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.

tneva82 wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Hence why rules were optional and armies were fractured into tiny sub-armies; which I think was a means to allow GW to introduce new armies and retire old models without having the same backlash in marketing that retiring full proper armies has. They also dropped TombKings quite randomly and I figure that we'd have seen them steadily drop more armies as they rotated stock around. It would have made AoS a very light lore and basically rolling series of releases focusing purely on short term profits from launch events.

Incidentally that was the rumour well before release of AOS.

I don't recall anyone fully believed it to be true until it happened though. It was just such an insane idea to the market and showed how big a disconnect the management had with its actual customers. Heck I still hold out hope that GW of today brings the Tomb Kings back into the game as I'm sure they've still got the moulds for the models (unless their range retirement ran alongside most of the moulds wearing out at the same time). Even if they revamp them with new sculpts a return for the army would be a huge thing for GW to do for the fantasy range and I think it would get more old-guard looking at AoS once more with fresh interest.

Bring them back with the 8th ed kits and fill in the gaps with new ones that made them more setting appropriate*

*copywriteable

 Overread wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Hence why rules were optional and armies were fractured into tiny sub-armies; which I think was a means to allow GW to introduce new armies and retire old models without having the same backlash in marketing that retiring full proper armies has. They also dropped TombKings quite randomly and I figure that we'd have seen them steadily drop more armies as they rotated stock around. It would have made AoS a very light lore and basically rolling series of releases focusing purely on short term profits from launch events.

Incidentally that was the rumour well before release of AOS.

I don't recall anyone fully believed it to be true until it happened though. It was just such an insane idea to the market and showed how big a disconnect the management had with its actual customers. Heck I still hold out hope that GW of today brings the Tomb Kings back into the game as I'm sure they've still got the moulds for the models (unless their range retirement ran alongside most of the moulds wearing out at the same time). Even if they revamp them with new sculpts a return for the army would be a huge thing for GW to do for the fantasy range and I think it would get more old-guard looking at AoS once more with fresh interest.

Yeah well nobody really believed much of anything about AOS rumours before it got released. Even after release people were convinced there was full rulebook coming soon.

But point being it might really have been the plan. Certainly fits what did happen. Sure looked going that way until Roundtree swung things around a bit

To be honest having no rulebook at all sounds monumentally incompetent which was par for the course at AOS's start.

Oh there was a 'rulebook' but it was like the campaign books only more bland, a few snippets of relevant background lore, and re-hashed content from the starter set.

It was primarily an expensive fluff book with a handful of missions. However when the four pages of rules dropped, most people thought that was a joke because up until then... no large scale wargame only had four pages of very generic rules.

I also cannot stand the look/lore/overall aesthetic of the sigmarines. Not to mention they just keep releasing them over and over......almost like they are Primaris Lieutenants. I don't care for the setting, just confusing and every time that I've tried to read into it, I get bored and do something else. Plus, unless they do something more with elves, I'll leave it well alone.

I just play in a corner where the Old World still exists. Weird new armies show up sometimes because of the rifts left from the End Times nearly tearing the world apart.

I just played a game of 6th with my Beastmen against my brother using my High Elves. It reminded me of why I have no interest in playing AOS. As long as I have ANY opponents for Classichammer, I have no motivation to play the current game.

 bullyboy wrote:
I also cannot stand the look/lore/overall aesthetic of the sigmarines. Not to mention they just keep releasing them over and over......almost like they are Primaris Lieutenants. I don't care for the setting, just confusing and every time that I've tried to read into it, I get bored and do something else. Plus, unless they do something more with elves, I'll leave it well alone.

Just out of curiosity. which part of the stormcasts' lore? And at least they get something more interesting than primaris lieutanants in terms of variety (YMMV of course).

 Just Tony wrote:
I just played a game of 6th with my Beastmen against my brother using my High Elves. It reminded me of why I have no interest in playing AOS. As long as I have ANY opponents for Classichammer, I have no motivation to play the current game.

