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.

 Overread wrote:

When you buy a Battalion you spend points on the battalion itself. That gets you the ability that the battalion gives the unit (whatever that is detailed on the battalion warscroll) and you also get a command point as well. However you still have to pay points for all the models in the battalion itself.

Ah, okay. Well, that makes a lot more sense. Thanks.

 thekingofkings wrote:
Very very few people in my geographic area play it, hard to get a game with so few players.

Impossible. I have it on very good sources "See the Jervis thread" that not only is AOS a runaway hit, but that it saved GW. I can't see how nobody in your area is playing it. Since moving to 3rd shift, my evenings are more open, so I asked the local store what night was the current night for GW stuff. Apparently it's all ran on the same night as there's not enough players to split it up into multiple nights. I'd like to hope that 40K isn't doing that bad in my area as I still buy kits even though I play retro, but being physically next to a college and having few players doesn't instill me with confidence. Other systems are doing okay, oddly enough.

Generally speaking? AoS models are expensive as hell. Especially SCE. Their basic troops are like $60 for 10 of these goobers. I really like SCE but it's a hard army to justify putting cash down on. I could get a lot more for my dollar from other miniatures games. Even from other GW games. $60 can buy a Kill Team for KT or Shadespire.

I plan on collecting it sooner or later but that's why I'm not playing it currently.

No Dogs of War Army Book

I've certainly considered it, however from the battles reports I've read in White Dwarf the focus of the game is on heros and abilities rather than big blocks of infantry lining up in a battleline.

Perhaps that is a misconception, but that is why I haven't indulged!

Bloviator I do agree and wish that GW had started the game and lore with the founding of the Realms and the beginning of the Chaos invasion as it would seem like a more natural point to jump into the setting. Right now there is a bit of an oddity because there's thus huge past and history of the realms building up and races getting established and aliances forming and crumbling and then BAM its blasted away with a vast Chaos invasion and then Sigmar comes to help a few centuries later.

It kind of means a lot of the lore at present is Sigmar's forces coming to the rescue and winning the day. I think that once we are past this initial hump of the start of the AoS setting (remembering that the 2.0 release is basically AoS's 1.0 release launch) we should see a lot of other factions flesh out and get their own lore and setting. We should see books released that are not all focused or might not even have a single Stormcast within them and see the other factions rise up under their own power as the back of Chaos is broken and factions start to get down to the rebuilding and infighting and such.

GW is setting the ground work for them, but at present it is rather Stormcast dominated.



Kroem - yes and no. There are some very powerful and expensive (points) heroes who can be 400 or even up to 500 points of an army, so they certainly make a big impact on the table. However infantry is still very critical and important. It's no longer rank and file, so it moves and operates similar to 40K; but they are still all important and some swarm/haord groups work really well. Daughters of Khaine can run both an army of Witches/Sisters which is a swarmy hoard of dancing blood spilling Aelves backed up with thrones and queens or they can swap over to almost an all snake force with blocks of Blood Sisters slithering over the battlefield to impale the enemy upon their spears.


So infantry is still very powerful and still very viable. Heroes are powerful, but they are not the be-all and end-all of everything.

I will play some more AoS with the upcoming new Beastmen book.

 Kroem wrote:
I've certainly considered it, however from the battles reports I've read in White Dwarf the focus of the game is on heros and abilities rather than big blocks of infantry lining up in a battleline.

Perhaps that is a misconception, but that is why I haven't indulged!

I've read it on numerous forums that it's totally possible to rank up in AOS, but that there's no benefit to doing so at all.


And yes, synergies are a huge thing in both AOS and 40K right now. I doubt that'll go away anytime soon.

A thing to consider while reading WD is that the writers will try to make things more attractive for the readers. I think that for many people heroes and behemoths of various kinds are more attractive than sometimes soulless grunts.

Grunts of various kinds are important, they will tie the opponent and likely be the ones that will start the bar on the victory points meter. AoS simply isn't fantasy or KoW, wanting the same experience or mechanics that the old fantasy or KoW have will result in disappointment.

