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.

Is Fantasy dead? Do GW no longer stock Fantasy? I know this one depends on the store, but do GW stores even allow Fantasy anymore? Can someone tell me what's going on?

Age of Sigmar is the re-invisioning of Fantasy. The exact reasons why are mostly speculation, but in the end GW seemed to think Fantasy needed to change to survive. The rules are free and less complex, everything's on round bases, and the timeline has advanced a few thousand years to basically a whole new universe/set of planets/realms. It's not a retcon and proceeds from the End Times.

I'm not sure about GW stores. All of your old models are still present in AoS and have free rules you can find on the website. The model range is staying the same mostly (as in, some of the rarely seen finecast models are likely slowly going to die while the plastics remain largely intact), with rebasings, some cost reductions on the old plastics and some changing of faction lines.

coldgaming wrote:
Age of Sigmar is the re-invisioning of Fantasy. The exact reasons why are mostly speculation, but in the end GW seemed to think Fantasy needed to change to survive. The rules are free and less complex, everything's on round bases, and the timeline has advanced a few thousand years to basically a whole new universe/set of planets/realms. It's not a retcon and proceeds from the End Times.

I'm not sure about GW stores. All of your old models are still present in AoS and have free rules you can find on the website. The model range is staying the same mostly (as in, some of the rarely seen finecast models are likely slowly going to die while the plastics remain largely intact), with rebasings, some cost reductions on the old plastics and some changing of faction lines.

just curious, but how popular is AoS? Did a lot of people move from fantasy to 40k/another game when sigmar hit? What's the general consensus regarding AoS?

 Khrolek wrote:

coldgaming wrote:
Age of Sigmar is the re-invisioning of Fantasy. The exact reasons why are mostly speculation, but in the end GW seemed to think Fantasy needed to change to survive. The rules are free and less complex, everything's on round bases, and the timeline has advanced a few thousand years to basically a whole new universe/set of planets/realms. It's not a retcon and proceeds from the End Times.

I'm not sure about GW stores. All of your old models are still present in AoS and have free rules you can find on the website. The model range is staying the same mostly (as in, some of the rarely seen finecast models are likely slowly going to die while the plastics remain largely intact), with rebasings, some cost reductions on the old plastics and some changing of faction lines.

just curious, but how popular is AoS? Did a lot of people move from fantasy to 40k/another game when sigmar hit? What's the general consensus regarding AoS?

There was and still is a big backlash from a lot of Fantasy players, as the game fundamentally changed from square/rank style to skirmish style, the Old World was literally destroyed, the setting is basically starting fresh, and the emphasis is more on scenario and narrative than competitive play. There's been a lot of negativity on the forums, but I think the feeling has been turning more positive in recent times as more people give the game a chance and some of the anger dies down. From what I can see, people are playing more different game systems than ever today, and that's a great thing. Some of the people who loved the Fantasy style moved to Kings of War or 9th Age, which is a fan-made 9th edition. There's no reason why you can't use the same models in all three (or four if you count 8th) games as well.

 Khrolek wrote:
What's the general consensus regarding AoS?

I would say there is no general consensus, AoS has split the community like never before.

Some people have quit WHFB entirely.

Some people have moved to AoS.

Some people have moved to Kings of War (a game written by Mantic) and/or WHFB 9th age (a community project to keep WHFB going).

Some people have stuck to the previous editions of WHFB.

Some people may have done something else that isn't coming to mind.

Some people who never played WHFB previously have started AoS.

Which group of people is the largest? At this stage it's hard to tell and it's going to vary massively from one location to the next. You're probably best off feeling out what the vibe is in your local community. Some people despise AoS so much that if you start it you're going to struggle to win the community over to get a game.

 Khrolek wrote:

just curious, but how popular is AoS? Did a lot of people move from fantasy to 40k/another game when sigmar hit? What's the general consensus regarding AoS?

