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.

I like AOS and I like the Stormcast Eternals, I think they look cool and I'm having more fun painting and playing AOS then I ever did 40k. I tried WHFB many years ago with a Hordes of Chaos army and hated it. I hope AOS goes from strength to strength, the fluff is better, the models look better, they got rid of ranking models up and put them on round bases which is better and its faster paced. The only problem is GWs pricing which I won't defend. I've invested just under £200 so far and I would hate to see AOS sink as apart from the price AOS is an enjoyable game. Ok. Rant over and don't call me a GW fanboy either.....

 Yodhrin wrote:

EDIT: And as for this "Gah, like, brah, it's totes been six months already, like, get over it brah" nonsense - matey, the Warhammer World has been one of the major focuses of my hobby/free time since I was five years old, that's 25 bloody years, and I am hardly unique, yet you expect folk to just get over it? To just ignore GW metaphorically guzzling down the fiction that made their company what it is, turning around, and spattering a massive liquid gak in our faces then holding out their hands and saying "£75 please"? Nowp. If people enjoy AoS, they enjoy it, so more power to them - that doesn't mean I have to like it, nor does it place me or anyone else under some obligation to stop expressing that opinion or to stop trying to persuade others to agree.

"Spattering a massive liquid gak in our faces"? You are obviously coming from an objective and constructive place, so there is absolutely room for your impotent rage here!

Rule number one of Dakka is "be polite" - let's ratchet the language in this thread down a notch, please. It's still the holidays!

Thanks all

It just seems to operate under the daft assumption that making it impossible to be "competitive" immediately makes the game a great storytelling experience, rather than just a mess

For me its not that it is impossible to be competitive that makes it a great storytelling experience.

Its that it is the only game that I have ever played that is truly (or seems to be truly) scenario driven.

After playing your 958th variant of pitched battle in WHFB, things got a bit stale and old. I like that the game is about doing a variety of scenarios instead of just doing the same six for years and years and years.

auticus wrote:
After playing your 958th variant of pitched battle in WHFB, things got a bit stale and old.

And in all that time, no one in your group ever said, "Hey, let's try a scenario instead of pitched battle," until GW came along and said you could?

I tried for years. No one would ever play anything other than the core scenarios because "they weren't balanced".

9 out of 10 of the players I knew didn't even know that the rulebook HAD other scenarios in the back other than the core six tournament scenarios.

We did some Lustria campaign a couple years ago and 3/4 of our players quit because they didn't want to play in non tournament scenarios because "it wasn't fair, my army is built for tournament scenarios, and i'm at a disadvantage"

Trying to do End Times scenarios was also very difficult for the same reason.

Could you do it? Sure - nothing stopped you. Except for your community - that is all hung up on doing tournament scenarios or nothing else.

Age of Sigmar not having a core scenario is a positive in my opinion and the fact that its entirely scenario driven is what makes it feel more driven toward narrative games. We could probably argue back and forth on that all day pedantically picking out pieces but in the end you can't prove a feeling. I've watched the Kings of War players here play Kings of War and they are doing what they did in WHFB - playing the same tournament scenarios over and over again.

It just seems to operate under the daft assumption that making it impossible to be "competitive" immediately makes the game a great storytelling experience, rather than just a mess

The daft assumption is the starting premise, that it is impossible to be competitive.

 Sqorgar wrote:
[...] the entire market will suffer when companies become afraid to experiment and explore.

I dunno, there's not much that's "experimental" in AoS. Things like keywords and progressive damage are nice, but Warmachine's been doing both of those for over a decade now. The most radical shift in AoS is the lack of points, but that's not an experiment - it's a sales tactic that's been marketed as an experiment.

If GW were really interested in making AoS an experiment in creating a different type of tabletop narrative experience, they'd have made tools for that style of gameplay, the most important of which would be a gamemaster. Add that, give them some guidelines for creating scenarios and adding in their own participatory elements (weather, creatures, etc), and you might have something that lives halfway between traditional Warhammer and Descent. That's something to get interested in! Give it a setting that isn't crap and I'd jump in wholeheartedly!

