Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It is definately an acquired taste. It reminds me alot of the game "carnage" in that its not serious as a game. I play it alot as I have limited time to play real games, but when I do have time for a real game, AoS doesnt make the cut.

Hettar wrote:
Going back to what how many times do you have to play sigmar before you can make a review, i played it 3 times a week since it came out and since then i've tried all the points systems, i've tried all the player made FAQ's and errata's and ive definitely tried all the scenario's in every book and the conclusion is that its still gak!

My local GW hasnt sold any thing for age of sigmar since november and on a whole except the xmas virgins most stores were down 60% down in sales from last year, oh dear what has gone wrong? commence operation knee-jerk in earnest!

Even GW has acknowledged that AOS is pretty much a disaster salewise. They'll either do some massive changes to the game or they'll drop it soon.

I recently found out it's actually quite popular with some of the older players around here Who play it with their children using models from their youth and the free rules. Too bad for GW.

 streetsamurai wrote:



Even GW has acknowledged that AOS is pretty much a disaster salewise. .

When did they say this?

Hettar wrote:
Just love fantasy in general so i persevered as i could, trying every different angle i could find.

I had this view as well as I didn't want my fantasy models to go unused but gave up after just over a month simply because the game is boring to play, the same things always happen each game, your models get closer and closer until they just form a massive blob of plastic in the middle of the board resulting in the longest, most boring combat phase ever made, the fact that you take it in turns doesn't streamline the game at all as most of the time is spent trying to remember who has attacked and who hasn't. roling to see who goes first each turn is also boring as if you go first in one turn and then on the next you go second it means your opponent has a huge advantage as the can move up and attack almost immediately while you are just waiting about watching for ages while your army gets decimated. playing against armies like ogres is boring as they steamroll you before your units that may have a slim chance of hurting them can attack (ogres going first is BS, there was a reason the initiative steps existed). in the end I gave up though just simply because the remaining players (we are now down to 3 at time of writing, bearing in mind we had about 20 fantasy players before) just completely exploited the rules to the point where you couldn't beat them, (and I'm not talking about kairos and the screaming bell combo).
all in all the game is utter tripe, I can't imagine that it was ever play tested properly if at all, like I said in another thread, the game isn't even half baked, gw simply dropped it on the floor on the way to the oven and gave us the resultant mess.
also interestingly on GW's old youtube channel there is a video of jervis saying how great the (8th) is (specifically how you go about building an army and how amazing the setting is) in an interview about it's design. fething hypocrite.

 agnosto wrote:
Google can tell you how often words are searched for:
https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=AoS%2C%20Age%20of%20Sigmar%2C%20Sigmar&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT%2B6

AoS is generally searched for in relation to aos pais with top search country being Mozambique.

Age of Sigmar - search volume peaked in Nov 2015 and has been declining since.

Ok, how do we take this seriously. I mean results from 2005?

AOS played with the default scenario and sudden death rules is pretty poor and often does result in the massive battle royal in the middle of the table.

I have found that the scenarios are quite different and the game is a lot of fun when I use those instead of the default "battle line".

auticus wrote:
AOS played with the default scenario and sudden death rules is pretty poor and often does result in the massive battle royal in the middle of the table.

I have found that the scenarios are quite different and the game is a lot of fun when I use those instead of the default "battle line".

Seconded, exalted, couldn't agree more.

puree wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

Which makes the game definitely less interesting for gamers!

Definitely ? That is one hell of a sweeping statement, with no obvious evidence to back it up.

I am a gamer. Lack of points is in no way making it less interesting, it makes it more interesting.

It may make it less interesting to competitive gamers who need some way of saying we had equal armies so my win was down to my skill at list building/playing. But don't lump all gamers in the competitive subset.

The lack of interesting missions and no balancing system makes me scratch my head.
If you play a default game, it will end up in a grand melee in the centre of the table. If you play a few games like this, it will get absolutely boring.

 wuestenfux wrote:

The lack of interesting missions

Best laugh of the day. AoS already has 4 times the number of 'official' scenarios WFB ever had, and even with the random elements of 40k scenarios AoS still wins on variety.

RoperPG wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

The lack of interesting missions

Best laugh of the day. AoS already has 4 times the number of 'official' scenarios WFB ever had, and even with the random elements of 40k scenarios AoS still wins on variety.

Variety =/= Interesting.

It crashed and burned at my FLGS, lots of initial interest with the new release but as soon as people realized there was no balancing system (aka points or something like it) it fell apart real quick, to much room for abuse. Honestly for me the lack of strategy in the game is what bugs me, every game has turned into a mosh pit in the middle regardless of what anyone did. The new models however we all agree look great but they are all going to be used for 40k Conversions or 9th Age, AoS had alot of potential and I wish GW had executed it better.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

The lack of interesting missions

Best laugh of the day. AoS already has 4 times the number of 'official' scenarios WFB ever had, and even with the random elements of 40k scenarios AoS still wins on variety.