Not very popular right now. At least amongst the vocal community, and especially the internet based one, it might be different in some of the more 'underground' circles. That may change. Aos created a massive backlash amongst warhammer players (while a lot of non-gw players looked on in a rather bemused fashion) , and this was on top of gw's antics in gutting the community via actions through 7th and 8th edition, so you have massive ill will on top of a mountain of negativity to start with. Like any gW game, It has a lot of legitimate issues if you approach it straight on, but with the right people, with the right attitude, and handled with care, it can work (but to be fair, everything that you can do with Aos with this attitude can be done with any other fame)

For a lot of people it was the proverbial straw to break their backs. I've never seen a wargame change that has divided and fractured the community in the way Aos has. Aos has its adherents (and to be fair, although it's not a game for me, I think it has 'game'). But it also has its detractors as well as those who are fundamentally hostile to it. And with good reason.

There was no one outcome for what people did, so the best bet is to see what your local community has done. Aos has not really kicked off here for example, and other games have taken advantage.

A lot of people have turned to the fan based '9th edition'. Whether a fan based game has the legs to maintain itself is another question. Though I personally doubt it especially for the long term. I don't think s lot of people turned to 40k - if anything, it was the other way round in that Aos is designed to appeal to 40k players mainly (stormcast externals are known as 'sigmarines' for a reason!). Some people are sticking with 8th or a Preferred older edition. a lot of people have taken the opportunity to outright jump ship and turn to other games instead. A lot of people have turned to mantic's kings of war game for example as the most obvious game to benefit. By all accounts, their sales have exploded (for rulebooks at least - everyone is sticking with gw models lol). Some have turned to, capitulated or have embraced (with joy, In some cases) to Aos. And to be fair, some people (arguably a new demographic) has been attracted to Aos alongside, other than the traditional hardcore wargamer (Aos isn't a hardcore wargamers game, but it can work as a hardcore wargamers friends and family game) and catering to folks that like a simple straight forward game with a focus on diy rather than organised play, which is a niche typically held by historical players. Whether it has the legs to grow and thrive is really up in the air. I can't answer that. If anything though, I see it as more of an 'underground' game than a game with a lot of exposure. It can work though. But it takes work and a co-operative community.

I have no idea how popular each one is, personally, but the one advantage that everything has right now? The rules are free, so it's at least easy to get a sense for what works for you and your friends.

But yeah, there's not much consensus. There is a lot of bitterness though! That's... that's a thing.

Deadnight wrote:
I've never seen a game change that has divided and fractured the community in the way Aos has.

I've seen it happen many times in MMOs. The NGE for Star Wars Galaxies was the worst. Happens in comic books too. Ask any Deadpool fan about their opinion on Daniel Way. Ask a Deep Space Nine fan how they feel about JJ Abrams's Star Trek films. Hell, ask a Star Wars fan about The Force Awakens. I'll bet it happens every time there is a new edition for 40k/WHFB.

Fans have expectations for things. They don't want things to change, except the things they want changed, but nothing else. So when small, wrong changes happen, they get upset and feel abandoned and betrayed. When big wrong changes happen, it's scorched earth all around.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
I've never seen a game change that has divided and fractured the community in the way Aos has.

I've seen it happen many times in MMOs. The NGE for Star Wars Galaxies was the worst. Happens in comic books too. Ask any Deadpool fan about their opinion on Daniel Way. Ask a Deep Space Nine fan how they feel about JJ Abrams's Star Trek films. Hell, ask a Star Wars fan about The Force Awakens. I'll bet it happens every time there is a new edition for 40k/WHFB.

I was referring to wargames.

I don't play computer games. Nor do I read comics (I'm completely uninterested and apathetic to both). Aside from transmetropolitan and the crow. Spider Jerusalem is the boss. And the movie of the crow beats the comic hands down.

I'll go back and edit my post and clarify,

 Sqorgar wrote:

Fans have expectations for things. They don't want things to change, except the things they want changed, but nothing else. So when small, wrong changes happen, they get upset and feel abandoned and betrayed. When big wrong changes happen, it's scorched earth all around.

So what?

'Wrong things' being key. To a lot of people, Aos represents a lot of 'wrong things' to a lot of people.

Deadnight wrote:

So what?

'Wrong things' being key. To a lot of people, Aos represents a lot of 'wrong things' to a lot of people.