That was never going to happen, tho, because it'd involve a player who wasn't obligated to buy miniatures, and maximizing the sale of miniatures is the unmitigated objective of AoS. Instead, they've simply taken away a barrier to sales and told us it's a gift to our own imaginations. I imagine prospective game makers are pretty able to see through that, given how many of the overall customer base have as well.

I would love a 'Dungeon Master's Guide' style book for AoS, and I think there are loads of improvements that could be made to the game - especially more in depth sourcebook materials.

At the same time, I keep cooking up cool little projects in my head and because of AoS I now own 5 armies rather than the one I had for WHFB.

It might not be revolutionary, but in comparison with WHFB I think AoS really does open up the miniatures range to allow me to dabble and collect whatever I want and bring them to the table with rules - and it is that aspect of AoS which I find exhilarating and brilliant. In fact, it is that aspect that keeps AoS as my main hobby despite the niggles I have with certain things.

I am currently finding the many comp systems are helping me scratch my competitive itch too. Once more of the traditional races get updates for AoS I think we are going to have a very nice game on our hands :-D

 Lexington wrote:

I dunno, there's not much that's "experimental" in AoS. Things like keywords and progressive damage are nice, but Warmachine's been doing both of those for over a decade now. The most radical shift in AoS is the lack of points, but that's not an experiment - it's a sales tactic that's been marketed as an experiment.

There are, what, ten or so somewhat popular and active miniature games on the market?

40k
Warmachine / Hordes
X-Wing / Armade / Attack Wing
Malifaux
Infinity
Kings of War
Age of Sigmar
Bolt Action
Flames of War
Batman Miniatures Game
HeroClix (kinda)
Frostgrave?

And then there's the less popular miniature games, or the ones just starting out, like Gates of Antares, Deadzone / Warpath, Wrath of Kings, Dark Age, This Is Not a Test, Non-Frostgrave Osprey, etc.

The point is, you can count all the miniature games on your fingers and toes, with some toes left over. Even then, most FLGS don't carry even remotely all of them. Many only carry 40k, a few Warmachine boxes, maybe some Reaper figures, and X-Wing. There just isn't a lot of room in the industry for more than a handful of games, and even then, MOST of them exist on the fringes. Whether you like AoS or not, it's a GOOD THING(tm) that it exists. By the completely inbred standard of gaming we have now, the fact that AoS isn't just 40k, part 2 (see Horus Heresy, Hordes, The Other Side, Kings of War, Marvel Miniatures Game, Dragon Rampart, X-Wing/Attack Wing) is awesome. Seriously, despite there only being a handful of games out there, the sheer volume of clones is frightening.

GW tried something different. They didn't have to, and it was somewhat unwelcomed, but in the grand scheme of things, it was a great, forward thinking move that could've been done with just a little more tact and finesse.

If GW were really interested in making AoS an experiment in creating a different type of tabletop narrative experience, they'd have made tools for that style of gameplay, the most important of which would be a gamemaster. Add that, give them some guidelines for creating scenarios and adding in their own participatory elements (weather, creatures, etc), and you might have something that lives halfway between traditional Warhammer and Descent. That's something to get interested in! Give it a setting that isn't crap and I'd jump in wholeheartedly!

Age of Sigmar, perhaps more than any other miniature game currently available, is what you make it. And you apparently want to make it into a lump of coal. That's fine. You just act surprised that it's a lump of coal, when you never wanted it to be anything else. To some players - not you, obviously - Age of Sigmar represents something they can't find in other games, and they appreciate that. They looked at the lump of coal more closely, and they found a diamond.

