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 have played only a handful of AOS games, and I will freely admit I haven't played 40k but I have watched quite a few games at my local GW. From what I've seen, AOS is not only relatively speaking more balanced (imbalances exist of course but it's not as bad as 40k) but it's also more tactically rewarding and a lot more fun than 40k. The 40k tables always seem to give off this hostile, for lack of a better word, vibe; people are always trying to one-up each other or play an ever-growing arms race; I constantly hear people talk about how such and such great new Forgeworld thing is out and it can do all these awesome things that are essentially way OP. The AOS games always seem to be more laid back, and people are more willing to ad-lib things to the game in order to make it better. Today for example, my GW store had its 1 year anniversary "party" and we had Kill Team size games of AOS and 40k going on all day. The 40k game had more people, but it felt more convoluted like people were trying to game it by bringing very powerful models to such a low points game, knowing that things wouldn't be fair. The AOS table, which I was a part of, came up with a free for all scenario with objectives that gave you random one-use abilities (the store manager made up a bunch of little scrolls), and we added some rules like if a model died you could bring it back onto the table the next turn on a 3+, and had several new players (returning players, actually) who had a blast with it because the rules were so lightweight as to be extremely flexible in adding things to it on the fly as we went along.

So I think for the time being I am going to be all in on AOS over 40k, it just seems like GW is doing a lot right with it (still some pain points, but nothing is really "perfect") and it seems like it's in a much better place games-wise than 40k currently.

40k's rules aren't worth the trouble for me anymore as I have neither the time nor the energy to use them. AoS' rules did it for me though. I recommend that you take a look at this dude's AoS and 40k projects. There is a lot of fan material out there bringing 40k units to AoS.

http://hivefleetcharybdis.blogspot.bg/

That's really just picking the lesser of two evils, both are terrible.

We had an Open Play event today that became a multi-player game with Fog of War open play battle plan from GHB and it was so much fun. Drawing new players in, even that guy who saw Ogres and was upset his Ogres don't exist anymore but now knows that was all wrong so that was fun. I'm having much more fun with AoS than Warhammer and 40K. With exception of a Heresy Game I'm gonna take the AoS over 40K for the time being.

Never was into 40k except the awesome lore and novels.

The streamlined rules compared to 40k and 8th fantasy definitely are a big plus for more enjoyment from the game and not feeling my brain cook from looking through multiple books for a ruling.

Also, can I just say to the OP I respect their bravery for putting this topic on warhammer reddit? The 40k fans that overwhelm that site are going to give..interesting comments I'm sure.

Baron Klatz wrote:
Never was into 40k except the awesome lore and novels.

The streamlined rules compared to 40k and 8th fantasy definitely are a big plus for more enjoyment from the game and not feeling my brain cook from looking through multiple books for a ruling.

Also, can I just say to the OP I respect their bravery for putting this topic on warhammer reddit? The 40k fans that overwhelm that site are going to give..interesting comments I'm sure.

I was going to put it on the AOS reddit, but figured there would be more agreement there, and obviously it wouldn't fit on the 40k reddit.

Still, I stand by it. I get a bit tired of hearing the 40k crowd gush over the latest super expensive, super OP Forgeworld kits that they can't wait to get their grubby paws on. While you could have that in AOS too it's much less prevalent. I think every 40k game I've watched at the store have had this gigantic flyers from Forgeworld on the table, because "totes legal to use". It doesn't even feel like a game anymore to me. Which sucks because I really like the 40k lore, although I have to admit the AOS lore isn't half bad.

I personally find Age of Sigmar a lot less interesting. It was simplified too much for my taste, coming from 40k. It's a fun game... But it's not as good as 40k to me.

And I actually have a rather strenuous objection to your post-you never played 40k. Now, it sounds like your 40k meta might be a bit toxic, which sucks and will make your games of 40k suck, but that's not that game's fault. That's the people's faults.

I would advise finding some friends you like and who are interested in wargaming, play a game of 40k, and try it out among good company. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Well to be fair the last time I play 40K was 3rd Edition so about 15 years ago.