I'm just saying that fans can be VERY passionate about things moving in a different direction than they would like, and that this happens all the damn time. There's nothing particularly special about what has happened with AoS. "Splitting the community" isn't so much an indication of a making a wrong move as it is an indication of change - any change, but obviously, the bigger the change, the more personally the fans take it.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

So what?

'Wrong things' being key. To a lot of people, Aos represents a lot of 'wrong things' to a lot of people.

I'm just saying that fans can be VERY passionate about things moving in a different direction than they would like, and that this happens all the damn time.

So what? This doesn't invalidate their reactions, nor does it necessarily excuse the actions of the company making the changes.

 Sqorgar wrote:
"Splitting the community" isn't so much an indication of a making a wrong move as it is an indication of change - any change, but obviously, the bigger the change, the more personally the fans take it.

Splitting the community can very much be a wrong move. But we shall have to wait and see on that one. it ends (theoretically) up killing the community, or more importantly, reducing it below a sustainable level. destroying the game, losing money etcetera, and hurting the company itself, then 'change' is very much 'making a wrong move'. A 'change' that ends up Pissing off and disenfranchising a large section of your potential player base is far from 'smart at the end of the day, it has huge potential to cause any end of negative consequences. But we shall have to wait and see on that.

And FYI I never said it was a 'wrong move' either. I said that it had divided the community and a lot saw it as a 'wrong move', and they're perfectly entitled to view it in that way.

And again, at the end of the day, So what? What the hell is your point?

Yup, GW killed fantasy. Now if only the game writers of the old school WFB would start a new system. I'll guess I will go play Kings of War ( hint, hint).

just curious, but how popular is AoS? Did a lot of people move from fantasy to 40k/another game when sigmar hit? What's the general consensus regarding AoS?

Yeah, it's different in every community, but certainly a lot of fantasy communities have moved on. Many AoS players are not former fantasy players. Our group has moved to Kings of War, and others have mentioned there is 9th Age, if AoS isn't your thing. Easy enough to walk into a GW to try a demo game and see (my local manager almost tied me down for one ).

It's not for me, but I don't begrudge those who like it. I do hope massed / ranked fantasy coalesces around KoW, just for the sake of having a single system for the tourney circuit and finding games, etc

According to most online polls I've seen, around 75% of people are still negative towards AoS.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that many places are struggling to sell AoS merchandise, and that it is not being played much in game stores.

So overall this is a bad time to get back into Fantasy. Like others have said, the community has been shattered. Some people are trying to Thrawn it up, making things like 9th Age or the Azyr system. But there's no global consensus on what should be done, much less national or even regional agreement on what to play. Basically what is played locally is what is most likely to work for you.

 Khrolek wrote:
just curious, but how popular is AoS? Did a lot of people move from fantasy to 40k/another game when sigmar hit? What's the general consensus regarding AoS?

Over the course of the last generation, Games Workshop became synonymous with miniature wargaming. It's kind of like how "kleenex" and "tissue" are used as the same thing where I live, and when I hear people talk about using a "kleenex" they're not talking about grabbing a specific kleenex brand facial tissue they're just talking about tissues in general. Kleenex IS tissue, Games Workshop IS the hobby of miniature wargaming. That's the structure they had built up through so many years of success. You couldn't have been a hobbyist without having heard of and played GW games. Not possible.

Games Workshop is currently suffering from a slump where they don't have this dominance, where we're seeing lots of basement companies that are actually getting by pretty well. I think we're moving back into another age where people play all sorts of different things and there's no one game or brand that has such control over the whole market.

But that Games Workshop legacy still endures a bit. That 30-plus year history of Games Workshop constantly hitting home runs still has some kind of lingering influence, despite their striking out in recent years. I think that no matter what they do, no matter how badly they fail or what kind of garbage they put out some people will still convince themselves to like it and go play it just because of that history of Games Workshop being THE GAMES PEOPLE. This is really making their decline a lot slower than it would have been otherwise.

