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.

So I've played a few games now and on the whole its all pretty good. The game is largely based around synergy and has some fun and imaginative objective games.

But theres a few rules that IMO really get in the way of enjoying the game:

1) Combat Order - Theres a whole load of problems I have with this. Obviously in 40k every unit is assigned an initiative and that determines who goes first. To simplify this, GW decided to make the player whose turn it is go first and then go back and forth. However, this puts too much importance on getting priority, a random and arbitrary rule beyond the players control. It means you can guarantee that your deathstar unit goes first and this can be extremely important; especially when some units like monsters get worse as they take damage. This puts a premium on being able to strike first in combat and a lot of combats get decided because of this.

One problem is that this feels entirely arbitrary and unnatural. Why should a slow unit strike first in some combats but not in others. Is that Great Unclean one really faster than my Wyches?

Also, it makes multiplayer battles an absolute nightmare and impossible to organize because you can't have people resolve it on a combat by combat basis.

Also, it puts some tactical importance on deciding which unit to strike with and this can, (especially in multi games) grinds whats supposed to be a fast paced skirmish game to a crawl as everything has to be thought through whereas in 40k this is an entirely mechanical process. Honestly, people really do fuss over this for any kind of advantage.

2) Turn Priority - Its far too much of an advantage to be given over to random chance. So many abilities hinge on it being your combat phase, you getting the charge, being able to pop off heal spells and abilities. This really can be game breaking.

3) Matched Play becoming the only accepted form -

At my local store its pretty much universal that we use tournament rules. Anybody asking to not use tournament rules for summoning and spell casting would probably be viewed as trying to get some advantage. Which is a problem because a huge number of abilities, spells and other rules just don't make sense anymore. Why give my branchwyches the ability to cast more spells when I can only attempt to cast from a small roster of spells? Why do all these units cost so many points? How do I know that those points aren't including summoning rules which are borderline useless now. So to take my army for example, you cannot use Alarielle's random summoning ability as written in tournament play. Theres no way that you will pay for models on a random chart in random numbers, in an army with limitless mobility anyway. So yeah I don't like the rule of one and I don't like the restrictions on summoning. They virtually amount to a partial ban on magic and a full ban on summoning.



Personally I think that:

1 - All combat should be simultaneous and models are removed at the end of the combat phase. This would massively simplify a needlessly complex mechanic and prevent all the needless hand wringing and allow for multiplayer battles. Honestly, it can take ten minutes for people to decide which unit to go with in a big game. If you want combat order to be a reflection of how fast a unit is, then it should have a initiative value. If not and you want an arbitrary mechanic, then just resolve everything at the same time.

2 - Get rid of priority. You shouldn't let an entre game swing on a single dice roll and its very demoralizing having two turns of being brutalized.

3 - Summoning and magic is fine as long as the points cost appropriately reflects this. The goal is an approximation of balance, that's not really it if the only way to balance the game is to ban magic and summoning which are obviously intended to be very key and pervasive features of the game with many armies having access to such abilities.

I've only had one game, but here are my thoughts:

* I like the straightforward rules, like not having the "to hit chart" like 40k.

* I do not like the turn order thing, because getting lucky 2+ turns in a row can devastate your opponent

* I think shooting in particular needs something to balance it out, because with basically zero restrictions there is nothing to stop a shooting-heavy army from decimating you, even after you engage combat. Even a simple cannot shoot while in combat or a penalty if you shoot at enemies in combat, that sort of thing.

* I too do not like that Matched Play has become the standard. I got into AoS originally because of the General's Handbook, I won't lie, but what appealed to me was the notion that I could build a themed army and be able to do it. Matched Play put the kibosh on that, and now it's all that everyone wants even if it's not a competitive type game. I think a little bit of discussion, even just a "Hey can you not field X this game, it's a little powerful for my force" would go a long way. Also the summoning rules screw over Death armies, although I can't deny that it was being abused.

I 've not really had much experience of shooting devastating an army. I'd say that CC is still more effective and usually you will get 2 turns of CC damage versus one of shooting. Although it is a little odd that you can fire whilst locked in combat.

The turn order being variable is something you need to take into account, that's the biggest thing that can be hard to adjust to. In CC it doesn't matter as much - I find that deciding where you want to fight first in a given turn is actually one of the more interesting generalship decisions in the game. You don't get a chance to devastate your opponent in melee without them swinging back, and it makes a massive alpha strike much more risky when your opponent will get a chance to damage one of your units first.

