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 don't think the arguments surrounding AoS have changed because people's experiences and understanding haven't changed. When AoS came out, I really only had experience with Warmachine (which was largely positive). Since then, I've played Infinity and Malifaux, but not as much as I would've liked, and probably not enough to greatly affect my viewpoint. My experiences with WMH went sour in this time as well, which made me double down in the things I liked about AoS. I've still never played 40k or WHFB. So my arguments have largely been "I like what AoS does" and "I don't like what Warmachine does" - two independent thoughts, arrived at separately and both minority opinions - and extrapolating. Without further competing experiences in the field, that opinion won't change... though I argue that miniature games need not be compared only to other miniature games - they have enough in common with board and video games.

But the same could be said for other people in these discussions. The folks arguing against AoS's features that haven't played AoS, still haven't played AoS. The people holding on too tightly to WHFB and related games like 9th Age and KoW, still hold on too tightly. The people who believe X still believe X. And again, this is because the field doesn't change often enough for competing experiences to illuminate our viewpoints. There haven't been any other new games (few kickstarters, but it'll be a year before those come out, and even then, how different will they be, really?). There haven't been any other games trying new approaches to game design. There hasn't been a third alternative beyond points and no points. The only things that HAS changed has been the further refinement that GW has done on AoS, which we're still only seeing the first steps of (killing Tomb Kings? Reclassifying everything?)

Honestly, I don't think my opinion of AoS will change all that much. It's not going to go from something I greatly like to something I greatly dislike unless I have a particularly horrible experience or two with it (which, to be fair, I did with Warmachine). The most that could happen is that I get tired of it or move on to a different game, which hasn't happened yet (I do like Infinity, but for different reasons than AoS, so they don't compete on anything except budget and time - both of which AoS won due to the great start collecting boxes).

The opposite, though, is different. Time heals all wounds, and the longer AoS is out, the less the sting of losing WHFB will be felt. It won't make people less stubborn, but it will remove the largest obstacle some people have against the game. So even if the miniature games field doesn't change significantly (and sadly, it won't), the passage of time will change the discussion - mostly from why GW sucks to why AoS sucks. Yeah, it'll be some time still before the discussion gets any more helpful.

The arguments haven't changed. It's gone more quiet because people have cemented their respective views. AoS is a very unpopular game in Germany and sees no tournament play whatsoever as it just doesn't work on that level. GW has failed to deliver an actual ruleset and thus missed the chance to broaden its audience.

WHFB 9th and KoW have completely replaced WHFB competitive-wise and people just moved on.

 Sqorgar wrote:
The people holding on too tightly to WHFB and related games like 9th Age and KoW, still hold on too tightly.

I just wanted to comment on this characterization - it'd been a long time since I played fantasy, as my group died as the 8th edition deathstar slog set in (and thus missed the late 8th revival where MSU tactics became viable again with new books).

In switching to Kings of War, it's not because I was holding on too tightly - actually, myself and many others were building up our collections in anticipation of GW's new fantasy ruleset (and rumors of it being much better). I wasn't happy with AoS' direction, but I certainly had no desire to go back to what stopped our group playing in the first place!

Kings of War is, by all accounts, a different game - much faster to play, more streamlined, simpler. This can be good and bad, but for me, it's good because I wanted a simpler, faster to play game than 8th edition fantasy. Just because AoS isn't that for me, doesn't mean I'm "holding on" to WHFB... I've let that go and in some ways am really glad to be moving to a system that is supported by a different company. But more than anything, I'm just glad to be playing a simpler ruleset - as I'm sure AoS players feel, as well!

You may have a point regarding 9th Age, since it is intentioned as the direct successor to WHFB, but I just wanted to comment on your characterization regarding KoW. I generally try not to mention it too much in this section since folks have made it clear they don't like that and I can understand why. But in the end, this results in myself and other moving on even more, since the traditional areas to discuss fantasy (at least on Dakka) are dedicated to AoS. So, it's not so much holding on, as it is turning a page and starting a new chapter for mass fantasy gaming - similar, in many ways, to what folks who are embracing AoS are doing . Among whom, regarding AoS, is Red_Zeke - my fantasy hero and the one whose posts originally got me really invested in fantasy gaming.

You don't need to play a game as simple as AoS to see that the rules contain features you don't like, or omit features you do like.

Speaking for myself, I am not interested in AoS because it is so similar to 40K. If GW could have made it a different game, I probably would have been more interested.