While there is no interest where I am in previous editions, our kings of war group has grown to about twelve players now. All of my issues with AOS are non existent in that game. Multiple viable builds per army. Games last 90-120 minutes as opposed to 4-5 hours, largely because movement is a lot easier (you just move a movement tray instead of fiddling with around one hundred individual models). No alpha striking "tactics" and no ability to ram your alpha units into the enemy in turn 1, so movement and positioning is key as opposed to combo synergy and listbuilding. No double turn ending the game because you got lucky and rolled a double turn up. Even squash matches seem rarer (they happen still but its definitely not as common). Games dont seem lost after deployment because you brought the wrong list. And of course, all of the factions have rules so there is none of this drip feed of everything so that only the armies with tomes are viable.

We conclude our aos campaign in a couple weeks with a siege. The campaign has been fun but the next aos outing will likely be next fall, giving a years rest from the system, and we will be sticking with path to glory to keep the games smaller and more manageable.

I was very excited for Conquest but they still have not released that game yet.

Path to Glory is pretty awesome. Probably where AoS shines the most.

I like path to glory. I'd actually really like a more kill team style game for AOS that takes path to glory and puts some more detail into a warband. 10-12 models or so, each one with skill ups.

Thats where I think AOS / the universe would truly shine.

Skirmish: Bottle Edition

Yeah. The problem here locally is no one will play unofficial rulesets. If they made it official - absolutely. Right now that just leaves KOW Vanguard rules which is exactly what I am talking about.

 Eldarain wrote:
I just play in a corner where the Old World still exists. Weird new armies show up sometimes because of the rifts left from the End Times nearly tearing the world apart.

My armies/events take place in a literal piece of the Old World that survived due to the magic of plot.

 Eldarain wrote:
I just play in a corner where the Old World still exists. Weird new armies show up sometimes because of the rifts left from the End Times nearly tearing the world apart.

That is great. I am glad to see someone who loves the Old World still keep it.

Since Age of Sigmar doesn't really make any sense to me like how a human becomes a god, I just think that the Old World never did go POOF and it's still there, we are just in Sigmars imagination. Either he got hit in the head, got knocked out, or is just dreaming and this is all his imagination. I am not saying this is true, just how I like to think about it trying to get back into Age of Sigmar.

I actually played a demo/small game of AoS over the weekend at a mates. The game was fun but it confirmed to me what I suspected about the game. It is a beer and pretzels game with lovely models. But that is ok. I can see why many would find the game enjoyable if that is what you’re looking for in a tapbletop game. Unfortunately for me, with my main games being WM/H, Malifaux (and a tiny bit of 54mm Inq!!!) it was like trying to draw a detailed picture using finger painting. I want more depth and precision in my games.

But I can see that it has potential to be a bigger game. I really think that if they had kept the old world setting but in a ruined “after the near apocalypse” state they would have had more initial success. They could have kept the familiar factions in a reduced state, added new subfaction etc and moved the lore on.

The main thing that prevents me from playing at the moment is deeply disliking the background for the Lizardmen and not enjoying summoning as a game mechanic at all. I would probably play in a no-summon environment I think, or one where summoning was limited. I will ignore the background because I think it is very poor overall.

I also hate the naming scheme because I hate bs. I bought the very lovely Ogre Mage from Warhammer Quest for my D&D game and it is fantastic. But the name? "Ogroid Thaumathurge" Gimme a break GW. It is an Ogre Mage. If they want to have copyrightable names they should at least try to get them to sound a wee bit less idiotic.

Yeah...you all know I love AoS right? It’s my absolute favourite tabletop game at the moment...but the names...not feeling many of the names.

I'm trying to figure out what army best fits Squats, I mean, Kharadon Overlords. I am thinking maybe Ad Mech but I'm not sure what the airships can be. As soon as I figure it out i'll at least be playing AoS models.