The community is the main thing. I've never seen quite so many GW white knights in one place. I've seen even fanboys who've praised it to the high heavens otherwise get leaped upon because the had the audacity to politely criticise one facet of it. It's one of the biggest hugboxes yet toxic environments I've seen. The active celebration they seem to have over WHFB being scrapped and disdain for people who played it - even if they're among their own - is pretty off-putting as well. Whenever I look in and consider maybe giving it a shot with more than my old WHFB models, there's always a circle jerk surrounding the 'old WHFB player here' where they take glee in tearing into why literally every single aspect of WHFB, without exception, is terrible and AoS is the saviour of swords and fantasy and rules and that returnee should be grateful that Almighty Games Workshop squat'ed it.

I'm sure we've all seen that 'Happy Place' thread.

I have. It was in a certain other forum renown for banning anything criticizing the game, and that has also carried over into certain other facebook groups as well.

There are clearly two polar opposite groups - those who worship the old world and those who worship the new. They are the extremes of behaviour and most of the time its just trying to shut the other party down when they meet each other.

And for the most part its just people writing short opinions online rather than expanding upon their thoughts in more clear detail, so it can come across differently to others (heck look at a few posts in this thread for examples in miscommunication).

I am pretty excited about the Beasts of Chaos book on they way.

Unless there are some more up to date rumours I have missed, is this the first (non-legacy) WHFB army in the AoS?

That must be a good sigh for old world fans.

 StygianBeach wrote:
I am pretty excited about the Beasts of Chaos book on they way.

Unless there are some more up to date rumours I have missed, is this the first (non-legacy) WHFB army in the AoS?

That must be a good sigh for old world fans.

No... Legions of Nagash is essentially the old vampire count book and made up of 0% "new AoS models", all WHFB models.

Also, Seraphon are just the old lizardmen without any new models, but also nothing taken away. So it's not a first by any stretch of the imagination.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kroem wrote:
I've certainly considered it, however from the battles reports I've read in White Dwarf the focus of the game is on heros and abilities rather than big blocks of infantry lining up in a battleline.

Perhaps that is a misconception, but that is why I haven't indulged!

That's kind of a consequence of WD armies seldom having big infantry blocks/spammed models in there (limitations of it all having to be painted as well). In AoS, a lot of the stronger builds are based around big, maxed out infantry blocks (like fyreslayers, Legions of Nagash, Tzaangor hordes, big blobs of plaguebearers,...). In fact, character buffs tend to scale pretty insanely in bigger blocks because of the nature of AoS.

I do like the fact that there's a maximum unit size in AoS, and that small units aren't necessarily useless. A unit of 10 witch elves is just fine in AoS now, but it would have been useless in the old WHFB though.

I will try to do my reasons in bullit points.

I rarly find public opponents that I enjoy as a person.

Playing WH Fantasy/40K takes to long.

Setting up terain is a hassle, along with having a game board.

Packing models and traveling to playing takes to long.

I am short on money, and I feel time. Meaning trying to learn AoS is a barrier.

My army was glorius tomb kings. I do not feel like starting another AoS. I really enjoy painting them. Skeletons are very forgiving. Painting gold and old metal is easy and funn. Red sand looks good. I am unsure if TK can play and perform in AoS.

That being said I think I enjoyed fantasy more then 40k, even though I have 3 40K armies. My strategy was having a big magic phase turn 2 or 3 with a worn powerstone, the scroll of 4 power dice and the casket of souls. I do not know if I can use any of that in AoS?

Aye and whilst AoS has lost the rank and file formation movement that has opened it up to increased use of terrain and the increase in buffs/debuffs and synergies. Your typically AoS table can take a lot more density in terrain and actually benefits from it; whilst your standard Fantasy table had to keep terrain a little lighter to allow for practical formation movements.