Hey Bottle, nice to see your post here about your development as a gamer.

It's always annoyed me, the polarization between "casual fluffy" and "hardcore tournament".

As a pretty enthusiastic gamer in my twenties I was often involved in running, organising or attending tournaments. I did this because tournaments are a great way to pack in a lot of gaming into a weekend and meet new hobbyists, see armies outside your local area and generally broaden your wargaming horizons. I never placed above mid table, but I always gave my best with whatever army I was using - I absolutely played to win, and I generally had a fantastic time doing so.

When I wasn't at tournaments, I would play extended narrative campaigns with my local group - I was often organizing these, as well. I love narrative gaming, I'm a serial D'n'D GM and love interactive storytelling. That aspect was what first drew me to wargaming.

I see no reason why people cannot enjoy both aspects of the hobby simultaneously.

I pulled away from AoS because it invalidates one of my prefered ways to enjoy the game. Also, if I'm honest, I prefered the "Fantasy 30 Years War" theme of old WFB to the "Asgard with Demons" theme of AoS. There are other reasons too, to do with exaggerated aesthetic changes, price rises and changes to the base size that I find irksome. I had really begun to pull away during 8th, when those problems became an issue, along with a bloat in the number of minis per battle and magic rules that I just disliked. I try not to come in here and threadcrap too much, but I do read the discussions. I see a lot of people speaking disparagingly of competitive players or players who use points as though we are all awful people, and it's a bit depressing.

These days I am playing KoW (when I get to play, which is not often) and planning on making Fantasy "counts as" lists for Saga if I want to do skirmish style gaming.

Thanks for posting this cry against the continuing polarization of our community.

 Sigvatr wrote:
AoS is a very unpopular game in Germany and sees no tournament play whatsoever as it just doesn't work on that level.

Well that's kind of like saying monopoly tournaments aren't common in the US.It's not a game designed for competitive play.

I think the dividing line comes with how many people played Warhammer Fantasy as solely a competitive game. AOS is a "beer and pretzels" way to get your figures on the table that you have worked hard painting, collecting, and converting and have some fun enacting battles, whether that's playing with scenarios or running narrative campaigns or just having a silly fun time. It's not really for hyper serious "I just beat you, I am better than you, I am the best" crowd. Not without extensive modification at least.

From my experience I think AoS' issue has been that it is *so* different from WFB some people weren't even prepared to give it a try.
AoS is (I think) a system that requires demonstration far more than others. Because it is *so* unrestricted, you have to figure out what you want to do with it yourself. If you don't 'get' it, then the game'll be dead for you. If you can get a game against/observing someone who *does* 'get' it, then things start to click and you feel like another game.

In terms of what I've seen...
AoS early adopters - the ones who 'got it' - have been fine since day 1. Maybe house ruling or comping, but for them the system had more pros than cons.

Then there's the sceptics. The ones who can't really see how they could enjoy the game - but they still gave it a go. Most were 'converted' - a lot of the time when an early adopter was involved - but a few just weren't getting what they wanted out of it and moved on to something else.

Then finally you have those termed 'haters'. The ones who won't even consider playing the game. They have their reasons, nothing anyone says, does or offers will change their minds.
(Which I think is a shame, but there y'go.)

None of this is intended to be insulting or derisory in any way, and is *definitely* not intended to make out that people who dislike AoS are idiots or whatever. Just a musing on what I've seen in the local scene in terms if AoS uptake.

TLR AoS needs people playing it to get people playing it.

Veshnakar wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
AoS is a very unpopular game in Germany and sees no tournament play whatsoever as it just doesn't work on that level.

Well that's kind of like saying monopoly tournaments aren't common in the US.It's not a game designed for competitive play.

I think the dividing line comes with how many people played Warhammer Fantasy as solely a competitive game. AOS is a "beer and pretzels" way to get your figures on the table that you have worked hard painting, collecting, and converting and have some fun enacting battles, whether that's playing with scenarios or running narrative campaigns or just having a silly fun time. It's not really for hyper serious "I just beat you, I am better than you, I am the best" crowd. Not without extensive modification at least.

Ummm, I really disagree with your characterisation of tournament gamers there. I'm a tournament gamer and I do not have that attitude, and I enjoy a relaxed game too. But when one avenue of enjoyment is closed off, I am inclined to move to games that allow me to do both, rather than restricting me.