Of course getting the charge off allows you to pick what you are engaging first, which is a major advantage, but I find the back and forth swing to be much more interesting than raw initiative. Which in old days meant 'Elves get to swing before everyone, then Chaos Warriors, then everyone else, then undead' which presented the same problem time and again.

The only real problem with 2 turns in a row are massed gunline lists. Shooting being just as good in combat as at ranged always feels weird to me, but it does keep the rules simple at least.

"However, this puts too much importance on getting priority, a random and arbitrary rule beyond the players control."

This is one of the reasons I actually like AoS.

"Also, it puts some tactical importance on deciding which unit to strike with and this can, (especially in multi games) grinds whats supposed to be a fast paced skirmish game to a crawl as everything has to be thought through whereas in 40k this is an entirely mechanical process. Honestly, people really do fuss over this for any kind of advantage."

Let's not act like 40k is got this down to a science. It's different, you have to understand that going in to it.

"3) Matched Play becoming the only accepted form"

I understand your point here, but don't HAVE to play this way. But when you're on the receiving end of Archaeon having a re-rollable 2+ save it gets a little blah.

"So to take my army for example, you cannot use Alarielle's random summoning ability as written in tournament play. Theres no way that you will pay for models on a random chart in random numbers, in an army with limitless mobility anyway."

This is a models company making rules. You can play her in Matched Play, but if you don't have the models - yes you are wasting the spell.

You can send your suggestions to GW through Facebook. I never thought I would EVER sign up for FB, but alas I do like Duncan and his painting ways.

Really the only thing I don't like is how you can't get out of combat until the whole unit is gone (with a few exceptions/war-scroll abilities). It turns into a grindfest very quickly, which is why I do like the ability to shoot into combat.


"The only real problem with 2 turns in a row are massed gunline lists. Shooting being just as good in combat as at ranged always feels weird to me, but it does keep the rules simple at least."

AMEN - Freepeoples and Dwarves with 5+ Cannons and 80 handgunners can get old very fast

Summoning was just flat out busted. I don't see how you can put a point cost on a summoner when the ability itself is arbitrary.

Though I understand your stance, and agree I would not pay for random summoning - on the flip side summoning itself should not be as heavy handed in terms of free points that it gives you like it used to be.

I do agree matched play being default sucks but the writing was on the wall when gw announced "official points" that that was going to be the reality.

It is like that here as well where I am.

My main quibble with AOS is that things like forests don't block line of sight, and you can be in the corner behind four forests and a line of guys and still get picked out with no penalty to the shooter on top of that.

That destroys immersion.

I am also not a fan of units in combat shooting at units not even in their combat. Also destroys my immersion and is very gamey.

Shooting into their own combat i can live with.

Thats about it.

Something Auticus and I can definitely agree on. :-)

I would in fact, like shooting to be even more powerful, but with many more restrictions. I know its a hold-over mentality from ranked-combat days, but I like the thought of shooters usually turning into hot garbage IF you manage to engage them. I think it makes positioning more relevant, etc.

I'd bump the damage values of shooting, almost across the board, but counter immediately with ZERO shooting into or out of combats (besides perhaps fluffy ones, like Orcs not giving a crap if they shoot into their own friends too), and cover-saves buffs being more granular, versus the current, VERY abstract rule. Its honestly my sole macro-gripe with the rules.

I think you need to think about the value of realism or positions vs fun of the game. For me if you buffed shooting out of combat but nerfed it once the enemy engaged you could make some battles very one dimensional.

Think about the gunline vs choppy. At the moment the gunline does damage to the choppy before it reaches the line, but not enough to destroy the choppy army (usually). Likewise when the choppy army reaches the enemy lines it can inflict mass damage but it doesn't instantly spell game over for the gunline.

When the lines meet is usually Battle Round 2, so it's important you still have a game to be played. If you made shooting amazing out of combat but made it impossible during combat you run the risk of making the game a 2 battle round battle. Can the gunline obliterate the choppy in 2 turns? Or can the choppy get to the gunline and win the game? Indeed, this was how many of my 8th edition games played out.

I personally think shooting being so unrestrictive but also weaker (compare the ranges and rolls required to previous editions) makes for a better game overall.