So some of the tactical elements have shifted around, and as said the new AoS system makes better use of smaller blocks of infantry as well as larger blocks whilst in Fantasy you generally needed medium to larger blocks all the time.

Some things still need cleaning up though; Banners and Musicians are in a bit of an odd place with some armies in that they give a squad level bonus with no negative (no cost and no unit limits on attacks/weapons) however if you lose the banner you lose the ability. So there's a need to either protect it; say that your entire force is equipped with banners (legal, totally legal just really stupid in visual ways) or GW could reintroduce the old banner rules whereby if the holder falls another unit takes it up.

Of course the attacked player always gets to remove models so in theory most times they can just not take the banner out of the unit until the last.

 Arbitrator wrote:
The community is the main thing. I've never seen quite so many GW white knights in one place. I've seen even fanboys who've praised it to the high heavens otherwise get leaped upon because the had the audacity to politely criticise one facet of it. It's one of the biggest hugboxes yet toxic environments I've seen. The active celebration they seem to have over WHFB being scrapped and disdain for people who played it - even if they're among their own - is pretty off-putting as well. Whenever I look in and consider maybe giving it a shot with more than my old WHFB models, there's always a circle jerk surrounding the 'old WHFB player here' where they take glee in tearing into why literally every single aspect of WHFB, without exception, is terrible and AoS is the saviour of swords and fantasy and rules and that returnee should be grateful that Almighty Games Workshop squat'ed it.

I'm sure we've all seen that 'Happy Place' thread.

You mean The Grand Alliance forums?

I feel that LoS blocking forests that were introduced with AoS v2 was a step in the right direction and with the combination of the RNG table of terrain attributes it comes out rather neatly. I'm not sure, that I like faction specific pieces, such as the sunken ship for the Cythai, Nurgle tree of disgust or the mausoleum for the legions of Nagash.

I have been doing some research over the weekend. I think one of the Idoneth enclaves gives its allies the Tides of Death benefits. I could proxy Shadow warriors as Namarti Reavers and maybe one archamge as one of the deepkin spellcaster, get some eels that I like with some thralls for the battle line. Include some Sword Masters as allies. Feels like an army composed out of models that I'd like to paint, a unit of Thralls aside.

 Just Tony wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
Very very few people in my geographic area play it, hard to get a game with so few players.

Impossible. I have it on very good sources "See the Jervis thread" that not only is AOS a runaway hit, but that it saved GW. I can't see how nobody in your area is playing it. Since moving to 3rd shift, my evenings are more open, so I asked the local store what night was the current night for GW stuff. Apparently it's all ran on the same night as there's not enough players to split it up into multiple nights. I'd like to hope that 40K isn't doing that bad in my area as I still buy kits even though I play retro, but being physically next to a college and having few players doesn't instill me with confidence. Other systems are doing okay, oddly enough.

So far the "runaway" part is all I have seen. I usually end up talking with people who tell me how great it is, only to find out they dont play it, or even own anything for it and that I should go to X on Saturdays as there is a big group that does it. The problem is that I and occasionally one or two other guys are said big group at X, and we can just as easily play at my house as there is little to no interest in it at all. Usually get bumped from tables by WM/H, Guildball, X-wing, Infinity, and more and more often now Legions.

 Just Tony wrote:
I have it on very good sources "See the Jervis thread" that not only is AOS a runaway hit, but that it saved GW.

You just can't stop with the straw men, can you? "Not tanking" is now "runaway hit"? I'll bet you got a C- in English and told everyone you aced the class.

I did say that AOS saved GW, but if you bothered to read anything else, I said that it represented a turning point for GW - the move from old GW to new GW. AOS became the blueprint for the new 40k, which was better liked and more successful than the last several 40k editions. GW's pocketbook was never in danger. AOS saved GW's soul.

AoS saved GW in the sense that it tanked so badly in the initial year it got GW to wake up and realize interaction with customers is important. Also that the games sell the models, the models do not sell the games. Dumping Kirby no doubt helped as well.