(I also get annoyed at the idea that tournament gamers don't work hard painting, converting and building a narrative for their forces - some of the most beautifully converted and painted armies I've ever seen have been a tournaments)

RoperPG wrote:


Then finally you have those termed 'haters'. The ones who won't even consider playing the game. They have their reasons, nothing anyone says, does or offers will change their minds.
(Which I think is a shame, but there y'go.)

None of this is intended to be insulting or derisory in any way, and is *definitely* not intended to make out that people who dislike AoS are idiots or whatever.

There are far wider spectrum than just those who get it, sceptics and haterz. Some people simply aren't all that interested in it. I assume it's an internet and tone thing, but lumping those who don't want to play as haters isn't necessarily fair, or accurate.

I have no intention of playing Aos, despite immensely enjoying the whole narrative play kind of thing. I dislike Aos for a number of reasons (don't like the models, don't like the game mechanics, and I already do what Aos tries to sell. Why should I do the same thing with models,I don't like and gsme mechanics that I don't like?) . Thst doesn't make me a 'hater'. It just makes me uninterested. Plenty others have reasons for disliking it too - doesn't make them haterz either.



On topic though - have an exalt bottle. Good read. very much enjoyed it.

 RiTides wrote:

You may have a point regarding 9th Age, since it is intentioned as the direct successor to WHFB, but I just wanted to comment on your characterization regarding KoW.

I wasn't suggesting that every KoW player was a WHFB player trying to hold on to a fading game - but some definitely are.

I can only laugh when people say your not getting AoS.

There's no balancing mechanism my groups tried to make it work but it's always one sided even when we try to make even sides.

Unbalanced games are not fun both sides should have an equal chance of winning but in AoS that never happens.

AoS only succeeded in splitting the community into four groups the GW loyalists, 8th edition die hards, those who adopted kow and finally those that left GW completely.

Of those four GW loyalists seem to be the smallest where kow sells out its rule books GW's limited editions haven't sold out once even after months on the site and in fact are given out free to stores trying to drum up interest.

Games never sell better than the first few weeks of their release if AoS hasn't taken off by now it never will.

 Da Boss wrote:
Hey Bottle, nice to see your post here about your development as a gamer.

It's always annoyed me, the polarization between "casual fluffy" and "hardcore tournament".

As a pretty enthusiastic gamer in my twenties I was often involved in running, organising or attending tournaments. I did this because tournaments are a great way to pack in a lot of gaming into a weekend and meet new hobbyists, see armies outside your local area and generally broaden your wargaming horizons. I never placed above mid table, but I always gave my best with whatever army I was using - I absolutely played to win, and I generally had a fantastic time doing so.

When I wasn't at tournaments, I would play extended narrative campaigns with my local group - I was often organizing these, as well. I love narrative gaming, I'm a serial D'n'D GM and love interactive storytelling. That aspect was what first drew me to wargaming.

I see no reason why people cannot enjoy both aspects of the hobby simultaneously.

This really resonates with how I feel - for me the best gaming experiences is when you can build a themed and narratively rich army, fully painted, and then take it to battle and try your upmost to win the game. And at that point it doesn't matter at all if you actually win or lose because you have both the spectacle of our hobby at its pinnacle and also a tactically rich and rewarding game where you really get to turn some brain cogs and have fun taking risks and implementing a strategy.

Even narrative wargaming can have a great competitive element, one of my fondest gaming memories was my narrative Necromunda campaign I hosted last year for my brother (link in signature). I spent a month or two preparing, fully painted everything - built a table with scenery - and then we played 4 games where I tried so so hard to win (despite losing all 4!) and every game was full of laughs, excitement and nail biting decisions.

:-)



Automatically Appended Next Post:

hobojebus wrote:
Games never sell better than the first few weeks of their release if AoS hasn't taken off by now it never will.

Surely KoW is the case in point against this? :-)

I think that AoS is building up momentum, and once we see something like a big Orc release, long time fans of those armies aren't going to be able to stay away. :-)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Veshnakar wrote:
It's not really for hyper serious "I just beat you, I am better than you, I am the best" crowd. Not without extensive modification at least.

Well, this is the sort of comment I was rallying against. Is everyone who plays to win the wrong fit for AoS?

Setting list building aside and focusing only on the actual game. Do you play to lose? Do you move your figures in the least tactically apt ways?

When I play monopoly, I most definitely go all out to win.

KoW first edition was never that popular always seen as a cheap clone which to be fair it kind of was.

But we are talking about the 2nd edition here and that's blown up mantic is having issues keeping the rulebook in stock and you can get the rules as a free download.

