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.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I've just commented in another thread about how I loved the aesthetic of the last 3 armies to be released so it might be apt to comment in this thread too. The main reasons I don't play is I don't understand the new setting with all these realms and there are less players in my local meta to play with. Also the standard time/money constraints.

Not hugely relevant - but this is basically my position.

AoS continues to be a bit chicken and egg.

Had a big goblin army in WHFB and I am certainly tempted by the new grots. I'll almost certainly buy one unit just to paint - but not sure about going beyond that.

(And, this is just noobishness, I continue to be kind of unclear on how building an army works in AoS - with points, battleline units, spells, batallions etc. So its hard to visualise compared with say 40k.)

AoS was basically the testing ground for 40k 8E. A lot of the rules that were changed originated in some for in AoS. Think of AoS points as Power Level in 40k. You don't pay for individual gear options, just for the model (or models). Battleline are your Troops choices. You have to include at least a certain number of Heroes and Battleline depending one the points limit of the game (just like HQs and Troops in 40k). There is also a maximum number of Heroes and Behemoths your army can include base on that points limit.

Tyel wrote:


Had a big goblin army in WHFB and I am certainly tempted by the new grots. I'll almost certainly buy one unit just to paint - but not sure about going beyond that.

(And, this is just noobishness, I continue to be kind of unclear on how building an army works in AoS - with points, battleline units, spells, batallions etc. So its hard to visualise compared with say 40k.)

The way you make an AoS army is actually a lot more straight forward compared to current 40k with their detachments imo. Units can have a role in the army (some don't, some do). There's:

Leader: you have to have 1 to be your general, but you can't have too many
Battleline (read: troops): you have to have a minimum of battle line units. Some units are battleline for certain specific factions (for instance: grimghast reapers are only battleline if you are fielding a nighthaunt army).
Behemoth (read: monsters): can't have too many of those
Artillery: can't have too many of those either.
Without any role: take those as you see fit, as long as you have your minimum of 1 hero and enough battleline units.

Oh, and a max of 20% of your army can be allied units, but those can never count towards minima, only towards maxima....


You just choose your points limit and the limitations (or minimums for battleline) are dependant on how big your game is.

I like the simplicity of the AoS army composition. You can make "soup" armies, but those tend to be weaker and not have a lot of extra rules... That's in stark contrast to current 40k where you want to soup it up as much as possible to make your army stronger than a mono-codex force.

Tyel wrote:


Had a big goblin army in WHFB and I am certainly tempted by the new grots. I'll almost certainly buy one unit just to paint - but not sure about going beyond that.

(And, this is just noobishness, I continue to be kind of unclear on how building an army works in AoS - with points, battleline units, spells, batallions etc. So its hard to visualise compared with say 40k.)

The Warscroll builder on the GW website can help
https://www.warhammer-community.com/warscroll-builder/

It defaults to 2K points, but if you click on the points value (upper right corner) you can change the points for the match.
This will update it with the limits for artillery, behemoths, leaders and the minimum requirement for Battleline Troops.

So you can use that to aid you in building a list up for a basic army.


It also updates the allies limit where you are limited on the number of allies both in point value and unit count. So building a "soup" army is very restricted unless you build a Grand Alliance Army - which are a bit out of date with AoS 2.0. Suffice to say pure armies tend to have the edge, but there's good room to bring choice allies along without breaking the game; its honestly a very well rounded allies system that works really well without being too complex.



Note the Grots are likely not going to be updated until they officially launch with their new Battletome. Plus in the Battletome itself you will also have battalions. These are groups of units that are bought as a block and which have minimum requirements to form up. Once you've got them you get a Command point (used to pay for command abilities in battle) and also a special ability for those units; this might be a single ability over them all or one getting a boon. Note that Battalions do cost points to use in addition to the price for the units, which helps keep them from being "too" good. In fact you can build many viable armies without any battalions and even at 2K you might only take one if you include one (varies from army to army a bit).


Honestly building armies is quite simple and its easier if you have a Battletome and thus all the relevant faction information to get your head around it. If you're into Grots then at the very least the Battletome might give you some idea how to get started plus there's lore and background on the faction. In addition don't forget Januaries White Dwarf has AoS Skirmish updates in it, we don't yet know what form this will take, but it will be well worth checking up on it. Skirmish getting a revamp* and some attention would give you one avenue to get into the world of AoS and get some games with only a handful of models.
Plus the specialist game Shadspire has some unique models and a Grot warband for it so that's another avenue of cheap entry into the game even if you don't want to go further into a full AoS army.



*From what I can gather of preview opinions the WD is going to refine what is already out there whilst there's a strong chance of a bigger refresh of Skirmish to come later. Which would make sense as GW is likely going to market Skirmish just like they market Killteam for 40K. AoS just needs more core factions with battletomes before its really a sensible time to push a big new version of Skirmish at large.

I don't play AoS (even though I like it) simply because the scene around my area is nearly nonexistant, and the closest store where people might play is more than a half hour away (and only carries about half the ranges of either GW main game range), which doesn't work well with a full workday that takes me in the other direction meaning that I wouldn't even be able to START a game on a weekday until 6pm or later at that store.

The only way I can play games is by getting a buddy, my wife or my dad to game with me, and only if I paint both forces involved and own all the rules material being used.

So right now I am getting my AoS fix with skirmish games that let me collect several varied warbands with the same effort a single AoS army would require. And while more generic in feel, using the fantasy rules from One Page Rules as a free and easily-taught ruleset, where I don't have to buy a ton of Battletomes to have 4-6 races worth of warbands, and lets me at least play games set in the Mortal Realms (or in the old World, lately) in spirit, if not in actual rules.