Sqorgar wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
I have it on very good sources "See the Jervis thread" that not only is AOS a runaway hit, but that it saved GW.

You just can't stop with the straw men, can you? "Not tanking" is now "runaway hit"? I'll bet you got a C- in English and told everyone you aced the class.

I did say that AOS saved GW, but if you bothered to read anything else, I said that it represented a turning point for GW - the move from old GW to new GW. AOS became the blueprint for the new 40k, which was better liked and more successful than the last several 40k editions. GW's pocketbook was never in danger. AOS saved GW's soul.

There's no strawman at all, my little friend. I referenced your posts directly where you spouted incessantly about the success of a system we have documented PROOF of floundering on launch and the full year following, and you respond with insults to my intelligence. There's no need to get Kitty... er, catty about it. There was a vocal push to make AOS upon launch a success, but the financials revealed a different story. GW righted the ship AND its staff, and is seeing success because of it.

Blind allegiance and demagoguery will not rewrite facts or history.

NinthMusketeer wrote:AoS saved GW in the sense that it tanked so badly in the initial year it got GW to wake up and realize interaction with customers is important. Also that the games sell the models, the models do not sell the games. Dumping Kirby no doubt helped as well.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

 Just Tony wrote:
There's no strawman at all, my little friend. I referenced your posts directly where you spouted incessantly about the success of a system we have documented PROOF of floundering on launch and the full year following, and you respond with insults to my intelligence. There's no need to get Kitty... er, catty about it. There was a vocal push to make AOS upon launch a success, but the financials revealed a different story. GW righted the ship AND its staff, and is seeing success because of it.

First, I didn't insult your intelligence. I insulted your reading comprehension.

Second, from GW's financial report 2015-2016:

We made progress in what was another busy and rewarding year. We started the financial year off with a huge product launch; Warhammer: Age of Sigmar, one of the biggest changes we’ve ever made to one of our core universes. Our design to manufacture was outstanding, over-delivering in terms of original concept art to final manufactured models, producing some of the best models we’ve ever made. The simplified rules, supporting the models for those who like to play, made it much easier to get started. We learnt some valuable lessons during the year on how to deliver product system changes on this scale and as we released more of the range in the second half of the year, we finished the year with sales of Warhammer: Age of Sigmar at a higher rate than Warhammer has enjoyed for several years.

Now there's no doubt that they said they ended the year with sales "at a higher rate than Warhammer has enjoyed for several years" and now the discussion will be about how AOS was initially a disaster and they "righted the ship". Not sure we can quantify the "disaster" without itemized receipts. I believe killing WHFB was a PR disaster, but that AOS' success was in line with the launch of a new game system/product (thus following the diffusion of innovations curve, where initial sales were to innovators and early adopters, with the majority of players still a ways off) .

Expectations were artificially high due to it being a replacement for a tentpole product. AOS was more successful in getting new players than old ones (partly because it was so different, and partly because of WHFB). But at least they righted the ship pretty darn quickly - certainly not "floundering... the full year following", unless you understand floundering to mean "doing better than what it replaced" (which, who knows? You might).

The important thing to note is that they righted the AOS ship BEFORE the General's Handbook came out. Fiscal year ended May 29th, while the first GHB came out in the following June. Adding points to the game didn't fix a failing game system. By then, AOS was established, growing, and doing better than WHFB.

I'm surprised this thread made it to 3 pages before it began spiraling toward the inevitable petty squabble between WHFB players and AoS players.

The Rage of Sigmar facebook page had a post thursday hit 150 replies now on a similar topic lol.

 EnTyme wrote:
I'm surprised this thread made it to 3 pages before it began spiraling toward the inevitable petty squabble between WHFB players and AoS players.

Though that's not what the squabble is about (it's about whether AoS failed and the GHB "fixed" it), I think we should probably come to terms with the fact that a large part of why people (from GW communities) are not playing AoS is the very negative first impressions, largely due to what happened to WHFB. I don't think it is relevant anymore, but bad first impressions linger (fester?).