But still the people that I see playing all the time don't seem like the kind of people I would like to play with. They seem way too focused on Competitive Gaming while I have no desire to play Warhammer in a competitive way. They just turned me off even caring about the game with their constant talking about the latest overpowered super expensive forgeworld stuff or how they came up with some killer combination that is almost unbeatable.

Wayniac wrote:
Well to be fair the last time I play 40K was 3rd Edition so about 15 years ago.

But still the people that I see playing all the time don't seem like the kind of people I would like to play with. They seem way too focused on Competitive Gaming while I have no desire to play Warhammer in a competitive way. They just turned me off even caring about the game with their constant talking about the latest overpowered super expensive forgeworld stuff or how they came up with some killer combination that is almost unbeatable.

Which I agree with 100%-I don't play with jackheels like that.

Do understand, though, that's not the game-that's the players. You can find the exact same kind of people in Age of Sigmar.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Well to be fair the last time I play 40K was 3rd Edition so about 15 years ago.

But still the people that I see playing all the time don't seem like the kind of people I would like to play with. They seem way too focused on Competitive Gaming while I have no desire to play Warhammer in a competitive way. They just turned me off even caring about the game with their constant talking about the latest overpowered super expensive forgeworld stuff or how they came up with some killer combination that is almost unbeatable.

Which I agree with 100%-I don't play with jackheels like that.

Do understand, though, that's not the game-that's the players. You can find the exact same kind of people in Age of Sigmar.

That's true but they seem to be a lot more prevalent in 40K maybe just because it's been out a lot longer. It's just the general mentality of the 40K players but it might be something that I try out so at least I can see for myself since it's been 15 years and the game was somewhat different then.

Besides I have a bunch of chaos Space Marines lying around I might as well use them a bit

Disclaimer: I haven't played much AoS yet.

All my reading about AOS gives me the distinct feeling that it plays somewhat like 40k in 3rd edition (when I played 40k). The rules are a bit more streamlined, of course, but the feel of the game is similar. I don't recall there being any legal forgeworld giant stuff back then. There might have been one or two extra-large tank type things with official rules but if I recall correctly they were for casual use only and you needed your opponent's permission.

SoS, I agree with your assessment of AoS to 3rd ed. 40k. It is a lot more streamlined, even more than 3rd ed. was.

I picked up Death Masque for the miniatures and it included a mini-rulebook for 7th edition 40k. I've found reading it reminds me a lot of reading 9th Age's rules. Both games have a lot going on detail-wise but are just too involved for what I'm wanting. To me, current 40k takes 3rd edition and bolts on a lot of stuff I'm not interested in including making games too large.

Wayniac wrote:
I constantly hear people talk about how such and such great new Forgeworld thing is out and it can do all these awesome things that are essentially way OP.

You must not be following 40k very closely then. FW rules are usually on the weak side, and the standard tournament lists right now tend to be "main GW" codex stuff abusing overpowered "main GW' formations. Perhaps the issue is that you have some mistaken ideas about 40k and are comparing your idealized house-ruled version of AoS to a straw man dystopian version of 40k?

 Peregrine wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I constantly hear people talk about how such and such great new Forgeworld thing is out and it can do all these awesome things that are essentially way OP.

You must not be following 40k very closely then. FW rules are usually on the weak side, and the standard tournament lists right now tend to be "main GW" codex stuff abusing overpowered "main GW' formations. Perhaps the issue is that you have some mistaken ideas about 40k and are comparing your idealized house-ruled version of AoS to a straw man dystopian version of 40k?

Maybe, but keep in mind that I have tried to play 40k for several years now, at 2-3 different stores, and every time I get the same impression and see the same "cast of characters" (by which I mean the same types of people, even if they are different people). The 40k crowd almost always has half the board covered with these huge tanks/flyers, barely any actual units, and seem more concerned with how quickly they can wipe out their opponent and "win" than actually have an enjoyable game where both people have fun; that's not to say all of them are like that, but I hear the "regulars" and they too often sound like that, gleefully saying how X just came out from Forgeworld and they've ordered two already, how X + Y + Z gives all these strong combos. It's not for me, not in the Warhammer ecosystem anyways (that's why I play Warmachine for that stuff). To quote you in the other thread, "winning is fun" yes but the GAME should be fun for BOTH people, not just the person who "wins". Your general attitude seems to be that you can't have fun unless you win, and as a result winning is the key to having fun, so therefore you do whatever you can to win i.e. the epitome of WAAC mentality. There's nothing wrong with wanting to win; losing all the time can burn people out a lot (I should know) but for most people winning a close game is much better than a blowout.

