpiece, units are. They are formed, move and die as formations. Individual models are just here to tell how big is the unit and the number inside isn't really important - you could use awesome dioramas inside if you want.

AoS may be using units, but treat them as a number of set individual models. Losing or adding one makes a difference - and of course, formations are very loose and not so strict.


So, if you like to move big blocks of units that move/play as a single entity, KoW is best. If you would rather be free to move/play each model individually, AoS is better suited.

Each can be played from a competitive or narrative viewpoint (though for AoS, you will need to agree with your opponent about a way to balance each of your armies).

Why not both?

Both is best since you can use the same models.

Well this started off calmly and very quickly derailed into pro-AoS vs anti-AoS...

Go with what the calm people are saying. Try both, and reserve your opinions until you have. As you can see from the heated discussion some people like one and dislike the other, you won't know for sure until you try.

I think asking for advice on two very separate styles of game on the internet is quite brave!
Two of my friends became disillusioned with WFB over the last couple of years, so they moved onto KoW for a few games.
They liked it, but it didn't hold their interest for more than a month or so.
One is now massively into AoS, the other has pretty much hung up his movement trays for good.
Try both, but be prepared for the possibilities of 'both' and 'neither' as answers to the question.

AoS vs KoW?

Things In common:

They are both games where you spend money on toy soldiers which you have to paint yourself. You find an opponent then move your toy soldiers around a tabletop and roll some dice to decide who's the winner.

You can "Forge a narrative" identically with both. ie. Make up stories for you tabletop battle as you roll dice and push your toy soldiers around.

Differences:

KoW has a more rigid rules structure, but is certainly nothing like WFB used to be in max/min'ing and net lists.

AoS has/will have regular releases if you like to keep updating your army in an attempt to stay up to date / competitive

KoW allows you to use figures from any manufacturer.

AoS denies the existence of figures from any other manufacturer.

KoW is a game based on moving rectangular units of troops around. Such as multi-based (on a diaorama), or like WFB on a movement tray

AoS is about moving individual models around. ie. A skirmish

If you spend an identical amount of money on each, you will get a lot more toy soldiers to paint if you are a KoW player.

Which is best?
Well, having played both, I'd personally recommend choosing the one that most of your mates play.
You might decide otherwise but if you pick a game no-one you know plays, you're in for a dull time.


For me? No-one I know irl would touch AoS as a serious game with a bargepole so they play KoW and love it.

 Sigvatr wrote:
What do you want to get out of a game?

AoS is a terribly balanced, bare-bones ruleset with little to no development time. It is aimed at young players / players with little or no tabletop experience and requires you to know your opponent beforehand or, alternatively, carry your entire Warhammer collection around. It's good for quick, fun games on a skirmish level and rocks if you play with friends.

KoW is a well-balanced ruleset that recently got a new edition. It has been extensively playtested and re-balanced according to it. KoW is what WHFB wanted to be, a large scale, competitive fantasy tabletop game that also allows you to use your entire WHFB army collection in games. Games usually tend to take around 1-2 hours.

This pretty much sums it up.

 bitethythumb wrote:
Blocks vs skirmish, take your pick... The thing I do not get is why did ye olde players not play KoW before AoS... KoW is clearly better than WHFB so why did they not just play that instead of "jumping ship"

Flame bait.

KoW has external balance. It achieves this by being dull as gak with 5 spells, no interactive rolling or phase decisions on the opponents turn, and no unique army wide special rules for each faction to make them feel unique.

I will sacrifice a bit of balance for a game that isn't so standard and homogenized any day.

Have fun casting Zap.

 Thunderfrog wrote:

 bitethythumb wrote:
Blocks vs skirmish, take your pick... The thing I do not get is why did ye olde players not play KoW before AoS... KoW is clearly better than WHFB so why did they not just play that instead of "jumping ship"

Flame bait.

KoW has external balance. It achieves this by being dull as gak with 5 spells, no interactive rolling or phase decisions on the opponents turn, and no unique army wide special rules for each faction to make them feel unique.

I will sacrifice a bit of balance for a game that isn't so standard and homogenized any day.

Have fun casting Zap.