 Elmir wrote:

No... Legions of Nagash is essentially the old vampire count book and made up of 0% "new AoS models", all WHFB models.

Also, Seraphon are just the old lizardmen without any new models, but also nothing taken away. So it's not a first by any stretch of the imagination.

While I am not fussed I did not think of Legions of Nagash because of End Times, I really should have thought of the Lizardmen. I probably missed it because I hate the name applied to Mezo-American Lizards people (but I love it when being applied to space-nuns).

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I'm looking into AoS, but only in a Skirmish level situation. My problem is that AoS is a veritable mountain of material to sift through when thinking about starting.

I'm right there with you on that one. AoS 2.0 has made the game more convoluted than 40K 8th. It's so much more difficult to understand and get into than it used to be. I honestly think it's funny that AoS was supposed to be GW's attempt at not only move the story long but bring in new players. Now, it's complexity may be on par with 7th Edition.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
In addition to my distaste for the large task of painting entire armies anymore, Skirmish (or Hinterlands, as I have that from before Bottle had to stop) seems to distill that down to just needing the Skirmish book, warscrolls for any units I want to take, and the expanded points list that can be found on the Grand Alliance forums that allows other units that aren't in the Skirmish book.

This is another thing I understanding. I recently got married and have a two year old stepson. My time to paint is... well, very very limited. So, trying to work on painting entire armies is tough. This is why I'm focusing more on things like Kill Team, possibly Necromunda in the future (I don't think a single person at the GW shop I play at have any interest in the game), and some form of AoS Skirmish as I hear the current formula for figuring out points for a matched play Skirmish game can make those games very unbalanced.

SG

Skirmish was never really created to support a matched play mindset is the problem.

 Bloviator wrote:
The people I play AoS with and I are in different cities, so we have to plan months ahead to set aside a day to nerd out. Locally, I'm pretty involved in the Warmachine community and, while I have nothing against other gamers, I simply don't have time to build new relationships at the dork store.

I would probably try to get into Warmachine much more if they seemed at all committed to plastic models. They have the starter kit, the two player starter kit, and a box of plastic models for each army. And, while I could be completely wrong as I don't keep anywhere near as close of an eye on it, it seems like they kinda stagnated there. They haven't pushed ahead to replace all current models with Plastic versions and make sure all new kits are plastic. We already know they can do it... Privateer Press getting to it.

SG


Automatically Appended Next Post:

auticus wrote:
Skirmish was never really created to support a matched play mindset is the problem.

The problem here lies in trying to find a game that isn't matched play at my local GW. Seems everyone there is only interested in competitive play (even if it is just friendly competitive play). Noone plays Necromunda. Shadespire seems to be at least somewhat popular as well as Blood Bowl. The main games there are AoS and 40K matched play. Don't think I've ever seen a narrative based game there except maybe the very first battle of an escalation league or if someone is willing to play a boxed game.

SG


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Generally speaking? AoS models are expensive as hell. Especially SCE. Their basic troops are like $60 for 10 of these goobers. I really like SCE but it's a hard army to justify putting cash down on. I could get a lot more for my dollar from other miniatures games. Even from other GW games. $60 can buy a Kill Team for KT or Shadespire.

I plan on collecting it sooner or later but that's why I'm not playing it currently.

I gotta agree with you on this one, and it's not just Stormcast. It seems that GW is cranking up prices for ALL of the AoS models. I can understand the rise in prices for Primaris marines as you're honestly getting more plastic. But, the AoS models (saw this really starting to happen with Daughters of Khaine, Idoneth Deepkin, and Stormcast to a point... kinda hard to say Stormcast are overly expensive money-wise when you can get the entire Stormcast half of Soul Wars for approximately $65 USD for 21 models). IMHO, even with the detail going up, the amount of money GW is asking for the newer models is just outrageous while 40K seems to stay pretty consistent money-wise for what you get.

SG