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.

Hi this may be a stupid question so I apologise in advance. After getting tired of 40k I decide to buy the AOS starter. Last time I played fantasy I used Hordes of Chaos with a pure khorne army, so I have decided to go for a bloodbound army and I am looking forward to something very different to 40k. I have heard bad things said about AOS, the one that worries me is apparently it's very restrictive!! I have been eyeing the bloodthirster but before I put the money down for it I want to know if I'm able to use alongside the bloodbound? I know there's an AOS app but I'm a bit old school and like a rulebook in front of me. Will download the app eventually. Any other advice for an AOS noob would be appreciated.

All scrolls can be used at any time, in any combination. You can decided to make a "wild hunt" army, and use forrest goblins, wood elves, treeman, and beasts of chaos if you want.

There are four rough factions, order, chaos, death, and destruction.

Anything for chaos falls under the chaos faction, so all beastman, warriors of chaos, and demons of chaos fall under that.

However you can field anything you like. players seem to like some sort of coherent thought, so you would want a chaos story to explain why a unit of High Elf Reavers is in you Choas army, but it's not required.

EDIT: I personally find pitched battles don't work, and like in 40K "The more terrain the better the game." If you don't have access to the AoS supplements, I'd suggest just using 40k missions, they are a lot of fun in fantasy. just use infantry as scoring units, monstrous creatures as tanks, wizards as pskers, etc.

I don't see why anyone would think it is restrictive. The game allows you to use any combination of models in your collection, providing you choose a war scroll to suit.

There are organised factions, like Order and Chaos who are against each other, but it's easy to make up an excuse to allow them to team up to fight a major Death invasion, for instance.

If you can't find a war scroll to suit whatever model you want to play with, you can just modify one by changing the stats a bit.

Overall the game plays a lot more like 40K than WHFB, so you should feel at home pretty quickly.

AoS is the exact opposite of restrictive.

It's inherent lack of a balancing system and "play what you want, how you want" philosophy is a direct expansion on 40k's Unbound. So, if you like Unbound, you'll be right at home with AoS.

Now go add some Elves to your Bloodbound "army"!

Cheers guys, The guy who told me that AOS is restrictive has obviously NOT played it and is talking crap. Glad I dived in. I don't understand all the hate for AOS If it plays like 40k unbound? And do the models rank up anymore now they are on circular bases or is it unit coherency of so many inches?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
AoS is the exact opposite of restrictive.

It's inherent lack of a balancing system and "play what you want, how you want" philosophy is a direct expansion on 40k's Unbound. So, if you like Unbound, you'll be right at home with AoS.

Now go add some Elves to your Bloodbound "army"!

Never liked elves apart from the elder scrolls dark elves so it is highly unlikely you will find any in my bloodbound force but I may go buy that bloodthirster later....

 Sword Of Caliban wrote:
Cheers guys, The guy who told me that AOS is restrictive has obviously NOT played it and is talking crap. Glad I dived in. I don't understand all the hate for AOS If it plays like 40k unbound? And do the models rank up anymore now they are on circular bases or is it unit coherency of so many inches?

I am pretty sure you can find the reasons for the... intense criticism of AoS very easily - just look at some of the threads that have the most pages.

As for the rules - it's far easier if you just go to the GW page and check the 4 page rulebook for all the questions. It'll take you like 5 minutes to read.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sword Of Caliban wrote:
Never liked elves apart from the elder scrolls dark elves so it is highly unlikely you will find any in my bloodbound force but I may go buy that bloodthirster later....

I was being ironic

A lot of the hate comes from the fact that army building is literally "put whatever you want on the table". There is no points system.

 Sword Of Caliban wrote:
I don't understand all the hate for AOS If it plays like 40k unbound? And do the models rank up anymore now they are on circular bases or is it unit coherency of so many inches?

No more blocks of units. Models must end their movements within 1" of other models in their units. If they end up out of coherency, they must use their next movement phase to form up again. Those rules, mixed with the 3" zone of control surrounding each model makes formations and positioning very important, but there are no explicit formations in the rules themselves.