AoS however is being sold at more that 50% off and still not shifting there are plenty of flgs stuck with piles of stock no one wants.

AoS has flopped this first edition is a dud and nothing will save it, if there's a 2nd edition and it's alot better it may take off.

But given the terrible sales it's more likely GW will drop fantasy altogether thinking there's no interest in it when the truth is the released a lazy game and people saw that.

hobojebus wrote:
I can only laugh when people say your not getting AoS.

Ever consider they may have a point? Not saying they do, but did you consider it?

hobojebus wrote:

Unbalanced games are not fun both sides should have an equal chance of winning but in AoS that never happens..

You know that is not true, right?

hobojebus wrote:

AoS only succeeded in splitting the community into four groups the GW loyalists, 8th edition die hards, those who adopted kow and finally those that left GW completely..

There is another way of looking at it. Imagine you are GW for a moment. Forget those four groups - the only split that matters to you are those who are buying GW miniatures and those who do not. How those miniatures are being used (including Frostgrave and KoW) is less important...

hobojebus wrote:

Games never sell better than the first few weeks of their release if AoS hasn't taken off by now it never will.

Remember, there is a whole world out there. What you see with your own eyes may not be everything there is. For example, Fantasy sales have never been higher round these parts...

I've yet to meet anyone irl or on a forum that has played a balanced game with the basic rules if they use anything other than the starter set.

Anecdotal evidence of course but we are talking about dozens of reports from people I know personally and more from people on forums.

And we know tournaments are avoiding AoS like the plague.

So who's playing these balanced games without an extensive comp system?

As for people buying models clearly they are not model sales are down 15% profits are down and they could not pay the same level of dividends they did the same period last year.

The financial report gives a very clear picture.

People get what AoS is, a game system designed to get you to buy the biggest kits that give GW the highest profit margin per unit sale there's no mystery.

And because people understand this they voted with their wallets and left for other games.

hobojebus wrote:
I've yet to meet anyone irl or on a forum that has played a balanced game with the basic rules if they use anything other than the starter set..

Hello, pleased to meet you.

hobojebus wrote:

And we know tournaments are avoiding AoS like the plague..

No, there are popular tournaments about for AoS.

hobojebus wrote:

The financial report gives a very clear picture.

It really doesn't.

hobojebus wrote:

People get what AoS is, a game system designed to get you to buy the biggest kits that give GW the highest profit margin per unit sale there's no mystery.

And because people understand this they voted with their wallets and left for other games.

I think you have already made your mind up about this. I am going to move on, if you don't mind.

I love painting. I love it. I was never very good at it until a year or two ago, but now it is the biggest part of the hobby for me. Age of Sigmar is a painter's delight as I can paint up 10 soldiers, have a playable unit and then choose something else from anything in the entire range to be my next project.

During WHFB I had my Empire army, and that was it. I painted them as best I could, but at times it was hard to build up motivation to paint 20 more Swordsmen after having already painted 20! I had no desire to build a second army because my Empire seemed like they had such a long way to go and besides, starting a new army would just mean another 60+ rank-n-file models to paint again.

When Age of Sigmar was released I went out and bought a Vampire Counts army straight away. Neferata, a box of Spirit Hosts, Skeleton Warriors and Hexwraithes each, a Banshee, a Cairn Wraith, a Necromancer and a Wight King. This is what Age of Sigmar does great because that would be a tiny unplayable mess in WHFB and now it's a nice little warband that probably only needs another 10 skeleton warriors before it feels "complete".

Not only that, I went and bought 2 High Elf heroes and 1 Dwarf Hero to add to my Empire, + a box of Fyreslayers. I dug out my old Battle For Skull Pass and realised both sets could be made into their own forces (Dwarfs and Night Goblins). I bought some River Trolls to go with the Goblins because they're great models.

Lastly I got the entire Skaven set from Island of Blood new on sprue, and plan to add a box of Stormfiends to it this year.

So basically I went hobby mad, bought a load of models (so many I am now limiting myself this year to six boxes*) and have had an absolute blast painting up everything I have wanted to for years.

I wouldn't say I love painting, but I can enjoy it to an limited extent. I do, however, very quickly find with any mini game that like you being stuck into one samey 'army' puts me off. I also hate making the models. I need the buzz of cutting and gluing something I haven't already made 20 of. So like you I am finding that AoS is great in that way - I have bought lizards, undead, dark elves, terrain, dryads and eyeing yet more stuff. Each being something that I'd like to do cos they look cool or feel like a nice thematic addition, but would have felt a waste of money in a game which would say that is not legal.