 Sqorgar wrote:
By the completely inbred standard of gaming we have now, the fact that AoS isn't just 40k, part 2 (see Horus Heresy, Hordes, The Other Side, Kings of War, Marvel Miniatures Game, Dragon Rampart, X-Wing/Attack Wing) is awesome.

I'll bite. What do you mean by this?

 infinite_array wrote:

auticus wrote:
After playing your 958th variant of pitched battle in WHFB, things got a bit stale and old.

And in all that time, no one in your group ever said, "Hey, let's try a scenario instead of pitched battle," until GW came along and said you could?

One of the biggest surprises for me in AoS is discovering that so much of the community won't have freedom until GW gives them no other alternative

It's quite hard to add structure to an unstructured game, it's so easy to take a structured game and make it unstructered, but it seems no one thinks to do it.

 Chumbalaya wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
By the completely inbred standard of gaming we have now, the fact that AoS isn't just 40k, part 2 (see Horus Heresy, Hordes, The Other Side, Kings of War, Marvel Miniatures Game, Dragon Rampart, X-Wing/Attack Wing) is awesome.

I'll bite. What do you mean by this?

The games listed are clones or variations of other games. Like X-Wing and Attack Wing are variations of Wings of War. Horus Heresy is a 40k mod. Dragon Rampart is a fantasy version of Lions Rampart. Etc.

(Not sure The Other Side belongs there)

So, in your view, AoS is totally unique and not derivative of anything?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

auticus wrote:
After playing your 958th variant of pitched battle in WHFB, things got a bit stale and old.

And in all that time, no one in your group ever said, "Hey, let's try a scenario instead of pitched battle," until GW came along and said you could?

One of the biggest surprises for me in AoS is discovering that so much of the community won't have freedom until GW gives them no other alternative

It's quite hard to add structure to an unstructured game, it's so easy to take a structured game and make it unstructered, but it seems no one thinks to do it.

Partially true. But lets also address the other main thing with the community as a whole - very few people like to deviate from "standard". If the "standard" is you will play a set of core scenarios, few want to deviate from that standard.

If the standard is that you will play with a host of scenarios, that's the standard.

While it is more difficult to add structure to a non structured game (and i have plenty of experience in that field so agree fully) its equally difficult to get the community to deviate from what a game considers standard.

 Chumbalaya wrote:
So, in your view, AoS is totally unique and not derivative of anything?

Of course not. Everything is a remix. But Age of Sigmar is a direct clone/mod of anything. It at least takes inspiration from multiple, different games to create a game which has a unique experience compared to its contemporaries. It's not that Age of Sigmar does anything unique, but that Age of Sigmar is unique itself.

Sqorgar wrote:Age of Sigmar, perhaps more than any other miniature game currently available, is what you make it.

I don't really see how. Out of the box, AoS provides you a complete game product - it's just that the product is so anemic, people need to fiddle with it in order to make it work. I'm a fan of fiddling with games, especially with loosey-goosey games like what GW normally puts out, but it's not an integral part of AoS so much as a wide-spread coping mechanism

 Sqorgar wrote:
The games listed are clones or variations of other games.

I'm having a hard time figuring out what's supposed to be a clone of what, there. I've played, or at least read through the rules of most of the games you've listed, and none of them are any more clones of anything than AoS is a clone of 40K.

 Sqorgar wrote:
By the completely inbred standard of gaming we have now, the fact that AoS isn't just 40k, part 2 (see Horus Heresy, Hordes, The Other Side, Kings of War, Marvel Miniatures Game, Dragon Rampart, X-Wing/Attack Wing) is awesome. Seriously, despite there only being a handful of games out there, the sheer volume of clones is frightening.

I applaud those who have the willpower and fortitude to actually formulate counter-arguments when they see this level of wilful ignorance and circular logic, instead of just shaking their heads and immediately giving up.

 Lexington wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
The games listed are clones or variations of other games.

I'm having a hard time figuring out what's supposed to be a clone of what, there. I've played, or at least read through the rules of most of the games you've listed, and none of them are any more clones of anything than AoS is a clone of 40K.