WayneTheGame wrote:


* I think shooting in particular needs something to balance it out, because with basically zero restrictions there is nothing to stop a shooting-heavy army from decimating you, even after you engage combat. Even a simple cannot shoot while in combat or a penalty if you shoot at enemies in combat, that sort of thing.

the problem is that most shooting units have 18-24" range, and every basic unit can potentially charge 17"" away. With the fly, teleport or summon abilities, you can engage very fast in this game (turn 2, someone turn 1). Without the "shooting in melee while in melee", ranged unit would be useless because they would never have the time to do anything before being engaged. And for compensating, ranged unit are more expensive than pure close combat unit. Sure judicator are better than liberator, but 60% more expensive. It's something you need to take account.

Okay, priority/turn order;
By definition, in a two-player game one player can never have more than one extra double turn than the other because it requires initiative changing hands.
You can't have more than 2 turns in row.
Most hero phase abilities last until your next hero phase, so if your opponent gets a double turn, you're still covered.

Combat;
Always aim to have more units in combat than your opponent.
Don't try and pull off multiple 50/50 combats in the same turn. If you charge something, aim to make the outcome a foregone conclusion regardless of activation order.

Shooting;
As a general rule, units with ranged weapons aren't too effective in the combat phase, pound for pound. Expect attrition but aim for an alpha strike charge.
Warmachines can be terrifying, but most armies have some outside-the-box options for dealing with units that want to keep you at arm's length.

Summoning; I'm not a big fan of matched play TBH, but I agree with how they've decided to handle this overall - it just renders some abilities less than effective.

All in all, AoS may look like a fast-paced game but IMO manoeuvring and force application need to be far more considered than they ever were in WFB.

My overall thoughts on the AoS rules is they are excellent. The most clear and concise ruleset GW have ever made.

It's in some ways amusing how we players were the laughing stock on the Internet for a while with our ridiculous rules pamphlet, but with the community addition of points (and with the official GW points system being based on those community systems), all of a sudden we have the best tournament ruleset GW have ever produced. AoS is far more enjoyable to play competitively than 40k in my opinion. And that's only one of the 3 ways to play, too.

The main rule that doesn't work in my eyes is model-to-model measuring. Having to work out which rotation all your models need to be to maximize combat effectiveness is the biggest of chores. Base stacking is a crazy idea and makes things like retreat moves a massive pain.

That's only amendment I would like to see in the core rules really. Bring back base-to-base measuring.

Although I do appreciate the section on House Rules in the GHB as it makes me feel comfortable suggesting it in a GW store.

My other recent concern is the amount of boons they are giving mono-faction builds in AoS. You get an additional spell for every single one of your wizards, which is crazy good - but goes against that early AoS spirit of "build your army how you want".

RoperPG wrote:
Okay, priority/turn order;
By definition, in a two-player game one player can never have more than one extra double turn than the other because it requires initiative changing hands.
You can't have more than 2 turns in row.
Most hero phase abilities last until your next hero phase, so if your opponent gets a double turn, you're still covered.

Combat;
Always aim to have more units in combat than your opponent.
Don't try and pull off multiple 50/50 combats in the same turn. If you charge something, aim to make the outcome a foregone conclusion regardless of activation order.

Shooting;
As a general rule, units with ranged weapons aren't too effective in the combat phase, pound for pound. Expect attrition but aim for an alpha strike charge.
Warmachines can be terrifying, but most armies have some outside-the-box options for dealing with units that want to keep you at arm's length.

Summoning; I'm not a big fan of matched play TBH, but I agree with how they've decided to handle this overall - it just renders some abilities less than effective.

All in all, AoS may look like a fast-paced game but IMO manoeuvring and force application need to be far more considered than they ever were in WFB.

My understanding of the game is that at the end of a game turn you roll off for priority and this can allow a player to get two turns in a row. As in he went last in turn 1 but goes first in turn 2. Which means, lets say I am Sylvaneth, I can cast all of my heal and damage abilities twice, I can shoot you twice with all of my Kurnoth, I can make sure my deathstar strikes 1st twice and it really does matter. Whereas if I don't get that, I am basically going two turns of being brutalized without any healing or damage. Yes, I can keep things like Mage Shield and other buffs going; but its still very important.