That I suppose is less about the game though, and more the army building side.

I love to play competitively. When I play a wargame, I want to play to win. When I started Age of Sigmar I would have never identified myself as this, but having the competitive framework stripped away is what has made me realise this and has left me walking away from a few games feeling very very unsatisfied.

Someone on dakka has a sig that says something like 'The objective of the game is to win, the point of the game is to have fun'.

I always play to win, that is the objective of any game. I am not however into competitive play, that to me isn't what I'd call fun. In some 35-40 years wargaming I have never been to a competitive tourney*, and never plan to. The idea that the point is to show how good you are and win all your games feels like is missing the point to me. Clearly competitiveness is big in our society, and many enjoy it, I can't say it is wrong in anyway. However, its a blurry line, and the fact that you want to play to win, because that is what each individual game is about, is not the same as loving to play competitively IMO.

*[edit] I lie, I played Federation Commander in 3 online tournies a few years ago. An extremely niche game which forced me to look at such play, our small group was maybe 33% of all UK players (based on something the publisher said we figured we accounted for about 2% of global sales of one product!)

Through careful deployment of a refused flank, directed missile fire (against the Minotaurs) and a carefully timed charge with my knights against the Gors, I broke my opponent's army and crushed them. I never gloated about my victory to the opponent - but to tell the truth, I felt so chuffed that my hard work, planning and tactics had paid off with a perfect victory.

Now, this didn't happen all the time (or ever again!) Once I was on the receiving end of the same treatment, getting out-classed by a Dwarf army. And most weeks we had close, fun, and most importantly, tactically engaging games.

If I mastered my tactics and unit composition I could execute a perfect strategy mid game.

Which can be had in AoS.

I have yet to play any of GWs battle plans. I haven't even read the overwhelming majority of them - basically the ones that have been shown on their warhammer world event pages (cos I keep thinking of going to one) and the ones on the Seraphon book, (although even there I mainly just read the background blurb).

To me AoS is a game that tells you the game mechanics, but you decide what the scenario is based on what sort of game you like. I happen to like making my scenarios up (maybe all that time as an RPG GM makes me like that). To me the best scenarios are the one which pit 2 unequal forces against each other, where Victory conditions balance things out. What can be maybe seen as 'problem solving' scenarios as opposed to kill the other side fights. Maybe it is because after all the operational/straegic level wargames I've played I find the idea of 2 equal armies somewhat 'unreal'. That is not to say I can't enjoy such games at all, but I like stuff like Barbarossa where one army is going to be utterly stuffed, but that in itself won't be what wins or loses the game.

So the first AoS games we played involved one player having to wipe out a small rear guard in on corner, to get at a magically sealed door that he would have to spend some random (but with an understandable variance) time getting through (Moria style). Meanwhile from the other corner a more powerful force is arriving to stop him. Both sides are presented from the offset with some high level strategic decisions. How much to allocate to the wipe the rear guard, how much to delay the more powerful force. Should it be fight as close to where he comes on to bottle him in but die faster, or minimise fighting as you retreat but keep his movement forward limited. Does the powerful force go for the quick kill, or send some stuff on an end run to the other side, will it be enough etc.

After that it is about understanding what units can do what, who supports whom best. To win you need to grasp the tactics at the low level (charge, pile ins, magic etc) and unit composition for the challenges in front of you. It took a couple of play throughs to get the balance about right given our available minis, but given it was our first games it didn't take too long, and made for a good scenario. Plenty of Strategy, tactics, understanding what units could do what etc.

I may be wrong, but it sound like what you are meaning by 'competitive framework' is more a scenario which has some pre-game army building element to it. One where those who see the army building as part of the game can really get into. Something that really only works if there is a specific scenario around which the army building is based and balanced. I say that as I have played games where there is/was a highly competitive scene with zero list building, but it does sound like you like the army building aspect and wouldn't actually be so bothered about the competitive scene/framework.

This lack of list building isn't a flaw in the game as such, but more a missing scenario that people can see as the battle plan which emphasizes list building over interesting scenarios (I don't see a simple battle as that interesting as such). There is nothing stopping the community doing that, I expect over time one or two of the AoS point/comp systems will become the sort of thing used for such.