Calls something flame bait and proceeds to do the same. Classic. I mean in turn I could point out how grossly overpowered certain spells were in Fantasy or how the game favoured them and made large areas of the game infinitely inferior : ^ )

I think the biggest kek of this whole discussion is the term "WAAC". Fantasy was a game incredibly open to abuse by WAAC types, while Age of Sigmar is much the same.


Another great kek is how people claim they can't have their "unique" army in Kings of War, despite the fact the game gives you literally dozens of basically "blank slate". I'm sorry that some people need specially created profiles for specific units to construct their own, precious personal narrative.

Another thread in danger of being locked because people are behaving like idiots. Ah well.

My opinion:

There's is a strong element of personal taste here. I gave up on warhammer fantasy from 8th edition because I didn't like the way the game went. When AOS got released, my interest in fantasy returned.

I looked at KOW and I think the rules are well thought out, it is tight, and makes sense, but to me is just a bit soul-less. It doesn't feel like a living breathing world, the models arent as vibrant the imagery not evocative. Now it is true you can use your GW fantasy models playing this game and that to me is part of why it loses something in its brand. It feels like a catch all for disgruntled GW players. The game seems to have been designed to please people who are unhappy with warhammer fantasy, it contains the same races, and recently released the ratmen which is cynically trying to capture skaven players. For this reason it doesn't feel authentic.

AOS for all its faults, feels like a game where the models belong, and the imagery fits (whether you like the new mythologuy or not). It is not a perfect ruleset and if you play it in your gaming group, you will have to house rule it or use one of the many comp systems out there, azyr, clash, etc.

But you get to field ogre thundertusks, screaming bells, dwarf slayers and others in the environment where they belong and have the rules that fit them. You may say this is fluffy rubbish, but as a player I have to connect with the battlefield and my models. It isn't just about pushing models and rolling dice.

AOS is a more fluid system that needs work but to me has much more potential. It has a much more interesting mechanic with warscrolls and their synergies.

Just my opinion.

I think it is unfair to say KoW is there to appeal to the people who are unhappy with fantasy.

Rather it was a ruleset made to appeal to the game designers who made fantasy but didn't like what GW twisted it into.

 Thunderfrog wrote:


KoW has external balance. It achieves this by being dull as gak with 5 spells, no interactive rolling or phase decisions on the opponents turn, and no unique army wide special rules for each faction to make them feel unique.

I will sacrifice a bit of balance for a game that isn't so standard and homogenized any day.

And when I compare gameplay, 2 different dwarf lists in KoW behave more different on the table than all Warhammer armys together.
So the number of special rules and magic spells gives no info about how unique each faction is.....

Why would you butn your armies and all that nonsense? You can use them and play with them? They have rules out for every model they put out. Its really hard to see what all the complaining is about. They obviously had to try something new.

TBH, I have never really liked KoW all that much. It feels extremely bland and oversimplified. It may be good for competitive gaming, but I found it hard to set up interesting and varied games for a narrative campaign with it. I like Warhammer 8th much better, which is still fully playable.
AoS is also a huge lot of fun, but not really comparable to KoW or Warhammer as it feels very different. Of the two, I'd go for AoS though.

KoW is the perfect companion for mantic figures - since both are meh

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
AoS vs KoW?

Things In common:

They are both games where you spend money on toy soldiers which you have to paint yourself. You find an opponent then move your toy soldiers around a tabletop and roll some dice to decide who's the winner.

You can "Forge a narrative" identically with both. ie. Make up stories for you tabletop battle as you roll dice and push your toy soldiers around.

Differences:

KoW has a more rigid rules structure, but is certainly nothing like WFB used to be in max/min'ing and net lists.

AoS has/will have regular releases if you like to keep updating your army in an attempt to stay up to date / competitive

KoW allows you to use figures from any manufacturer.

AoS denies the existence of figures from any other manufacturer.

KoW is a game based on moving rectangular units of troops around. Such as multi-based (on a diaorama), or like WFB on a movement tray

AoS is about moving individual models around. ie. A skirmish

If you spend an identical amount of money on each, you will get a lot more toy soldiers to paint if you are a KoW player.

Which is best?
Well, having played both, I'd personally recommend choosing the one that most of your mates play.
You might decide otherwise but if you pick a game no-one you know plays, you're in for a dull time.