Age of Sigmar is "that game". From every objective metric I can think of, Age of Sigmar is worse. It's poorly thought out, the rules are awful and unfun, the lore is shallow and weak, every aspect of the design is just terrible compared to any other modern wargame, or any past edition of a GW wargame. Or any wargame period. The curious hobbist would be better off spending a few hours inventing their own wargame to play rather than playing Age of Sigmar- that newly invented wargame would almost certainly be more interesting, better balanced, and a better experience than the disastrous mess that is Age of Sigmar. And many people have seen what a mess it is and left.

But Games Workshop are THE GAMES PEOPLE! They invented Warhammer and 40k, they designed Bloodbowl and Necromunda and a dozen or two other franchises that all became part of our common pop culture language. It doesn't matter how terrible Age of Sigmar is, a certain number of people are still going to play it, just because it's made by Games Workshop. And that's okay.

 Mysterious Pants wrote:

 Khrolek wrote:
just curious, but how popular is AoS? Did a lot of people move from fantasy to 40k/another game when sigmar hit? What's the general consensus regarding AoS?

Age of Sigmar is "that game". From every objective metric I can think of, Age of Sigmar is worse. It's poorly thought out, the rules are awful and unfun, the lore is shallow and weak, every aspect of the design is just terrible compared to any other modern wargame, or any past edition of a GW wargame. Or any wargame period. The curious hobbist would be better off spending a few hours inventing their own wargame to play rather than playing Age of Sigmar- that newly invented wargame would almost certainly be more interesting, better balanced, and a better experience than the disastrous mess that is Age of Sigmar. And many people have seen what a mess it is and left.

Do you even know what objective means? Finding objective metrics for something "being worse" is one of the craziest things i've heard of in a long time. Your personal opinion is very valid, but your attempt to convince people that AoS is simply worse than WFB (or other games) is just weird and wrong. You have to operationalize "being worse" by some objective metrics that aren't opinion based, that can be tried and tested before writing stuff like that. Please use common sense instead of trying to use academia around miniaturegames. There aren't nearly enough published scientific works on this subject for you to use a word like "objective" around the hobby. And it frankly comes off as someone trying to be 'better-knowing' than others.

WHFB is dead. AoS is its direct decedent, but KoW is its spiritual successor in a much more important way imo, being still a mass battle game, with a single, logical, world of fluff, and written by he aame damn people that wrote WHFB.

Andreas 2.0 wrote:
[Do you even know what objective means? Finding objective metrics for something "being worse" is one of the craziest things i've heard of in a long time.

But there are objective metrics that you can establish!

I mean, it someone offers me a sandwich with dog poop in it I can definitely, objectively establish that that dog poop sandwich is an inferior sandwich. I can say, well, these are all the things that make a sandwich a nice meal and the dog poop sandwich doesn't match any of those so it's a worse meal. I mean, I don't resent anyone for choosing to eat a dog poop sandwich, but it seems far more likely to me that they're eating it because of the branding behind the sandwich than the qualities of the sandwich itself.

Because it's really, just that bad. It's not a comparison of apples to oranges or horses to dogs: it's something that's edible versus eating feces.

Age of Sigmar is a game that requires a lot of investment to make it work at all. From the very start, you are navigating a social mine field to avoid making something "overpowered" that would ruin the game or start a fight. The game is structured around a set of rules that invites a comparison between units and their abilities, but makes that comparison seen evil and powergaming because there's no way to establish what you're allowed to bring to the battle. So why do we even have stats then? What?



Moving into the game you get sort of a crazy mish-mash where all the models slam into each other and you roll a lot of dice and activate some abilities and then you see who wins. It always seems pretty obvious what the optimal path to take is and what abilities you should be using. I find this part a bit better, but it's still just awful.

And I know, the customization and the friendliness and the casual nature etc. But that doesn't make any sense!

Age of Sigmar gives you the limitations that working with a set of rules does, but it doesn't give you any of the benefits. You don't have to play a game with rules... I can play chess and make all my rooks fly around and give my pawns special names and powers or whatever. And messing around with people I've done that kind of thing. The reason you play a game with rules is because the structure of the rules provides something to make it a better experience. Age of Sigmar gives some rules, it gives you certain restrictions on what you can do and how you can play but it doesn't give you anything in return.