As I said I don't presume to say AOS is perfect and 40k is trash. I just find that comparing how I see AOS (and the few games I've played) versus seeing and hearing the 40k players talk, AOS looks to be overall the better game right now for people who don't care ONLY about winning but want to actually have an enjoyable game too. Case in point: AOS is much more malleable with on the fly rules/scenarios because of the streamlined rules, it's a lot harder to do that in 40k with all the special rules and USRs and huge swathes of things available from both GW itself and Forgeworld that can easily skew the game (e.g. hard to have a "take this thing" scenario if your opponent can field something that can arrive there Turn 1 and claim victory).

Speaking STRICTLY for myself, adding in ZERO weight from any other players of anything other than the games I ACTUALLY have played in the last few months. I am having a lot more fun playing GHB matched play scenarios at 2k points with my Bretonnians than I am when playing 40k. I have IIRC played 9 games of AoS in that time, and 11 games of 40k. The 40k games are split between competitive-minded RG and double CAD SoB with six Dom squads in repressors that are "attempting" to prove they are competitive.

Without attempting to tear down either game or its players. I think that the difference for me is somewhere in the activation phase for close combat. I cant entirely put my finger on it but several times the last few games of 40k I have wondered, with a bit of hope mind you, that whatever looms for the next step forward in 40k they do something to put a little fire back into it.

For reference I have played historicals for over 30 years. 40k happily in every edition since RT. WHFB happily when they gave me Bretonnians to play it with. Less so as the WHFB editions grew in number on the road to the ET. This could have something to do with the long suffering of your average Bretonnian player so dont necessarily take that as a slam against 7-8ed WHFB. I played FoW heavily until everything and everyone moved so far past MW Ostfront '42 that I couldnt even see it. I hung on for a long time waiting for LW USMC anything, but gave up eventually. My favorite GW game was my first, Epic, from the start by any one of its many many titles. Followed by Gothic, which has fallen far when compared to SW Armada.

I found x-wing first. Its fun, but a part of me just equates swarms of tie fighters with Star Wars just a bit too much not to take at least six. This suits the five year old in me watching A New Hope for the first time just fine, but it isnt always competitive. Im fine bringing one
of my tie swarm lists against whatever the new thing they are throwing around is. Usually I will be thinking the entire time that I wish I was playing Armada instead. There at least nobody bats an eye when I say I have 22 tie fighters in my case... Actually though, Armada has lit a certain fire to play deep inside my head and it has me wishing a lot of the other games I play were a bit more like it.

Not saying AoS is anything like Armada. And again this has nothing to do with the players of any of these games but myself. But like x-wing to Armada, right now GHB AoS has something 40k has lost for me.

Wayniac wrote:
AOS looks to be overall the better game right now for people who don't care ONLY about winning but want to actually have an enjoyable game too.

That's the same way I see it. I started playing 40k in very late 4th ed., about 8 or 9 months before 5th hit. I enjoyed 5th, thought it was an improvement over 4th, and my son and I still play the occasional 5th ed game at home. For me, 40k has become a game I don't recognize any more. I jumped into AoS back in February, because it was 4 pages of free rules, plus free war scrolls for units. It was much simpler, and I found most people around here were playing for fun, not world domination, lol. At home, we play a modified open play, i.e., we use points rather than eyeballing it, but otherwise, simply use the original 4 pages of rules, a couple of house rules, and war scrolls. It's fun. We have a good time. That's not to say 40k was never fun, but towards the end of my playing time, it wasn't fun nearly as often as it had been. So, yeah, I get where you're coming from.