As for where the hate comes from, a large majority of it comes from a combination of Age of Sigmar replacing Warhammer Fantasy Battles and a general dislike of anything Games Workshop does or has ever done. There are some people who legitimately don't enjoy the game, but they tend to be a bit more tepid in their responses - more snooty indifference than hate.

Just keep in mind that all rules written by GW are meant for friendly games only... meaning that you and your opponent discuss before the game and during the game how things will be set up and how rules will be interpreted.

That said, AoS is EXTREMELY open (as in non-restrictive). What you get from GW are just guidelines. If you and the other player want to modify some of the rules to make the game more fun for both of you, then go right ahead. That's what GW wants you to do.

SG

You know tournament games are supposed to be friendly too but I don't think that's what you meant.

All GW rules have emphasised friendly play for the last 30 years. GW seem to have decided to remove themselves from as much of the nitpicky side of things that go with allot of "serious" play.

They are not alone in this desire but few have made it as blatant as GW have done with AoS. I have seen articles by Alessio Calvatore (in Wargames Illustrated) and Rick Priestley (in WSS I think?) who both express exasperation at the changes TO's and players make in the name of balance.

As to the OP, if you have an Army already then you are well set up to give AoS a try as it's all free. There are a number of experienced players at my club who are enjoying the games immensely.

You might want to take a look at MongooseMatt's threads if you are interested in AoS, He conveys a good enthusiasm for the game and his experiences which I would suggest might be more helpful than online hearsay.

Advice: Just give it a go. Over 25 years I can't count the number of games I thought I would enjoy but didn't or the opposite. You just have to play it.

Your question has been answered OP - I thought I'd just contribute to why the AOS hate everywhere? From my perspective, it mainly boils down to GW turned their back on "serious play" (its true tournaments should be friendly too, and I realize what people mean when they say friendly play but by and large the people that I read about and know in real life that don't like it are the ones that are very much into tournament play and serious play)

The rest I think is valid but secondary. Mantic's world is not very good IMO but because it is catering very much to serious play (per Alessio's facebook, it was designed specifically for tournament players) all of that doesn't really matter.

I strongly feel if AOS had kept "serious play" in its equation that the world blowing up stuff may have annoyed people but in general the level of hate wouldn't have been that much.

Forums tend to be a hive for serious minded players to discuss strategies etc, so on forums you won't find many fans of AOS when the game is very loose and casual.

I'm a part of a couple of highly active facebook groups, you may consider looking for some of those if you are a fan.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Sword Of Caliban wrote:
I don't understand all the hate for AOS If it plays like 40k unbound? And do the models rank up anymore now they are on circular bases or is it unit coherency of so many inches?

No more blocks of units. Models must end their movements within 1" of other models in their units. If they end up out of coherency, they must use their next movement phase to form up again. Those rules, mixed with the 3" zone of control surrounding each model makes formations and positioning very important, but there are no explicit formations in the rules themselves.

True that their is no official formations for your units but that shouldn't stop you from being creative.

http://warhammer-empire.com/theforum/index.php/topic,50853.0.html

Also, agreed with Auticus, it was even admitted by a few that a lack of points was the biggest disappointment to the old guard.

If GW ever decides to make something to cater to them (though the Azyr system is amazing already) then I fully expect AoS to push back up in popularity.

You can put your models into block formations if you want, and there will be a benefit in terms of getting more figures into range for combat. It isn't required, and there are no formation based rules like rank bonuses or flank vulnerability.

Thanks for the info guys, I'm kind of glad it's a but less serious I never really took well to competitive play, I'm usually kind of relaxed about whether I win or lose and I'm not a rules junkie.

Don't you worry that if your opponents are as relaxed as you, they may veto the bloodthirster?

Makumba wrote:
Don't you worry that if your opponents are as relaxed as you, they may veto the bloodthirster?

Or whatever they feel isn't casual enough, really.

Do you usually "veto" stuff in your casual games? Communicating and agreeing is what I do.