The combat order rule really murders multiplayer games. Its not so bad in small games of six units. But when you have lots of units controlled by different people it means a lot of standing about waiting for every combat to be resolved in order, when really you should have everyone involved. Also, people really do spend 5-10 minutes deciding which unit to attack with. You simply don't get these issues in 40k or Heresy where the main issue is referring to the rules, looking up tables and such. In AoS, all of that is simplified and should make playing bigger multiplayer games easier but this rule really hurts the ability to do that.

Its not really maneuvering and force application, its trying to be gamey with an arbitrary rules system to get what advantage you can and just slows the game down. Real maneuverability and force application is about unit placement, deciding what to charge and focusing your damage; it shouldn't be about fretting over which unit do I attack with first.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

Its not really maneuvering and force application, its trying to be gamey with an arbitrary rules system to get what advantage you can and just slows the game down. Real maneuverability and force application is about unit placement, deciding what to charge and focusing your damage; it shouldn't be about fretting over which unit do I attack with first.

...and that's probably why you keep posting "what is the point of X" type things.
AoS is a simple ruleset, but it is not a simple game.

RoperPG wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

Its not really maneuvering and force application, its trying to be gamey with an arbitrary rules system to get what advantage you can and just slows the game down. Real maneuverability and force application is about unit placement, deciding what to charge and focusing your damage; it shouldn't be about fretting over which unit do I attack with first.

...and that's probably why you keep posting "what is the point of X" type things.
AoS is a simple ruleset, but it is not a simple game.

No I just don't like waiting for 6 people to make up their minds about who to attack with first and then me sitting around waiting for my units to get to attack. 1 vs 1 that's not a problem because you can physically only do one combat at a time. But it kills multiplayer battles and if you go to a GW store with limited table space (my local games club does not have an AoS playerbase) you're going to end up playing multiplayer battles.

 Bottle wrote:
I think you need to think about the value of realism or positions vs fun of the game. For me if you buffed shooting out of combat but nerfed it once the enemy engaged you could make some battles very one dimensional.

Think about the gunline vs choppy. At the moment the gunline does damage to the choppy before it reaches the line, but not enough to destroy the choppy army (usually). Likewise when the choppy army reaches the enemy lines it can inflict mass damage but it doesn't instantly spell game over for the gunline.

When the lines meet is usually Battle Round 2, so it's important you still have a game to be played. If you made shooting amazing out of combat but made it impossible during combat you run the risk of making the game a 2 battle round battle. Can the gunline obliterate the choppy in 2 turns? Or can the choppy get to the gunline and win the game? Indeed, this was how many of my 8th edition games played out.

I personally think shooting being so unrestrictive but also weaker (compare the ranges and rolls required to previous editions) makes for a better game overall.

For me, realism and immersion are > than game because if the game world is not operating in a way that would be conducive to how stories and movies of battles are written, it destroys why I play the game in the first place.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

Its not really maneuvering and force application, its trying to be gamey with an arbitrary rules system to get what advantage you can and just slows the game down. Real maneuverability and force application is about unit placement, deciding what to charge and focusing your damage; it shouldn't be about fretting over which unit do I attack with first.

...and that's probably why you keep posting "what is the point of X" type things.
AoS is a simple ruleset, but it is not a simple game.

No I just don't like waiting for 6 people to make up their minds about who to attack with first and then me sitting around waiting for my units to get to attack. 1 vs 1 that's not a problem because you can physically only do one combat at a time. But it kills multiplayer battles and if you go to a GW store with limited table space (my local games club does not have an AoS playerbase) you're going to end up playing multiplayer battles.

So it works then - but for you not in a multiplayer set-up, which isn't exactly the default setting.
Out of curiosity, how come you can get games in the store but not at a club?

 auticus wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
I think you need to think about the value of realism or positions vs fun of the game. For me if you buffed shooting out of combat but nerfed it once the enemy engaged you could make some battles very one dimensional.

Think about the gunline vs choppy. At the moment the gunline does damage to the choppy before it reaches the line, but not enough to destroy the choppy army (usually). Likewise when the choppy army reaches the enemy lines it can inflict mass damage but it doesn't instantly spell game over for the gunline.

When the lines meet is usually Battle Round 2, so it's important you still have a game to be played. If you made shooting amazing out of combat but made it impossible during combat you run the risk of making the game a 2 battle round battle. Can the gunline obliterate the choppy in 2 turns? Or can the choppy get to the gunline and win the game? Indeed, this was how many of my 8th edition games played out.