I find a lot in common with 3rd edition wh40k (and let's be honest, the current edition is more of 3.4th than 7th edition) and Age of Sigmar. Both are simplified rulesets from very complex ones, but the simplification in AoS has been done in much better places than in 40k. I much prefer the simplified movement, cover, magic and wound allocation than having flat movement rates, the ap and cover save mechanism, etc. Especially as with all the stuff that has been piled over during the years, it feels like almost every unit breaks the basic rules in some way. On the other hand, I'm very sure that the AoS 4th edition will be equal mess as 40k now

In any case, the reason why Age of Sigmar is far superior than 40k in my eyes, is that the Warhammer-style ruleset works so much better with close combat as the focal point. Shooting focused games need some kind of alternating action or reaction mechanism to keep the game playable (just compare Epic, DcC, Infinity or Gatesof Antares to 40k to see why). That's why I also think that third and fifth editions were the best 40k editions as there were lot of more close combat happening.

 jamopower wrote:
I find a lot in common with 3rd edition wh40k (and let's be honest, the current edition is more of 3.4th than 7th edition) and Age of Sigmar. Both are simplified rulesets from very complex ones, but the simplification in AoS has been done in much better places than in 40k. I much prefer the simplified movement, cover, magic and wound allocation than having flat movement rates, the ap and cover save mechanism, etc. Especially as with all the stuff that has been piled over during the years, it feels like almost every unit breaks the basic rules in some way. On the other hand, I'm very sure that the AoS 4th edition will be equal mess as 40k now

In any case, the reason why Age of Sigmar is far superior than 40k in my eyes, is that the Warhammer-style ruleset works so much better with close combat as the focal point. Shooting focused games need some kind of alternating action or reaction mechanism to keep the game playable (just compare Epic, DcC, Infinity or Gatesof Antares to 40k to see why). That's why I also think that third and fifth editions were the best 40k editions as there were lot of more close combat happening.

That said though, I do feel that shooting is way over the top in AOS and there needs to be like a few more restrictions and whatnot (like you should not be able to shoot if you are in combat)

Wayniac wrote:

That said though, I do feel that shooting is way over the top in AOS and there needs to be like a few more restrictions and whatnot (like you should not be able to shoot if you are in combat)

That's what house rules are for. We play no shooting out of combat, but a unit not in contact with an enemy unit can shoot into combat. The way I see it, if your unit's being attacked, you're too busy dodging swords, spears, axes, etc., to be focusing on an enemy unit 50 yards away, and shooting at them. We also house rule rolling for initiative at the start of every combat phase. If it's your turn, you pick the first combat. Even at my LGS, for non tournament games, those house rules are used most of time for casual games. It may be different in your local area, but as I said before, at my LGS it's more about fun, less about adhering dogmatically to RAW.

Ultra Grey wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

That said though, I do feel that shooting is way over the top in AOS and there needs to be like a few more restrictions and whatnot (like you should not be able to shoot if you are in combat)

That's what house rules are for. We play no shooting out of combat, but a unit not in contact with an enemy unit can shoot into combat. The way I see it, if your unit's being attacked, you're too busy dodging swords, spears, axes, etc., to be focusing on an enemy unit 50 yards away, and shooting at them. We also house rule rolling for initiative at the start of every combat phase. If it's your turn, you pick the first combat. Even at my LGS, for non tournament games, those house rules are used most of time for casual games. It may be different in your local area, but as I said before, at my LGS it's more about fun, less about adhering dogmatically to RAW.

I agree, but in general the problem with house rules is you are introducing deviations, so you always run into "that guy" who builds something around exploiting a rule and then is mad that you're "not playing by the rules". Although luckily I haven't run into someone like that but I'm sure they exist.

My LGS mainly does the following:

1) You can shoot in combat IF A) you hadn't shot during the previous phase (your weapons are loaded, then!) and B) you can shoot ONLY at the unit you're fighting.
2) You can shoot at units locked in combat IF they are the first ones you see (if there's friendly models between them and you, you don't shot or half the wounds go to your friendly models).
3) You can roll look out sir for non-behemoth heroes if you roll 4+ and there's a friendly model within 3'' (he takes the wound and has to pass the save).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:

Ultra Grey wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

That said though, I do feel that shooting is way over the top in AOS and there needs to be like a few more restrictions and whatnot (like you should not be able to shoot if you are in combat)

That's what house rules are for. We play no shooting out of combat, but a unit not in contact with an enemy unit can shoot into combat. The way I see it, if your unit's being attacked, you're too busy dodging swords, spears, axes, etc., to be focusing on an enemy unit 50 yards away, and shooting at them. We also house rule rolling for initiative at the start of every combat phase. If it's your turn, you pick the first combat. Even at my LGS, for non tournament games, those house rules are used most of time for casual games. It may be different in your local area, but as I said before, at my LGS it's more about fun, less about adhering dogmatically to RAW.