 Mymearan wrote:
Do you usually "veto" stuff in your casual games? You usually communicate and agree.

So if you and your friend agree to not use X or Y model, aren't you essentially vetoing it from your games?

Well "veto" implies an uncompromising stance, which I have never encountered myself. Anyway, I can't see that happening if you're using a points system. If you're not, just ask him why he doesn't want you to use it, and then remove some of your other units until he's ok with it. Or just use a points system

I am unlikely to get sick of this point, because it's ace;
MongooseMatt's write up of his recent WHW event.
He played a 'pitched battle', limited to 20 models, facing Nagash *and* Skarbrand...
...and won.
Admittedly against 'new' players, but as those two guys (or rather, Nagash and a Bloodthirster) are normally the go-to examples rolled out to demonstrate the inherent issues of not having comp or 'TFG', I genuinely laughed when I read it.

RoperPG wrote:
I am unlikely to get sick of this point, because it's ace;
MongooseMatt's write up of his recent WHW event.
He played a 'pitched battle', limited to 20 models, facing Nagash *and* Skarbrand...
...and won.
Admittedly against 'new' players, but as those two guys (or rather, Nagash and a Bloodthirster) are normally the go-to examples rolled out to demonstrate the inherent issues of not having comp or 'TFG', I genuinely laughed when I read it.

Even a WK spam list can lose if the player has no fething clue of what he/she is doing Juuuust sayin'

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You can put your models into block formations if you want, and there will be a benefit in terms of getting more figures into range for combat. It isn't required, and there are no formation based rules like rank bonuses or flank vulnerability.

I still use a lot of ranked units, for this exact reason! Blocks of spears on 20mm bases (skaven) can fight three ranks deep when they flatten out. As an added benefit, there are no AoE weapons or effects in the game, so you don't lose anything by keeping models in base to base contact. You can also make mixed units by taking several units and "layering" them for affect. (pike and shot units, or my current favorite, ten plague monks with two CC weapons in front, with ten plague monks with staff and CC weapons in the back.

I also find they can make larger model count games go faster. You do need to flatten them out once in combat if playing RAW, but you can make arrangements with your opponent ahead of time to keep them in blocks during play. (Azyr comp even gives bonuses for blocks I think.)

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

RoperPG wrote:
I am unlikely to get sick of this point, because it's ace;
MongooseMatt's write up of his recent WHW event.
He played a 'pitched battle', limited to 20 models, facing Nagash *and* Skarbrand...
...and won.
Admittedly against 'new' players, but as those two guys (or rather, Nagash and a Bloodthirster) are normally the go-to examples rolled out to demonstrate the inherent issues of not having comp or 'TFG', I genuinely laughed when I read it.

Even a WK spam list can lose if the player has no fething clue of what he/she is doing Juuuust sayin'

Oh, entirely. And this was obviously only a single game.
But it still demonstrates the point that rolling out a 'big bad' in a small matchup isn't always the gamebreaking evidence it's portrayed as.

 Mymearan wrote:
Do you usually "veto" stuff in your casual games? Communicating and agreeing is what I do.

Well if you assume that agreement to play is needed for a game, and AoS is play with what ever you want, then of course people will say that they don't want to see this or that unit or combo or terrain etc. Why wouldn't they do, if the game happens, then it will only happen the way they want it. So if they don't want a BT, there won't be one. And considering that a BT is an actualy good model, the chance for it to be vetoed is higher then let say 10 goblins.

Admittedly against 'new' players, but as those two guys (or rather, Nagash and a Bloodthirster) are normally the go-to examples rolled out to demonstrate the inherent issues of not having comp or 'TFG', I genuinely laughed when I read it.

Yeah if you house rule the number of models/wounds and the summon system, which more less is a type of veto system. Uncontralable a nagash summoning stuff, is realy hard to counter, if you don't go first.

Makumba wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
Do you usually "veto" stuff in your casual games? Communicating and agreeing is what I do.