Playing Age of Sigmar is inferior to playing without rules in every way, and it's inferior to playing with other rules because all other rulesets I've ever seen give you some sort of something back, some level of challenge and engagement. Some amount of competition, or maybe some sort of enforced guideline to make sure armies aren't totally imbalanced and the game ends in 5 minutes. Age of Sigmar does none of that, that's all "your job", but it does tell you how you have to take turns and what your models can and can't do and by doing that it's the worst thing ever.

As you can see, the battle rages on. The old Warhammer forums are not a great place to discuss AoS, as they're inhabited to a large extent by people who were put off by its introduction. I would recommend Facebook groups ("Age of Sigmar") and the YouTube and podcast community for discussion about the hobby, if you're interested.

You can tell from the GW website that they still stock it but its now called AoS.

AoS is pretty much a basic form of 40k but set in a fantasy universe with a focus more on Melee skirmish than 40ks shooting skirmish.

AoS is GW`s statement to the gaming community that they are officially more interested in the hobby/collecting end of miniature gaming than the competitive tournament end of it.Apparently its were the money is.

The AoS ruleset consist of 4 pages of basic rules along with individual rules for each unit/warscroll.So depending on the game size you choose to play,you will likely be playing with anywhere from 10 to 24 pages of rules overall for each game.
Its a very flexible ruleset and customization is even encouraged by GW as evidenced by the events they have held at WW thus far.

If you liked the unique mass battle/skirmish hybrid that whfb had then you will be set off by what AoS is.However if you liked playing in more casual/fluff oriented,non comptetative conditions in the past,AoS may be a Breath of Fresh air for you.

In my area we have a few smallish groups playing the game at least a couple times a month..probably 10-15 players with interest now.I have my boys at home so I get more frequent games and It should be pointed out that its very much designed with new players to the genre in mind

It is much cheaper to get into than previous editions.Sure the models are up in price as per always but you just don't need as many,,actually for most all units purchasing more than one box is just too much on the field.

The new model quality is top notch though.They are expensive but by far some of the best fantasy model kits available on the market.

And round bases showcase so much better than square.

As for KoW..I play it now and then and a few in the area are trying it.It does have that tactical movement vibe that WHFB had,but beyond that its a very hallowed out version.Ruleset is clear and solid,,but the game just feels empty overall.

Apparently most of the larger clubs in the states appear to be adopting it for competitive play as it really was designed with tourney play in mind.If you are in it for the competition than KoW is the way to go.
Also since you don't remove casualties from the trays you can build you units as a diorama of sorts which can be pretty cool on the modeling end of things

AoS Has done nothing but increase the size of my war gaming community. Not in the sense that AoS is big where I am (Indeed, it is moderate, probably higher than most, our GW manager is seriously the best) but that is has had no negative effects. AoS hit, those people who didn't like it moved on to 9th Age (link at the bottom, highly suggest it, it's much more in keeping with old Fantasy then KoW and it's, for better or worse, the creation of avid Fantasy fans. Take a look, the first 'proper' army book has just been released) and those who did continued to do both. As well as that I met knew people interested solely in AoS, some of whom I've converted into 9th Agers.

There aren't the walls between the games that some would like to imagine, they use the same minitures and it's entirely possible to enjoy them together.

Just take a little look at this website, go to the rules section and look at the Undead Dynasties book (A.K.A Tomb Kings). You can expect that level of commitment and profesionalism for all forth-coming books, and more importantly it's still in development so if you can convert a few friends over to 9th Age and play a few games your feedback will shape the development of the game.

http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?simple-page/

My issue with ninth age, is I actually wanted an update to fantasy (I stopped playing early in 8th)... just not an AoS-level update! KoW slims things down / streamlines gameplay nicely, but doesn't completely depart from formation based play. So, that's what's drawn us to it

@Mysterious Pants

Sorry. You still got it wrong even with the poop sandwich. A poop sandwich is by no means an inferior sandwich. It might be for you, but it might not be for a fly or even for me. You can establish what criteria you want for what a perfect sandwich should be, but you have to let other people disagree with that unless the criteria is indisputeable (which most things aren't). Tasting worse is not objective, smelling better is not objective, and even being healthier is not completely objective by definition. A sandwich's nutritional information might not even be an objective truth. Nice try though...