I think he's claiming Hordes is a clone of Warmachine, which is odd because it's literally designed to be fully compatible with Warmachine and they are the same game in all but name, yet Hordes does have a significant difference with it's warlocks compared to warmachine's warcasters.
He's right in that winga of glory/x wing/star trek attack wig are built in the same core mechanics, as are 40k and 30k.
Other than that I don't get it. Of those othees listed I think the only other onw I have a lot od experience with is KoW, and I couldn't tell you what that is meant to be a clone of. The obvious answer is warhammer itself but I'd consider the two VERY different. Very different stat lines, blocks of troops rather than individuals moving in formation, completely different magic systems, completely different artillery sysrems.. there isn't really anything therw directly ported from WHFB, it's just that the concept is 'hownwe think WHFB should have been done right'.

Ack, misread, thought he was talking about the initial list, with things like Infinity and Malifaux. Sorry, Sqorgar!

The only thing that made me mad about Age of Sigmar was the fact that they stopped selling the 8th edition rulebook and armybooks.

Let's look at the positives:
1) all models from 8th edition are still available (whether that's direct only or from local retailers)
2) we can all still play 8th edition fantasy - its not like GW hit the self destruct button on our rulebooks and armybook and now they don't exist
3) local shops will still support fantasy players. My local shop stocks it still and the owner is a lover of fantasy so still holds tournaments occasionally
4) Age of Sigmar gives new players an in on our series of miniatures (with FREE rules which is awesome) and it let's veterans have another way to play for free with those rulesets

I don't play Age of Sigmar. I still play 8th edition with friends and at the local shop. I think Age of Sigmar was kind of a flop, at least locally, but I am grateful that the fantasy model range is still available to purchase. I just wish veteran players didn't just quit fantasy because its not what it used to be. I've noticed a dip in threads and activity on the Fantasy sub-forum since Age of Sigmar which is pretty disappointing. I am still happy that models are still available though and I can still collect 8th edition armies.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Of course not. Everything is a remix. But Age of Sigmar is a direct clone/mod of anything. It at least takes inspiration from multiple, different games to create a game which has a unique experience compared to its contemporaries. It's not that Age of Sigmar does anything unique, but that Age of Sigmar is unique itself.

I'm still not following. Is AoS not the lovechild of WHFB and 40k? Move + shoot + random charge, to hit + to wound + to save with modifications, bonus special rules for taking a certain combination of units.

I get that you like the game. You don't have to justify it to anyone. Save your energy for playing more games.

 Lexington wrote:
Ack, misread, thought he was talking about the initial list, with things like Infinity and Malifaux. Sorry, Sqorgar!

Nah, man. That was two different things. One was that there are only a handful of miniature games out there, and the other is that given how small the field is, there is a surprising number of clones/spinoffs. Each of the popular games have a carved out little niche, and it seems like a lot of them have sought to expand within that niche by basically being largely the same game with minor differences. It's Batman MG but with Marvel characters. It's Warmachine, but with warbeasts. It's X-Wing but with Star Trek.

My argument is that the miniature hobby is so small, and so inbred, that we should welcome any and every new game - especially the ones that try to be something different. We should welcome the opportunity to expand the borders of the hobby, as it will keep the games from getting too stagnant as well as broaden the potential audience (and thus pool of players) for the hobby.

The thing is, I think we're seeing that expansion, but from the board game side. Board games are sort of growing into miniature games (especially stuff like Imperial Assault and BattleLore), but the end result is that board games are getting more broad. People who enjoy skirmish mode with Imperial Assault aren't then moving to the more hobby-orientated miniature games. Team Covenant, for example, basically started with Monsterpocalypse (a board/mini hybrid). And when Monpoc collapsed, instead of going to the more hardcore miniature games, they went with LCGs like Netrunner and Star Wars tCG, and more board/mini hybrids like X-Wing and Imperial Assault. People, even those who paint their Imperial Assault and Mice + Mystics figures, just aren't moving to full fledged miniature games.