For me? No-one I know irl would touch AoS as a serious game with a bargepole so they play KoW and love it.

The one about AoS denying the existence of other miniatures is a lie, AoS has nothing to do with GW store rules... Its clear your list is biased and likely anti GW because a lot of the things you associate a lot of negatives with AoS but most are not actually based on AoS rather the company GW.. Like having to update your army to be competitive is irrelevant as AoS has no army structure and is mainly scenario based, no need for competitive lists or spending equal amounts of money on both armies, you would have more to paint but KoW minis look rather bad compared to GW productions... So quality over quantity.

Put them on square bases and play both. Figure out for yourself with game you like better. They both have free rules so no excuse for trying them both out. Also find out what's played in your area, hard to play a game when you have no opponents. If neither game is played in your area trying starting a group using the free rules of both games then take a vote of which game the group preferred. Find out what game your FLGS supports, are they going to be holding game night or tournaments?

 bitethythumb wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
AoS vs KoW?

Things In common:
They are both games where you spend money on toy soldiers which you have to paint yourself. You find an opponent then move your toy soldiers around a tabletop and roll some dice to decide who's the winner.
You can "Forge a narrative" identically with both. ie. Make up stories for you tabletop battle as you roll dice and push your toy soldiers around.

Differences:
KoW has a more rigid rules structure, but is certainly nothing like WFB used to be in max/min'ing and net lists.
AoS has/will have regular releases if you like to keep updating your army in an attempt to stay up to date / competitive
KoW allows you to use figures from any manufacturer.
AoS denies the existence of figures from any other manufacturer.
KoW is a game based on moving rectangular units of troops around. Such as multi-based (on a diaorama), or like WFB on a movement tray
AoS is about moving individual models around. ie. A skirmish
If you spend an identical amount of money on each, you will get a lot more toy soldiers to paint if you are a KoW player.

Which is best?
Well, having played both, I'd personally recommend choosing the one that most of your mates play.
You might decide otherwise but if you pick a game no-one you know plays, you're in for a dull time.


For me? No-one I know irl would touch AoS as a serious game with a bargepole so they play KoW and love it.

The one about AoS denying the existence of other miniatures is a lie, AoS has nothing to do with GW store rules... Its clear your list is biased and likely anti GW because a lot of the things you associate a lot of negatives with AoS but most are not actually based on AoS rather the company GW.. Like having to update your army to be competitive is irrelevant as AoS has no army structure and is mainly scenario based, no need for competitive lists or spending equal amounts of money on both armies, you would have more to paint but KoW minis look rather bad compared to GW productions... So quality over quantity.

I wrote that list while on my mobile. I have sausage fingers and wanted to keep things short and easy to spot the main differences.

My points might not all have been as clear as your posts, but I think most Dakka posters understand my point about AoS denying the existence of other minis. We all know if I go to a KoW tournament - even at Mantic HQ - I'll be ok using my GW figures. Can I do the same at a GW store / tournament / HQ? You know the answer. So my post was pretty clear.

As for you saying my list is anti-GW? I'm sure my final verdict said:

Gimgamgoo wrote:
Which is best?
Well, having played both, I'd personally recommend choosing the one that most of your mates play.
You might decide otherwise but if you pick a game no-one you know plays, you're in for a dull time.

Which tells the user that the best game to play and enjoy is the one all their mates are currently playing, GW or KoW.

Don't jump to conclusions about me in your holier than thou defense of GW. I'm a teacher, I've run a Warhammer/40K club at the school I teach in for nearly 20 years now. As GW prices have scaled higher, I've seen the club decimated, but still continue it. In fact last July I had a potential new player asking about it. We chatted all lunch and I allowed him to borrow my 40k hardback to take home for the summer holidays. He came back today to see me all excited and telling me what army he now has and arranged a game for next Wednesday lunch. Anti-GW. Yeah, sure I am.

As I stated, I play KoW now rather than WFB, however, my last few units for my KoW Orc army have been GW Orc chariots and GW Black Orcs. Anti-GW? Obviously. /sigh
I also bought an Ophidian Archway whilst spending a pleasant afternoon in a GW store this summer holiday. It'll make a good addition to my Frostgrave scenery.