As for AoS, which should really be our discussion point - Being a less strict game doesn't make for a worse game. It's really as simple as that. We can read on these forums that alot of older gamers dislike this format, which gives us some good statistical information. The game will however still be a better game for a lot of people, and trying to establish objective metrics for what constitutes a better game is a task for greater thinkers than most of us (would be my guess).

I'll list your points for a 'worse game' -
Investing a lot of time from the get go - That is by no means a bad thing by definition. It's really a question of preference.

Avoiding a social minefield - Well, entering a social minefield and discussing what would be a good game for two people might actually be a good exercise for a lot of some. You could even argue that defining what would be fair before you play a game might actually defuse a potential fight, that would have started otherwise.

Why have stats when there are no point values to define the powerlevel of armies? This kinda answers itself right? Stats are used to play the game. Like how pieces move in chess. You can play chess with a single pawn on one side versus a full board on the other. It doesn't change the game rules. You just have to talk to your opponent to figure out what to bring. The rules even tell you what you can bring if you want to use that (= however many warscrolls you feel like). It doesn't have to be overpowered or even as unbalanced as some of the 40k fights I've had recently.

Age of Sigmar gives you the limitations that working with a set of rules does, but it doesn't give you any of the benefits - Let's say for the sake of the argument, that this is true. There are two problems I see with your point. Firstly I will point out that limitations and benefits derived from rules has nothing to do with what objectively constitutes a 'good game'. Limitations might be positive in some games, benefits might not benefit one player as much as it does another. Secondly AoS might not receive the benefits from a short set of rules. It may however benefit in a number of other ways. It could engage players in a social, philosophical, or spiritual way, that would contribute more to the game than rules might have. And I should also point out that your statement isn't true just because you said so. We haven't really tested that, whereto I really cannot comment.

The reason you play a game with rules is because the structure of the rules provides something to make it a better experience - You may be right in some instances, but in others, rules are just convoluted and divisive. As long as a game actually has rules, it starts getting really hard to define what constitutes 'what rules create a better experience for all people'. AoS has provided you with little structure, 40K has provided you with more, and there are a lot of 80's wargames with more rules than you would ever imagine. Saying that those older games are better because they have more structure (Which in theory is in place to provide a better player experience) is incredibly subjective which makes it - well, the opposite to objective.

Age of Sigmar gives some rules, it gives you certain restrictions on what you can do and how you can play but it doesn't give you anything in return. What more is necessary for a good game? You have rules for playing and armybuilding and rules for winning. If the point of the game is for the player to figure the rest out, then who are you to call it a worse game by 'objective standards'.

Playing Age of Sigmar is inferior to playing without rules in every way Do I really need to comment on this... You do not know every way, nor do I or anyone else. It might be in theory, but no one will ever know.

it's inferior to playing with other rules because all other rulesets I've ever seen give you some sort of something back, some level of challenge and engagement. Well, AoS doesn't aim to challenge your mental abilities. Your opponent does however. It's a bit like soccer you know, easy rules, but your opponent might still crush you even if the rules provide little challenge and engagement. It's all about playing.

Some amount of competition, or maybe some sort of enforced guideline to make sure armies aren't totally imbalanced and the game ends in 5 minutes. Balance has nothing to do with a game being good. It is merely a part of some peoples definition of what constitutes a good game, which is still subjective and frankly a bit conservative. I think an unbalanced game can be quite interesting. It might even be a great game for some people. And on another note, I would defy you to go onto youtube and count the unbalanced games played in battle reports vs. the balanced. It doesn't really sound like you've played or even seem a game played, because I (in my very anecdotal way) haven't seen a single game that was won in 5 minutes. Haven't heard of one either, but all I can really conclude based on that is, that some games of AoS aren't unbalanced, whilst Most might still be.

it's the worst thing ever I'm going to have to invoke Godwin's law here. Look it up, its all fun and games. But honestly - Worst thing ever? Couldn't think of ANYTHING worse?