I agree, but in general the problem with house rules is you are introducing deviations, so you always run into "that guy" who builds something around exploiting a rule and then is mad that you're "not playing by the rules". Although luckily I haven't run into someone like that but I'm sure they exist.

If I EVER find someone like that I'll ask him how come he's measuring from base to base instead from model to model, because that thing isn't by the rules. Also I'll gladly point at him that GW's folks don't mind house-rules as long as they are agreed upon by the community. And if the seraphon, dispossed, beastclaw, the three stormcast and two khornate, and ironjaw player in the tourney are fine with it he shouldn't whine about something they agreed upon to spice up the things.

People are more laid back because it's harder, I'd say nigh on impossible, to take AoS serious and I mean that in the best of ways.

The rules are so simple, it's just not as complex a game as Fantasy battles. They completely changed it overnight to essentially be another game with the same models. A lot of people that took Fantasy battles seriously just went and left the building. In fact, most people did in the local communities I know of. What stayed behind was a group of people who never were as serious about the game and just were in it for gaks and giggles (which is an equally valid way of playing).

AoS became a game whose target audience are those people who are in it for the fun of it and in that respect it succeeded tremendously because most people I know who play it are in it to see cool gak happen. They're not out to win.

I am starting AoS as part of a campaign a LFGS is organizing as a side hobby but I would never make it my main wargame because I can't get seriously into the game aspect of the game.

Well having previously only collected models for both when I started playing tbh I could not be bothered to read like 200 pages of rules for 40k and aos it's 4 so I could set up a small test games in minutes and now it's all I play.
Basically I'm lazy and aos allows me to be

 jamopower wrote:
That's why I also think that third and fifth editions were the best 40k editions as there were lot of more close combat happening.

My experience with 3rd was very different from this, but it could easily just be a local difference. I played an eldar list initially that had a fair amount of CC, and then picked up Space Marines and that's when the CC stopped. I fielded a very stripped down army -- basically just tactical squads and devastator squads plus one small assault marine squad with a chaplain. I never played a match with that army where the opponent survived to see any meaningful close combat.

For me the fact that a sci fi game was so dominated by CC in 3rd edition is why I didn't like it.

I find it more interesting than 40k too, the two gaming groups seem sort of balanced for me at least. Gameplay I just like how it feels less tedious than 40k can be at times, though I do like the background in 40k a bit more. It's why I'm looking at getting back into 40k again after a few months of AoS, to bounce back between the two or come straight back to AoS after seeing the prices and maybe running into the expected of 40k.

Heresy is much more fun than 40K recently, too.

I have played an awful lot of 40k over the years (and have done a little writing for it, so I am a little biased!). Recently we played an all-day 40k campaign, and a lot of fun it was - however, at the end of the day, I found myself thinking about the Age of Sigmar campaign we are playing and how that was more fun.

I think two things do it for me:

1. Easy, no stress rules encourage a more relaxed attitude.
2. Strong ongoing storyline.

For me, Age of Sigmar is currently the better game...

My gaming group we use to play a lot of 40K and when AoS came out we looked at it but were like meh and went back to 40K, at the same time I started to buy a few euro board games so we started to play those on our gaming nights.

Since the GHB has come out we have played a lot of AoS at 1000 points mostly we love the fact there are rules for multiplayer games as often on an evening there is 3-5 of us so the rules work for that.

I love the hit/wound system so simple but it works, also do love the strategy behind combat as its a "i go you go" type of situation so you have to think the best order to do the combats in etc.

I am sure 40K will come back into flavour, but while AoS is simple, fast to play, fun will be a struggle to come back to the staggering rule behemoth that is 40K

Kimbie