All you have to be careful of is that such a system may also comp away the freeform nature of lists that you so love. Pointing for infinite combos is a vastly harder than pointing for limited sets of choices. For myself I don't have a problem with points, and may well use such, but I am really not keen on limiting the choices. For both of us that freedom sounds like one of our big likes about AoS and such a pointing system would be the defacto game in your pick up games at GW, one you'd probably struggle to change. I haven't done the play in GW shops like you have in many years, however, I am considering it - although I wargame once a week there are so many other things that we play that AoS will only get a rare look in, so trying GW stores is something I'm pondering. I'd be OK to play a pointed game in such a setting, if it still allowed me freedom of unit mix.

Age of Sigmar is won and lost in the.. "Roll for battle round" maybe? Or in the set-up phase?

You've played much more than me by the sounds, but I've never felt that yet. Obviously having played with friends the set up phase hasn't been an issue. The roll for initiative ( as I assume you mean) hasn't felt like an issue either. It has always swung both ways, and whilst it can be a key swing, it has never felt like it was one that screwed an otherwise great plan etc. Of course that may be down to how much poeple account for the initiative roll in their plans. I tend to see it as if you didn't plan for it then obviously it wasn't a great plan, more a gamble that didn't pay.

'The rules are fine as long as you're not "that guy"'

The rules of AoS are fine, that guy or not.

I have voiced 'that guy' but it is context specific. The all hero army at warhammer world 'non-competitive' events, with clear instruction to talk before hand and agree forces for a balanced fun game. I wouldn't call him 'that guy' at a competitive tourney so much. Its about expectations, what is fine for competitive events is less fine for pick up game at store with random stranger and even more for clearly marked don't be a dick events.

Clearly define the limits before the game begins

agreed.

Summoning cannot be left unlimited especially when players set up balanced sides to begin with. Declare all your summoning before the game "I plan to summon x, y and z so deploy in anticipation for it. What do you plan to summon?"

Say a line like that, and it will make your games so much more tactically rewarding! Surprise your opponent with the positioning of your summoned Zombie Dragon, but have him know it's coming before the game begins.

Agreed. With summoning I see Aos as saying how it work mechanically, but again it is up the scenario/players to decide on how it will actually get used. For stuff I was tinkering around with for a warbands style campaign I was just setting summoning as being a mid game deployment mechanic for the set units you had. For many scenarios that can be pretty big, so summoning doesn't have to be about bringing on extra stuff.

And in a round about way, that is why I love points and why Guy Haley is so so wrong about the people who use them.

For myself I don't care whether they are there or not. But I do like that GW didn't do them, and let those who will use them and complain about them be the ones who come up with them. Aos isn't historicals where most armies are made up of very similar stuff with no funcky magic type stuff etc. It isn't KoW where most armies are made of very similar stuff and it is only the models on the base that makes them look different etc. Those sorts of games are hugley easier to point for than something like AoS.


I know a lot of those who didn't like AoS didn't like the loss of block mechanics. If fantasy is not a critical thing then I'd suggest Sam Mustafa games. We've played a few games of Aurelian lately. That has points. But beyond setting the size of the game it really isn't a list building game in the sense WFB/40 was or are. It is a great game though. Maurice was excellent, Aurelian is even better. For block style mass battles they are the 2 best games I have probably played, they are not fantasy, and I use top down image style units cards rather than minis, but if you want points, and balanced straight battles, with block formation type tactics then I can't recommend these games enough. They are not the control freak style command and control games though, with 'you can't order everything every turn' style of play but that makes planning key and tension very high. Some people aren't keen on that style though.

Block mechanics are in several fantasy wargames including Kings of War and Hordes Of The Things. Actually, so called block mechanics are normal for all non-skirmish historical land warfare games up until the first world war.

Block mechanics are in several fantasy wargames including Kings of War and Hordes Of The Things. Actually, so called block mechanics are normal for all non-skirmish historical land warfare games up until the first world war.

I realise that, I never said otherwise.

I was pointing at some block style games I have played recently which I think are awesome. Ones that if you have only really played fantasy or WFB/KoW people might not have heard of, but if block mechanics are your thing then you should give a go.

 Bottle wrote:

Veshnakar wrote:
It's not really for hyper serious "I just beat you, I am better than you, I am the best" crowd. Not without extensive modification at least.

Well, this is the sort of comment I was rallying against. Is everyone who plays to win the wrong fit for AoS?

Setting list building aside and focusing only on the actual game. Do you play to lose? Do you move your figures in the least tactically apt ways?