Variety =/= Interesting.

Sorry, *second* best laugh of the day.

 gmaleron wrote:
It crashed and burned at my FLGS, lots of initial interest with the new release but as soon as people realized there was no balancing system (aka points or something like it) it fell apart real quick, to much room for abuse. Honestly for me the lack of strategy in the game is what bugs me, every game has turned into a mosh pit in the middle regardless of what anyone did. The new models however we all agree look great but they are all going to be used for 40k Conversions or 9th Age, AoS had alot of potential and I wish GW had executed it better.

Mosh pit is usually a sign of people thinking AoS is 8th and putting way too little terrain on the table, which is about as much fun as playing Necromunda on an open plain.

RoperPG wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
The lack of interesting missions

Best laugh of the day. AoS already has 4 times the number of 'official' scenarios WFB ever had, and even with the random elements of 40k scenarios AoS still wins on variety.

Variety =/= Interesting.

Sorry, *second* best laugh of the day.

Are you going to make a point or are you just posting for the hell of it?

I was under the impression the humour was self evident.
Stating there aren't any interesting missions, and then stating variety isn't interesting?
AoS already has more missions than any other GW system ever has - and they aren't rehashes of 'deploy like this' and/or 'be stood next to this thing by turn X'.
So the first statement was demonstrably false, the second is a qualitative argument but shows either an ignorance of available materials or sets a bar so high I fail to see how any current 'major' game system can compete.
Even the doorstop of scenarios that comprises PP's annual steamroller event pack fails that test.

RoperPG wrote:
I was under the impression the humour was self evident.
Stating there aren't any interesting missions, and then stating variety isn't interesting?
AoS already has more missions than any other GW system ever has - and they aren't rehashes of 'deploy like this' and/or 'be stood next to this thing by turn X'.
So the first statement was demonstrably false, the second is a qualitative argument but shows either an ignorance of available materials or sets a bar so high I fail to see how any current 'major' game system can compete.
Even the doorstop of scenarios that comprises PP's annual steamroller event pack fails that test.

I was pointing at the fact that those are two Very different notions.

Something can be varied without being interesting to someone. wuestenfux was never denying the variety of AoS's scenarios in that little snippet you decided to laugh about - just their inability to catch his interest.

And yet PP does have world championships and does in fact draw numbers to lots of events on a worldwide scale with those event packs.

 jonolikespie wrote:
And yet PP does have world championships and does in fact draw numbers to lots of events on a worldwide scale with those event packs.

That's competitive stuff Jono, you gotta remember GW doesn't do "that thing" anymore. It's heresy of the highest order!

The lack of missions for WHFB has never been held up as a reason for the game's demise.

People seem either to have been satisfied with the missions provided, or capable of creating their own missions.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The lack of missions for WHFB has never been held up as a reason for the game's demise.

People seem either to have been satisfied with the missions provided, or capable of creating their own missions.

Indeed. Most people I knew did in fact ignore the other missions and went straight for battleline, and no one ever complained about it. Instead of complaining they either A) asked if I wanted to play a different mission from the book, or B) came up with their own mission and included it their tourney pack for people to play.

 Mymearan wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:
It crashed and burned at my FLGS, lots of initial interest with the new release but as soon as people realized there was no balancing system (aka points or something like it) it fell apart real quick, to much room for abuse. Honestly for me the lack of strategy in the game is what bugs me, every game has turned into a mosh pit in the middle regardless of what anyone did. The new models however we all agree look great but they are all going to be used for 40k Conversions or 9th Age, AoS had alot of potential and I wish GW had executed it better.

Mosh pit is usually a sign of people thinking AoS is 8th and putting way too little terrain on the table, which is about as much fun as playing Necromunda on an open plain.

From my playing experience I agree wholeheartedly! You want very high levels of terrain for a good game (especially if it's just a pitched battle). One of the best parts of AoS is the ability to include lots of terrain so don't limit yourself! Buy a Gardens of Moor and set up everything spaced out~ set up a board that looks more akin to a Mordheim table.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
And yet PP does have world championships and does in fact draw numbers to lots of events on a worldwide scale with those event packs.

That's competitive stuff Jono, you gotta remember GW doesn't do "that thing" anymore. It's heresy of the highest order!

If anything that only serves to reinforce my point. The steamroller pack contains masses of scenarios, but the majority of them revolve around 'kill or score points', with a few extra rules thrown in.
Yet they're popular, as demonstrated. The AoS scenarios contain a number of different ideas with similar themes, but if you're writing them off as uninteresting/not varied then objectively the PP steamroller fails to meet the same bar.