It was actually Age of Sigmar which got me to take the plunge. I've always been a video gamer first, but I started branching into board games when DLC and DRM made the prospects of gaming being a bit more ephemeral than I would like. I have pretty much always been envious of miniature games, and in the past have made small, unsuccessful attempts at getting into them (I had a 40k starter set that I never played). Warmachine was the closest I got, but I only played with two of my close friends - one of whom didn't buy any models and just borrowed mine. The other friend stuck with it and found a group to play with, but I didn't follow (mostly due to being a new parent at the time).

I wouldn't be here without the Age of Sigmar starter set. I wouldn't have then bought into Deadzone, Infinity, or Malifaux. Even though I was a lapsed Warmachine player (who only played with my immediate friends), it was actually Age of Sigmar which got me back into that to where I go and play with a group now. And I brought a few other people in as well, due to my excitement. So in a very real way, Age of Sigmar brought at least one new person into the world of miniatures, which then benefited multiple other games and communities. So I think if Age of Sigmar can do that with one person, it has the chance to do that for others - and though I know not everyone in this forum is thrilled to have me around, debating in every other thread, I'd say it is a net win overall.

I think there is a tendency to only look at what you have lost, and I think most of the complaints about AoS revolve around that. This is what it no longer has. This is what it no longer does. This is what we've lost through its existence. But we'll also gain things from its existence, and it won't always be immediate or obvious. And because people can't see how it benefits them, personally, right now, they don't have the foresight or patience to wait and see what they could potentially gain from it. So my argument is that whatever you think about AoS as a game, whatever you've lost from it existing, just don't treat AoS players poorly. Their existence can only be a good thing for the hobby.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Lexington wrote:
Ack, misread, thought he was talking about the initial list, with things like Infinity and Malifaux. Sorry, Sqorgar!

Nah, man. That was two different things. One was that there are only a handful of miniature games out there, and the other is that given how small the field is, there is a surprising number of clones/spinoffs. Each of the popular games have a carved out little niche, and it seems like a lot of them have sought to expand within that niche by basically being largely the same game with minor differences. It's Batman MG but with Marvel characters. It's Warmachine, but with warbeasts. It's X-Wing but with Star Trek.

My argument is that the miniature hobby is so small, and so inbred, that we should welcome any and every new game - especially the ones that try to be something different. We should welcome the opportunity to expand the borders of the hobby, as it will keep the games from getting too stagnant as well as broaden the potential audience (and thus pool of players) for the hobby.

The thing is, I think we're seeing that expansion, but from the board game side. Board games are sort of growing into miniature games (especially stuff like Imperial Assault and BattleLore), but the end result is that board games are getting more broad. People who enjoy skirmish mode with Imperial Assault aren't then moving to the more hobby-orientated miniature games. Team Covenant, for example, basically started with Monsterpocalypse (a board/mini hybrid). And when Monpoc collapsed, instead of going to the more hardcore miniature games, they went with LCGs like Netrunner and Star Wars tCG, and more board/mini hybrids like X-Wing and Imperial Assault. People, even those who paint their Imperial Assault and Mice + Mystics figures, just aren't moving to full fledged miniature games.

It was actually Age of Sigmar which got me to take the plunge. I've always been a video gamer first, but I started branching into board games when DLC and DRM made the prospects of gaming being a bit more ephemeral than I would like. I have pretty much always been envious of miniature games, and in the past have made small, unsuccessful attempts at getting into them (I had a 40k starter set that I never played). Warmachine was the closest I got, but I only played with two of my close friends - one of whom didn't buy any models and just borrowed mine. The other friend stuck with it and found a group to play with, but I didn't follow (mostly due to being a new parent at the time).