Garbage rules.
Garbage lore.
Garbage models.

 Overread wrote:
The intention of this thread is not to air grievances or hates of AoS, but rather to be a spot where people can be encouraged to ask questions that give them pause in starting AoS. This might be understanding the lore a bit better; or the way the grand alliances work or which armies are good to take or how to use endless spells etc....


So use it as an opportunity to ask questions and find answers so that you can get into the Age of Sigmar fantasy game

Pancakey wrote:

Garbage rules.
Garbage lore.
Garbage models.

Sooo in keeping with the opening post the solution you're after is for the denizens of this forum and thread to change the entire premise and structure of AoS for you?

Also I honestly can't help but think that you're trolling for attention when you start stating that the "models are garbage". Not that I expect everyone to love the models, but if you hate the entire model line (which let us not forget is significantly still Fantasy line models) then it says you've no interest in Warhammer Fantasy and no interest in AoS, which means you're just here to sow discord

Or the poster meant the new models rolled out specifically for AOS since its release.

You're being purposefully obtuse to what the poster meant because of your appreciation for the game, and take every disparate opinion as a different level of personal attack depending on the... intensity with which the poster dislikes AOS.

A game that plays nothing like what it replaced, dictated divisive changes in the money maker game for GW, and doesn't "do it" for several gamers is going to be remarked upon whether you like it or not, and it won't be positive most of the time.

Last night I went to the game store to price a brick of dice, and walked back to see what gaming was going on. I saw a small game of AOS with someone trying their best to get a newbie in. He remarked that it was vastly unpopular in the area, and it took effort to find opponents. That remark right there tells me all I need to know. People aren't playing AOS simply because they don't like it. Why? That's a debate. Whether they're "wrong" for not liking it because you DO like it? That isn't even up for debate, and it never should be.

I like to think that I generally don't take criticism of AoS as a personal attack and am generally open with some of the issues it has and that GW still hasn't resolved.

I might be a tiny bit more sensitive in this thread if only because of the fact that too many only use the title of the thread as a means to air their displeasure of the game, which is why I quoted my opening post in the thread. Perhaps I was a little too provocative with the title; but I do think it merits reminding that the intent was to help people into the game through barriers and their own lack of understanding rather than being a focus for general dislike from people who have no interest in wanting to play the game at all.

Check his post history. Pancakey only seems to post toxic comments.

Overread wrote:I like to think that I generally don't take criticism of AoS as a personal attack and am generally open with some of the issues it has and that GW still hasn't resolved.

I might be a tiny bit more sensitive in this thread if only because of the fact that too many only use the title of the thread as a means to air their displeasure of the game, which is why I quoted my opening post in the thread. Perhaps I was a little too provocative with the title; but I do think it merits reminding that the intent was to help people into the game through barriers and their own lack of understanding rather than being a focus for general dislike from people who have no interest in wanting to play the game at all.

Then, to be quite blunt, you weren't inviting any sort of discussion. The purpose of this thread was to convert the non-players who weren't vehemently against it. Help me help you want to play AOS would have been a better title in that respect. When making a street team/shill/recruitment thread, you need to be clear, ESPECIALLY with a game as divisive as AOS.

 Just Tony wrote:
When making a street team/shill/recruitment thread, you need to be clear, ESPECIALLY with a game as divisive as AOS.

Is AoS still divisive?

Not as much as it was a couple of years ago but yes to a lot of communities (from what I gather, mainly in the states), AOS is still a filthy word.

auticus wrote:
Not as much as it was a couple of years ago but yes to a lot of communities (from what I gather, mainly in the states), AOS is still a filthy word.

A pity. I've been away for a while, and the entire time I've been gone, I don't think I've seen any AoS hate anywhere. I though AoS 2.0 was rather well received, actually. I guess I had just assumed people moved on, but forgot that people like to hold grudges long past their sell by date.