Age of Sigmar will probably die if you listen to the internet. We really can't know for certain until we see the budget reports from GW in a few years when the dust settles. What we can do however is to try and judge a game for ourselves as the experience will vary from person to person. No game is inherently worse, but it does seem like AoS tries to draw a new generation into the gaming scene, and that can put off some people who love and miss the arguably more complex game of WFB. I personally think you should all give it try and ask yourself if it's worth the money spent. At least it's free and quite accessible.


EDIT: Added a comma

Poop sandwich? Really?

TL;DR - don't ask the internet about AoS. Check in your local GW/FLGS/gaming clubs, see how it's doing there, make your decision based on that.
Only thing I would suggest is that on anecdotal evidence, the 'anti-AoS' brigade appear to be the majority in Aus/NZ.
US about evens depending on where you are, and appear to be the minority in Europe, particularly the UK.

As has been pointed out, AoS is either the best, the worst or an okay game depending on who/where you ask.
For myself, I like it - but I have a local group of players who approach the game in roughly the same way I do, so the balance/competition arguments have never come up.
Check your local area, see how it's doing.
If nothing else, the rules are free and unless you're buying Stormcast any minis will slip into KoW, 9th age or any other fantasy system quite easily.

I think the prices GW charges for their stuff in Oz has more to do with the hate then the rules.

On the other hand...

Minijack wrote:Its a very flexible ruleset

Thin, flat things tend to be more flexible, yes.

However if you liked playing in more casual/fluff oriented,non comptetative conditions in the past

There's little fluff beyond sigmarines beating everything in sight. That also describes how 'non-competitive' it is.

customization is even encouraged by GW as evidenced by the events they have held at WW thus far.

Did those involve the campaigns where participants had to, erm, compete for points and objectives?

It is much cheaper to get into than previous editions.Sure the models are up in price as per always but you just don't need as many,,actually for most all units purchasing more than one box is just too much on the field.

Until you get a hold of those battlescrolls that give you great extra rules for buying the 100-200-mini bundles for about £500-1000.

The new model quality is top notch though.

They managed to get the hot plastic into the moulds okay.

They are expensive but by far some of the best fantasy model kits available on the market.

They have skulls and spikes and skulls and hammers and lightning bolts and skulls.

And round bases showcase so much better than square.

I... have no idea what this has got to do with things. Even if it was hard truth.

Ruleset is clear and solid,,but the game just feels empty overall.

It revolves around tactics and maneouvre on the tabletop, not listbuilding a set of special rules beforehand.

If you are in it for the competition than KoW is the way to go.

If you are in it for a quick playing but reasonably thinky game of mass battles and unit-block maneouvre, then KoW is the way to go.

RoperPG wrote:TL;DR - don't ask the internet about AoS. Check in your local GW/FLGS/gaming clubs, see how it's doing there, make your decision based on that.

I would say make your decision on what you like, whether that turns out to be AoS or not. The state of your local gaming scene is one thing, but it'd be a sad kind of hobby to just settle for something you don't particularly enjoy.

Though I guess GW has prepared many, many gamers for that.

If nothing else, the rules are free

The entire four pages of core rules are free, as are the hurried out rules for all the old Warhammer range. All the new factions' rules are hidden between ~£30 'battletome' covers, though.

Bet you're glad you asked, Khrolek.

What? Nobody said anything about the rules like "bending a knee in real life for what ever reason when playing a certain character makes you loose the game" or "if a person has a beard he gets a certain benefit". That would rule out the females playing

You could quickly find out if AoS is worth playing by checking out the local gaming stores. As I posted earlier, if you were looking for a game here, and didnt catch one of us, you would think noone plays it, you wouldnt be far off. If we had to rely on our local stores or even GW to get a game in, we wouldnt be able too, so if you have an established gaming group I would say"got nothing to lose" and grab a battallion and a hero and go from there. We are playing basically with our old warhammer armies. And while we are "fans" of AoS, if we had to buy into it again, none of us would have. It is a ok game, but it really is the midget among giants for gaming. I consider it not better than any other game at pretty much anything, but if you got a short amount of time, and already got the models, it is worth a go.