Well if you assume that agreement to play is needed for a game, and AoS is play with what ever you want, then of course people will say that they don't want to see this or that unit or combo or terrain etc. Why wouldn't they do, if the game happens, then it will only happen the way they want it. So if they don't want a BT, there won't be one. And considering that a BT is an actualy good model, the chance for it to be vetoed is higher then let say 10 goblins.

Admittedly against 'new' players, but as those two guys (or rather, Nagash and a Bloodthirster) are normally the go-to examples rolled out to demonstrate the inherent issues of not having comp or 'TFG', I genuinely laughed when I read it.

Yeah if you house rule the number of models/wounds and the summon system, which more less is a type of veto system. Uncontralable a nagash summoning stuff, is realy hard to counter, if you don't go first.

Uh, no.
Read the report. They limited to 20 purely on time constraints.
No constraints on summoning.

Makumba wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
Do you usually "veto" stuff in your casual games? Communicating and agreeing is what I do.

Well if you assume that agreement to play is needed for a game, and AoS is play with what ever you want, then of course people will say that they don't want to see this or that unit or combo or terrain etc. Why wouldn't they do, if the game happens, then it will only happen the way they want it. So if they don't want a BT, there won't be one. And considering that a BT is an actualy good model, the chance for it to be vetoed is higher then let say 10 goblins.

I've never seen a situation like that and I don't expect I ever will. Assuming you're talking about me going to play someone with my Bloodthirster, and them saying "remove it, or I won't play you". Seems like that would be a pretty awkward person I wouldn't want to play anyway.

 Mymearan wrote:

Makumba wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
Do you usually "veto" stuff in your casual games? Communicating and agreeing is what I do.

Well if you assume that agreement to play is needed for a game, and AoS is play with what ever you want, then of course people will say that they don't want to see this or that unit or combo or terrain etc. Why wouldn't they do, if the game happens, then it will only happen the way they want it. So if they don't want a BT, there won't be one. And considering that a BT is an actualy good model, the chance for it to be vetoed is higher then let say 10 goblins.

I've never seen a situation like that and I don't expect I ever will. Assuming you're talking about me going to play someone with my Bloodthirster, and them saying "remove it, or I won't play you". Seems like that would be a pretty awkward person I wouldn't want to play anyway.

With all due respect Mym, what you're pretty much saying is that you're going to play with what you want to play, regardless of what others say in the matter...

The way I've seen it usually go is that rather than 'please don't take x', it becomes 'if you're taking X, can I take more Y or add Z?'

For example, one of my regular opponents loves him some Warmachines.
We temper that by me normally adding models to units or adding more units to allow for attrition.
No reason that doesn't work for Bloodthirsters or whatever.
Depending on scenario, it quite often makes no difference anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's just a bit more positive than 'don't use that!'

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

Makumba wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
Do you usually "veto" stuff in your casual games? Communicating and agreeing is what I do.

Well if you assume that agreement to play is needed for a game, and AoS is play with what ever you want, then of course people will say that they don't want to see this or that unit or combo or terrain etc. Why wouldn't they do, if the game happens, then it will only happen the way they want it. So if they don't want a BT, there won't be one. And considering that a BT is an actualy good model, the chance for it to be vetoed is higher then let say 10 goblins.

I've never seen a situation like that and I don't expect I ever will. Assuming you're talking about me going to play someone with my Bloodthirster, and them saying "remove it, or I won't play you". Seems like that would be a pretty awkward person I wouldn't want to play anyway.

With all due respect Mym, what you're pretty much saying is that you're going to play with what you want to play, regardless of what others say in the matter...

No, I'm saying that usually people don't categorically state "take this out or get out". If my opponent says "Your Bloodthirster is way too strong, I don't want you to use him" (even this is theoretical because I've never encountered anything like it), I'll say "Fine, what about if I take this away instead?" and so on. And if we really can't agree, either I'll take it away like he asks or I'll ask him to use a points system, which I probably would've anyway. So this "veto" situation seems very theoretical. It would be a pretty weird way to interact with someone, especially when you're about to have a game with the objective that both players have a good time.