I personally think shooting being so unrestrictive but also weaker (compare the ranges and rolls required to previous editions) makes for a better game overall.

For me, realism and immersion are > than game because if the game world is not operating in a way that would be conducive to how stories and movies of battles are written, it destroys why I play the game in the first place.

I think overall I am the same. For example the rules allow for a chariot to scale a wall, but I would never play it because I can't imagine it in my head as anything less than slapstick. But when it comes to shooting into combat I don't feel it's as much of an immersion breaker. Sure - I like Necromunda or Mordhiem where shooting into melee is a crazy decision where you could shoot and kill your comrade. But I don't mind those rules not being included in AoS for simplicities sake. The same way models never get crippled before death like they do in skirmish games like Necromunda or Mordhiem.

RoperPG wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

Its not really maneuvering and force application, its trying to be gamey with an arbitrary rules system to get what advantage you can and just slows the game down. Real maneuverability and force application is about unit placement, deciding what to charge and focusing your damage; it shouldn't be about fretting over which unit do I attack with first.

...and that's probably why you keep posting "what is the point of X" type things.
AoS is a simple ruleset, but it is not a simple game.

No I just don't like waiting for 6 people to make up their minds about who to attack with first and then me sitting around waiting for my units to get to attack. 1 vs 1 that's not a problem because you can physically only do one combat at a time. But it kills multiplayer battles and if you go to a GW store with limited table space (my local games club does not have an AoS playerbase) you're going to end up playing multiplayer battles.

So it works then - but for you not in a multiplayer set-up, which isn't exactly the default setting.
Out of curiosity, how come you can get games in the store but not at a club?

Because its a two player game.

Nobody plays AoS there. There was a large WHFB community but they, near as I can tell, abandoned the hobby and play other stuff. Its mostly focused on Horus Heresy atm and my close group of friends were always closer to 40k/Heresy. Also, most of the club gamers hate and I mean loathe AoS. We're talking the full on Old Guard here. It would probably go down better if I said I want to have the change than that I collect Age of Sigmar.

Meh, screw 'em. Invite folks from the store.
If you don't play it, having a problem with a game is the same logic as getting pissy at someone eating donuts because you're on a diet.

Exactly. Who cares if people at the store hate AOS. Do you go find games you hate and then hate the people playing it? (i hope not)

Agreed with the above. My area is a hardcore bastion of Warmahordes, with many of the world-champion players being part of our community. Its meant any game, and I mean ANY game other than Warmahordes, gets you looked at like you're a stupid plebian...

And yet, I offered to run the summer campaign for AoS, did demo game nights, and in the span of a month we've got 10-12 very enthusiastic players, and plans for much more regular AoS gaming.

Thing is, I LOVE Age of Sigmar since the General's Handbook, and it is my favorite miniatures game in the world right now (not the best, mind you, but my favorite). If you want nearly any game to take off, a little leg work on your part has a really good shot of making it happen.

RoperPG wrote:Meh, screw 'em. Invite folks from the store.
If you don't play it, having a problem with a game is the same logic as getting pissy at someone eating donuts because you're on a diet.

auticus wrote:Exactly. Who cares if people at the store hate AOS. Do you go find games you hate and then hate the people playing it? (i hope not)

No, really, I know them well enough to tell that they would get super ratty. They can be really unpleasant, they talk behind peoples backs and are pretty toxic just towards people who don't play Horus Heresy the way they do.

These people kind of own the store and the terrain. They aren't in my close circle of friends, but I'd rather not have to put up with passive aggressive so and so's.

In fairness I have little to nothing to do with them. Even though I have a HH army I've never cared enough to have a game with them and they've been trying to organize a campaign for about over a year and excluded me from the last one; so I am pretty done with trying to make nice with them.

With my own mates. Most of them have drifted away from Warhammer. One of them is still avidly into Warhammer but mostly 40k, HH and hes very old guard. Insists I call my Sylvaneth Wood Elves. He ain't for turning, very Old Guard and its mostly due to him disliking the changes to the lore. Another guy has said he thinks the IronJaws are cool but he's gotton cynical in his old age and thinks the hobby is a waste of money. The other guy is just getting started with Heresy. Plus its fair to say that they don't like a lot of the lore stuff, mostly the silly elements and Stormcast stuff.

We have a store like that. If you play a game like AOS, you aren't considered serious about gaming.