When I play monopoly, I most definitely go all out to win.

I don't play to lose. I aim solely to create an enjoyable game, for both sides. My group predominately plays scenarios, some designed by us, or some from various battletomes/campaign books. We play narrative campaigns. I guess what I was getting at is that the problem with being
a more competitive focused player and playing a game like Age of Sigmar is that the game allows you to do things like take 50 bloodthirsters. And a lot of the mentality from people that played WHFB of old is to try and squeeze in the best stuff within the point values given. So when you take that same player and put them into an environment like the one provided with the core rules of AOS you get people who now realize they can take the "best" of everything they want, rather than what miniatures they like, or what they just spent forever painting and want to get on the table.

That was my biggest problem with WHFB. As a tomb king player trying to get a game in, most WHFB players in my area were predominantly tournament players and competitive. Most only had armies with 3 colors just to make it tournament legal. So playing an army like tomb kings was widely considered a handicap, but trying to take units I liked sometimes almost guaranteed a less than enjoyable game. Units like Tomb Swarms or masses of Skeletal Heavy Horsemen that were considered by the masses to be "sub par". And that's just super frustrating to me. To have my army decided by what's good and what's not and having to wait for rules updates from GW versus the units and army structure that I like aesthetically and have spent countless hours lovingly building, painting, and converting and getting to put them on the table without the extremely high chance of having them wiped off the table by hyper optimized net lists.

And to clear it up, I am not trying to make sweeping generalizations here. I am basing this solely on the people that I have played the game with, which is a group of about 8 regulars. And I know their are people that enjoyed the entirety of the hobby of WHFB. My only point is that if you played WHFB as a competitive tournament level game, and the hobby came second or even third for you, that AOS is very more than likely not the game for you without heavy modification.

When I mentioned 'haterz' I was applying the moniker to all those who *won't* play AoS.
All the groups I referred to were done as broad strokes.

Take Jono, for example. He doesn't like it, and involves himself in discussions explaining why. He's not what I would characterise as a 'true hater', because even though I think he is *subjectively* wrong, the facts he has based his position on are objectively correct. That's his prerogative, and after all we are discussing a leisure activity. If you don't like it, why would you do it?
There are, however, others who have written AoS off on demonstrably wrong information,yet continue to argue they aren't.

My point was more that from my experience, AoS has done very well locally from those who *have* decided to play it - whether vanilla or otherwise - playing against those who had misgivings about the system and showing them it isn't the game they thought it was.
Your experience will vary.
On the subject of people 'getting it', I stand by my comments. I genuinely believe AoS is a good system with bags of potential, but it requires enjoying a certain viewpoint on the whole experience.
If you aren't capable of doing that - and again, ZERO judgement implied there - then it's unlikely you'll ever enjoy a game of it.

It's not a two-legs-good, four-legs-bad situation. People like what they like.

Uh.. Thanks?

Hey Bottle, just wanted to say kudos on a very interesting and well reasoned post. I consider myself in the same boat- love my narrative games and background, love my tournament games. One or the other can ebb or flow at times, but I agree- the two aren't mutually exclusive.

puree wrote:

I love to play competitively. When I play a wargame, I want to play to win. When I started Age of Sigmar I would have never identified myself as this, but having the competitive framework stripped away is what has made me realise this and has left me walking away from a few games feeling very very unsatisfied.

Someone on dakka has a sig that says something like 'The objective of the game is to win, the point of the game is to have fun'.

I always play to win, that is the objective of any game. I am not however into competitive play, that to me isn't what I'd call fun. In some 35-40 years wargaming I have never been to a competitive tourney*, and never plan to. The idea that the point is to show how good you are and win all your games feels like is missing the point to me. Clearly competitiveness is big in our society, and many enjoy it, I can't say it is wrong in anyway. However, its a blurry line, and the fact that you want to play to win, because that is what each individual game is about, is not the same as loving to play competitively IMO.

Thanks for this Puree. It's a nice way to categorise things - I can definitely identify as someone who thinks "The objective of the game is to win, the point of the game is to have fun." - another thing I like to say personally which resonates with that is "I play to win once the dice start rolling", which means everything that happens before the game begins is not done to the mantra of winning, it's only when the game starts.

So in that regard you could say that I do not often play competitively, or at least I don't often build competitivley (but from time to time I do really enjoy that too). All I want to do is "go all out" when we actually start playing, and I've found point systems to be a great ready reckoner to make sure two armies are appropriately sized against one another.