I wouldn't be here without the Age of Sigmar starter set. I wouldn't have then bought into Deadzone, Infinity, or Malifaux. Even though I was a lapsed Warmachine player (who only played with my immediate friends), it was actually Age of Sigmar which got me back into that to where I go and play with a group now. And I brought a few other people in as well, due to my excitement. So in a very real way, Age of Sigmar brought at least one new person into the world of miniatures, which then benefited multiple other games and communities. So I think if Age of Sigmar can do that with one person, it has the chance to do that for others - and though I know not everyone in this forum is thrilled to have me around, debating in every other thread, I'd say it is a net win overall.

I think there is a tendency to only look at what you have lost, and I think most of the complaints about AoS revolve around that. This is what it no longer has. This is what it no longer does. This is what we've lost through its existence. But we'll also gain things from its existence, and it won't always be immediate or obvious. And because people can't see how it benefits them, personally, right now, they don't have the foresight or patience to wait and see what they could potentially gain from it. So my argument is that whatever you think about AoS as a game, whatever you've lost from it existing, just don't treat AoS players poorly. Their existence can only be a good thing for the hobby.

Yep, we have Stormcast Eternals now, which never existed in WHFB!!!

 Sqorgar wrote:

Team Covenant, for example, basically started with Monsterpocalypse (a board/mini hybrid). And when Monpoc collapsed, instead of going to the more hardcore miniature games, they went with LCGs like Netrunner and Star Wars tCG, and more board/mini hybrids like X-Wing and Imperial Assault.

There is this little interesting story of what happened before they got into LCGs and after monsterpocalypse died. They tried Warmachine and got a royal fething up the behind from PP. They made an online statement/explanation about what happened with their WM scene. It's a nice little video that I give to people sometimes when they complain about GW's trade practices

 CoreCommander wrote:

There is this little interesting story of what happened before they got into LCGs and after monsterpocalypse died. They tried Warmachine and got a royal fething up the behind from PP. They made an online statement/explanation about what happened with their WM scene. It's a nice little video that I give to people sometimes when they complain about GW's trade practices

You know, I vaguely remember that. The video never said what they did wrong to piss off PP, and I've never seen PP act like that towards any other shop or fansite. I remember thinking that there was more to the story than they were telling us. Did they ever say what the cause was?

But I guess they have a reason why they stuck with board games instead of moving into miniatures (though with Asmodee/FFG pulling GW-level moves, they may have back the wrong horse again)

 Sqorgar wrote:

 CoreCommander wrote:

There is this little interesting story of what happened before they got into LCGs and after monsterpocalypse died. They tried Warmachine and got a royal fething up the behind from PP. They made an online statement/explanation about what happened with their WM scene. It's a nice little video that I give to people sometimes when they complain about GW's trade practices

You know, I vaguely remember that. The video never said what they did wrong to piss off PP, and I've never seen PP act like that towards any other shop or fansite. I remember thinking that there was more to the story than they were telling us. Did they ever say what the cause was?

But I guess they have a reason why they stuck with board games instead of moving into miniatures (though with Asmodee/FFG pulling GW-level moves, they may have back the wrong horse again)

IIRC, they stated that they did nothing wrong, but there was another store (or chain) in town that was competing for PP distribution and somehow persuaded hq to completely shut TC down. I'm not 100% sure about this, as it was a long time ago, but the video is still on their channel.

 CoreCommander wrote:

IIRC, they stated that they did nothing wrong, but there was another store (or chain) in town that was competing for PP distribution and somehow persuaded hq to completely shut TC down. I'm not 100% sure about this, as it was a long time ago, but the video is still on their channel.

Some internet searching found this unsourced, unconfirmed commentary. Of the things listed, it seems most likely the selling of items well below MSRP online that got them cut off.

That's very interesting. So they were trying to pull the Wayland trick (as I recall, they also used to list everything as in stock and then order it after you pay them) and got shafted for it

Might have strayed a bit far from the topic here, let's try to get back to it please