I understand toxic as well.

We had a guy who hated anything GW does and he would rant in our facebook every chance he got about how only fools and idiots still played anything by GW when such superior offerings like xwing and warmahordes were where you needed to spend your money. I told him to cool it, he told me to eff off and he'd say whatever he pleased, so I banned him from the group. (in five years of having a fb group there has only been two people banned, both for telling mods to go eff themselves)

A year later at a charity tournament he was there telling everyone he was going to punch me in the mouth if he ever saw me. ++a year later++

Gaming communities can get toxic quick if you don't follow that community's culture or preferences. I don't go to that store for that reason so I understand your stance fully.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Agreed with the above. My area is a hardcore bastion of Warmahordes, with many of the world-champion players being part of our community. Its meant any game, and I mean ANY game other than Warmahordes, gets you looked at like you're a stupid plebian...

And yet, I offered to run the summer campaign for AoS, did demo game nights, and in the span of a month we've got 10-12 very enthusiastic players, and plans for much more regular AoS gaming.

Thing is, I LOVE Age of Sigmar since the General's Handbook, and it is my favorite miniatures game in the world right now (not the best, mind you, but my favorite). If you want nearly any game to take off, a little leg work on your part has a really good shot of making it happen.

See I wouldn't have the confidence to try and convince people of that.

If I was to try it would probably be on the basis of:

- Small skirmish game, relatively cheap. The starter set does give you two functioning armies.

- You can use your demons.

- Free rules

- Simple rule set

- Look how cool this factions models are

and avoid talking about:

- Anything lore related


The overwhelming advantage of the club I am at is that it has a huge stock of tables and terrain.


But I am pretty sure I'd have more luck convincing them to love Jesus than to collect AoS.

I mean I do know one guy who was thinking on starting Ironjaws. But hes put them on backburner until he finishes his Dark Angels.



To be honest I haven't even told anyone at the club I started collecting the army aside from my best friend I've known for over ten years.

AoS got me back into gaming. I have been hot/cold with 40k since 4th ed (3rd and RT were fun) and I started gaming with 4th ed Fantasy.

It's different enough and still familiar. AND the new models and new GW focus has me feeling good about where their going.

Still expensive, but it's a hobby.

Even though I like the game and it is enjoyable, I still will give it no laurels, its still pretty second tier. It is not well written nor is it particularly revolutionary at all. Its just a fun little game. Even at our local GW its hard to find anyone willing to play it. the generals handbook IMO was a great start to making it a better game. I still believe though that GW did a much better job with lotr than they did with AoS.

 auticus wrote:
We have a store like that. If you play a game like AOS, you aren't considered serious about gaming.

I understand toxic as well.

We had a guy who hated anything GW does and he would rant in our facebook every chance he got about how only fools and idiots still played anything by GW when such superior offerings like xwing and warmahordes were where you needed to spend your money. I told him to cool it, he told me to eff off and he'd say whatever he pleased, so I banned him from the group. (in five years of having a fb group there has only been two people banned, both for telling mods to go eff themselves)

A year later at a charity tournament he was there telling everyone he was going to punch me in the mouth if he ever saw me. ++a year later++

Gaming communities can get toxic quick if you don't follow that community's culture or preferences. I don't go to that store for that reason so I understand your stance fully.

Oh my. Some Geeks and Nerds have become worse than the bullies and jocks we had to endure years ago. How have times changed when being a faceless behind a screen you think you can do what ever you want. At least a bully or jock will do it infront of your face. I am not sure who is worse the person who does it to your face or the person who is hidden behind a screen.

The person who only does it behind a screen is worse because they would actually do it to someone face to face, but only if that person was weaker than them.

AoS got me back into GW gaming as well, 40k is just a convoluted mess and without trying out AoS or watching a game or two at my local GW I probably would have just given up completely on GW. The games are pretty quick and fun, though with initiative we sometimes lose track of who's turn it is.

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
AoS got me back into gaming. I have been hot/cold with 40k since 4th ed (3rd and RT were fun) and I started gaming with 4th ed Fantasy.

It's different enough and still familiar. AND the new models and new GW focus has me feeling good about where their going.

Still expensive, but it's a hobby.

Still expensive but the cost of entry is significantly lower than it used to be. Granted tools and paints will always come with a cost for the never before mini gamer but for someone coming from 40k the cost is much much lower than its been in a long time.