I've also found a few frustrations with the game mechanics that prevent me from "going all out" mid-game, but rather than moaning about it, I'm trying to find ways resolve the issues I have (such as setting clear limits before the game begins). :-)

Veshnakar wrote:

 Bottle wrote:

Veshnakar wrote:
It's not really for hyper serious "I just beat you, I am better than you, I am the best" crowd. Not without extensive modification at least.

Well, this is the sort of comment I was rallying against. Is everyone who plays to win the wrong fit for AoS?

Setting list building aside and focusing only on the actual game. Do you play to lose? Do you move your figures in the least tactically apt ways?

When I play monopoly, I most definitely go all out to win.

I don't play to lose. I aim solely to create an enjoyable game, for both sides. My group predominately plays scenarios, some designed by us, or some from various battletomes/campaign books. We play narrative campaigns. I guess what I was getting at is that the problem with being
a more competitive focused player and playing a game like Age of Sigmar is that the game allows you to do things like take 50 bloodthirsters. And a lot of the mentality from people that played WHFB of old is to try and squeeze in the best stuff within the point values given. So when you take that same player and put them into an environment like the one provided with the core rules of AOS you get people who now realize they can take the "best" of everything they want, rather than what miniatures they like, or what they just spent forever painting and want to get on the table.

That was my biggest problem with WHFB. As a tomb king player trying to get a game in, most WHFB players in my area were predominantly tournament players and competitive. Most only had armies with 3 colors just to make it tournament legal. So playing an army like tomb kings was widely considered a handicap, but trying to take units I liked sometimes almost guaranteed a less than enjoyable game. Units like Tomb Swarms or masses of Skeletal Heavy Horsemen that were considered by the masses to be "sub par". And that's just super frustrating to me. To have my army decided by what's good and what's not and having to wait for rules updates from GW versus the units and army structure that I like aesthetically and have spent countless hours lovingly building, painting, and converting and getting to put them on the table without the extremely high chance of having them wiped off the table by hyper optimized net lists.

It seems to me these problems are mainly from poorly pointed units rather than points in general. If that means eye-balling it is better for balance with you, then go for it! I play with both points and without - I do recommend you give some of the systems like SDK a try to see if they are better costed in your eyes :-)

Red_Zeke wrote:Hey Bottle, just wanted to say kudos on a very interesting and well reasoned post. I consider myself in the same boat- love my narrative games and background, love my tournament games. One or the other can ebb or flow at times, but I agree- the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Thanks man, well it was a bit of ramble and went off on a few tangents - I just wanted to put together an interesting article for people to mew over :-)

Bottle, I always enjoy your posts on AoS, you often bring up a lot of good points and you're one of the few people willing to discuss AoS without bias. In regards to AoS being tactically unsatisfying, I agree that it doesn't have the same tactical depth of WHFB, but using the battleplans from the books does make it more engaging than a standard pitched battle.

IMHO the problem is that people are still comparing AoS to WHFB. They might use the same models but they're very different games. If people expect the same kind of game they'll be disappointed, but if they're willing to try AoS for it's own merits they might find they like it. I have to admit that I was rather fond of WHFB, but it became apparent as soon as AoS cme out that it wasn't going to be anything like the game we knew and loved.

When you name the new game after one of the most iconic characters of the old one and use all the same models it's kinda inevitable that the new game should be compared to the old one.

MongooseMatt wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
I've yet to meet anyone irl or on a forum that has played a balanced game with the basic rules if they use anything other than the starter set..

Hello, pleased to meet you.

How do you decide whether your game was balanced or not?

 jonolikespie wrote:
When you name the new game after one of the most iconic characters of the old one and use all the same models it's kinda inevitable that the new game should be compared to the old one.

I suppose that's true, but when you put them side by side the similarities are only superficial. The fluff is literally a world apart from the previous setting with little to tie the two together apart from a few recycled names like Nagash and Sigmar. They may have labled it as the sequel to the end times, but you could just as easily ignore any connection between AoS and WHFB; the game itself is different, the fluff is vastly different, and even the aesthetic seems to be moving away from the style of the old world.

Don't get me wrong, I like AoS, but I have no misconceptions about it being a true succesor to WHFB.

How do you decide whether your game was balanced or not?

I can't believe someone just asked that.

Surely if you just played a game you have a very good idea whether it was balanced - you just played it, you know how close it was or how one sided it was. You probably talk to the other guy who is saying the same thing.