Most people i know who played fantasy although they had 6 scenario's to choose from over and over again choose to do battle line as it was most fun for them and i would let them because a straight up battle was fun and entertaining. Straight up battle worked because the mechanics of the game were complex and simulated battle in a way that made sense and because the mechanics were complex you could as a player interact with them in many ways that didn't break the game that introduced great tactics as a result, march blocking, double fleeing, Frenzy baiting etc as the list goes on and on but with Age of sigmar all those those tactics go out the window. As for AoS scenario's you might say that there is a lot variety but nearly 90% of the scenario's fall apart when one of the players decides to win it the deployment phase. My local GW manager try's to tell me that with sigmar if you do not bring Archeon or Nagash or fill the table up pay to win style the you are the new "that guy" making every one else feel bad but this was never what gaming was supposed to be in my mind!

now that i think about it age of kiddimar should be a show on CBBies!

Then your local GW manager's an idiot.

Hettar wrote:
Most people i know who played fantasy although they had 6 scenario's to choose from over and over again choose to do battle line as it was most fun for them and i would let them because a straight up battle was fun and entertaining. Straight up battle worked because the mechanics of the game were complex and simulated battle in a way that made sense and because the mechanics were complex you could as a player interact with them in many ways that didn't break the game that introduced great tactics as a result, march blocking, double fleeing, Frenzy baiting etc as the list goes on and on but with Age of sigmar all those those tactics go out the window. As for AoS scenario's you might say that there is a lot variety but nearly 90% of the scenario's fall apart when one of the players decides to win it the deployment phase. My local GW manager try's to tell me that with sigmar if you do not bring Archeon or Nagash or fill the table up pay to win style the you are the new "that guy" making every one else feel bad but this was never what gaming was supposed to be in my mind!

now that i think about it age of kiddimar should be a show on CBBies!

Wait is your local meta telling you that you're That Guy because you want to play AoS in the funny, casual, way it was intended instead of breaking the game like everyone else?

In trying to make a game that was fun for all they ended up making a game called "WAAC that guy"

Darn. It's almost like a game with no structure to keep people in line has a problem with people crossing the line.

RoperPG wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
And yet PP does have world championships and does in fact draw numbers to lots of events on a worldwide scale with those event packs.

That's competitive stuff Jono, you gotta remember GW doesn't do "that thing" anymore. It's heresy of the highest order!

If anything that only serves to reinforce my point. The steamroller pack contains masses of scenarios, but the majority of them revolve around 'kill or score points', with a few extra rules thrown in.
Yet they're popular, as demonstrated. The AoS scenarios contain a number of different ideas with similar themes, but if you're writing them off as uninteresting/not varied then objectively the PP steamroller fails to meet the same bar.

Allow me to say this again. Just because something offers hundreds or thousands of variations, it doesn't mean it's automatically interesting to every single person on the face of the Earth. It doesn't matter how many there are. They could be the most amazing, outstanding things every created to Y person, while to X person they could be as interesting as watching flies feth.

You're basing your whole point on the validation of quality through quantity, by stating that in some way just because GW has produced dozens more of scenarios than Fantasy ever did that it automatically becomes a more interesting game for everyone. I won't argue on the fact that GW has cranked out dozens more scenarios for AoS than for FB. That's a fact. It's as simple as that. What you can't tell me (or anyone really) is that everyone should find it interesting just because there's a huge variety of scenarios, when that is all up to personal preference, and degrading them by calling their personal preferences "the laugh of the day".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Darn. It's almost like a game with no structure to keep people in line has a problem with people crossing the line.

I'd say it's more like the company has a problem

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

You're basing your whole point on the validation of quality through quantity, by stating that in some way just because GW has produced dozens more of scenarios than Fantasy ever did that it automatically becomes a more interesting game for everyone.

Uh, no. No I was not.
There were two arguments. One, that there were *no* interesting scenarios, and the other that numbers did not equal interesting.

My point is that looked at objectively, AoS has more scenarios than WFB ever did.
That is fact.
In terms of "interesting", my point was that there is greater variation in the available scenarios than just " stand here " or "kill that". Which broadly describes the basic premise of the Steamroller event pack scenarios.
So frankly, if you don't find variation interesting but *do* find fractionally different iterations of the same idea interesting, I'd suggest you're being disingenuous.
"Interesting" and "good" not being the same thing, by the way.
Just to clarify, I like the Steamroller pack. But it's designed for a game that is intended to be aggressively competitive, rather than just something to enjoy playing. So if you don't like AoS you won't see the fun in the scenarios in the first place, I guess.