Do I dislike AoS?
I think it's a good business decision by GW to be able to bring in younger players. However, the miniature scale creep is setting in again making figure sizes less compatible with other manufacturers. Which means maybe less people will purchase GW products for other games. That's GW's loss of sales. I do see it as an attempt with the synergies/buffs etc to try to mix a kind of MtG idea into their gameplay. I don't like it myself, but who am I to say what other people will like, I'll just offer my opinion and try to state facts. I'm not bashing AoS or anyone that plays it in the way some GW players seem to do with their fear of KoW as it's stealing away GWers.

And speaking of jumping to conclusions, I find it a little coincidental that you created this account on the exact day that AoS was announced officially in WD and all the negative flak started in these forums
All you have seem to have done since, is jump down the throat of anyone disliking AoS and defending the game yourself, putting down anything else on the way. I know there's others that do the same. Talys and Jah could paint twice as much as they do if they weren't defending GW on this forum - but they do it eloquently and factually. I have a great deal of respect for those 2 users, despite not always agreeing with what they say. I'm not so sure with your rantings.

"AoS denies the existence of figures from any other manufacturer."

Ah, lets see... the rules and warscrolls for age of sigmar are free as well (that was a bonus point for kow in your post). I can use any minis/proxy them with my free warscrolls just as you can with the free rules for kow. The last two games I played my opponent used other minis to represent gw stuff from the lizardmen.

Really the only 'unboased' differences are the following:

AOS is a Skirmish game, KOW is a unit block based game

And

Personal preference for fluff, asthetics, play style

So you're all saying I can bring my KoW models to play AoS at an official GW event in a GW store?

 jonolikespie wrote:
So you're all saying I can bring my KoW models to play AoS at an official GW event in a GW store?

nope... Gw has strict preference on using's its own models, as the leading manufacturers in miniatures and the only company with world wide stores it needs to maintain its upper hand in the market, its very stupid as a business model to let you use models from other competitors... Unless you play at a none gw store tournament in a nine gw store where they so not care... But this has nothing to do with AoS and everything to do with GW

 bitethythumb wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
So you're all saying I can bring my KoW models to play AoS at an official GW event in a GW store?

nope... Gw has strict preference on using's its own models, as the leading manufacturers in miniatures and the only company with world wide stores it needs to maintain its upper hand in the market, its very stupid as a business model to let you use models from other competitors... Unless you play at a none gw store tournament in a nine gw store where they so not care... But this has nothing to do with AoS and everything to do with GW

None of that matters to me, the consumer.

KoW allowing other companies models does open up options, regardless of personal opinion on which models are better.

It is a point for KoW/against AoS that you can use other companies models.


Going off on a tangent too, are GW the leading miniature manufacturer? I'd have thought it would be someone like Reaper, Bandai or Tamiya. And the point about GW having worldwide stores is hilarious, as those stores are costing more than half their yearly revenue to keep open. Other companies are simply working with FLGSs, which helps small businesses and the local communities. That is good for the customers.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 bitethythumb wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
So you're all saying I can bring my KoW models to play AoS at an official GW event in a GW store?

nope... Gw has strict preference on using's its own models, as the leading manufacturers in miniatures and the only company with world wide stores it needs to maintain its upper hand in the market, its very stupid as a business model to let you use models from other competitors... Unless you play at a none gw store tournament in a nine gw store where they so not care... But this has nothing to do with AoS and everything to do with GW

None of that matters to me, the consumer.

KoW allowing other companies models does open up options, regardless of personal opinion on which models are better.

It is a point for KoW/against AoS that you can use other companies models.


Going off on a tangent too, are GW the leading miniature manufacturer? I'd have thought it would be someone like Reaper, Bandai or Tamiya. And the point about GW having worldwide stores is hilarious, as those stores are costing more than half their yearly revenue to keep open. Other companies are simply working with FLGSs, which helps small businesses and the local communities. That is good for the customers.

While there are A LOT of manufacturers that are way ahead of GW in miniature production I know for sure Gundam model company had like 600 million dollars profit or something recently. So that is one company way ahead of GW already but there are plenty more, especially for the historical market.