Though I am thinking of getting into AoS by way of Skirmish, which still lets me use all my varied warbands in my home games but with actual AoS rules material.

That is a great statement. The two games are two different styles and not saying that AoS is bad but just not your cup of tea.

I am an old timer that started WHFB at 3rd edition and was very excited with the end times... AoS was a kick in the gut but I gave it a try.. as did a number of my buddies.

My empire verses Undead, Nurgle Chaos, Ork and Goblin.. We played a number of games of it but didn't care for it..

Once the general handbook came out we revisited the game but the style of game play wasn't what we cared for..

Not much on the new background either.. I have picked up a few random figures to paint but nothing like my army collecting of the past.

Just with Warmachine.. I used to enjoy the game but it has changed so much that I no longer care for it.. nothing against people that still play it.. just not for me anymore.

Just getting into it now.

Played 40k on and off for about eighteen years - love the lore and stuff and collected books and miniatures and everything basically my whole adult life.

Now I picked 40k at the age of ten instead of fantasy because...laser guns are cooler than swords? I dunno - something as deep and thoughtful as that. As time went on I kept seeing warhammer models I liked and I dipped into the range for my 40k ork army regularly but never quite took the plunge. I think the amount of models needed to start a new system, the lore that I didn’t know at all and the fact all the kids at school, and later fellas at my various gaming clubs were more 40k focussed meant that I never did.

Fantasy also always seemed like the more “grown up” game when I was growing up. A lot of us kids played 40k but some of our parents and teachers played fantasy.

Now everything changed when AOS came out. There basically was sod all in the way of lore so I could kind of start at the beginning and learn as it grew. Also the nature of the game meant that things seemed to have switched - the fantasy game was the simpler “entry level drug” aimed at kids, noobs and the casual gamer (I put myself in the causal gamer camp...I’m too old to be a noob but to noobish to be anything else haha) and 40k was the more complex rule set.

Now due to working hours increased and a little one on the way I need my hobby to be a little more “pick up and play”. Also I want a game that lends itself to smaller as well as larger battles. What spare cash I have, I want to spend on toys and not rulebooks/army books. Also I can now buy the fantasy models I always liked the look of!

So AOS v2 has actually came at a perfect time for me. I’m about half way into my slaves to darkness army now!

- J

For me honestly its the story and setting, i just cant get into it. I personally find norse mythology rip of to be a very boring setting. I liked the old world because events mattered and things were tangible and within the realm of conception. Like for example, if thribes of Norsca started to head down south, i could picture in my mind what that meant, vs now where they just come from some endless faceless plane of existence to do stuff.

Out of curiosity, when was the last time you looked at the lore, Backspace?

The early Lore was a bit lacking I feel.

Much of the newer and latter stuff is far superior. I'd say the short story in Inferno Issue 1; the new Novella series of books and Pestilens are all really great reads of AoS lore.

The Realm War stuff is good, but because so much of it focuses around key battles as Sigmar retakes the Realm Gates, they tend to be heavy on action but light on character and world building beyond establishing the setting.

I feel as if the authors working for BL are more comfortable and settled with the lore now than when they started out with AoS and whilst there's still no real time-line established (I figure that will come within time outside of major events that we get where there is a clear time line); It's far more solid now.

Because T9A is the steady tournament fantasy game around here, and well rooted in my circles of friends. AoS is however growing healthily , with a tournament footprint of its own, so it's just a matter of time before AoS gets a spin as well.

Background-wise it's classic historically based fantasy all the way for me. Lotr, WHFB, T9A, but any rules would do, and I'd never be picky about what armies I'd meet.

 EnTyme wrote:
Out of curiosity, when was the last time you looked at the lore, Backspace?

I try to keep up on it and i know they are back tracking on a lot of their cosmic fantasy stuff, which im really happy with. Don misunderstand me, imo its getting better, its just i hate fantasies that have various "Realms" and planes of existence. That again is the biggest draw back for me, because right now there is not enough established for me to really care about when chaos takes x or so and so concourses Y Does that make any sense?

I was building a Norse army for 3rd edition out of White Dwarf 107 very slowly as my part-time jobs allowed back in high school. It was a combined army of humans and dwarves with lots of berserkers, troll slayers, giant slayers and a large unit of werewolves. Then a few years pass and the editions change and suddenly everything in Norsca is given over to Chaos and the Norse line of minis is shut down.

My goal before I die is to finish the human portion of that 3rd edition WFB army, even if it is all Foundry minis at the end. That's why I'm not playing AoS. I'm still working on my 3rd edition units!

For me, AOS just lacks the tactical aspect that 40k has. Don't get me wrong, the models are much better and the game is much easier to get into, but I feel the ceiling is just too low.

Sumilidon wrote:
For me, AOS just lacks the tactical aspect that 40k has. Don't get me wrong, the models are much better and the game is much easier to get into, but I feel the ceiling is just too low.

Which seems odd to me considering that both games basically have the same rules system now. I think about the only big difference is that 40K has more models on the table and a few more options such as superheavies and dedicated air units (AoS has a few of those but they are not their own "thing" quite like they are in 40K).

Otherwise many of the terrain and core mechanics are very similar to each other now.

Yeah I'd consider both 40k and AOS to have the same level of tactics and strategies and the same type of tactics and strategies.

I think 40k still has more choice because you don't buy units in blocks but they're much closer to each other than before I agree.

I'd probably call it a wash. 40k has way more devastating shooting and the strategem system leads to vicious alpha beta trades early in games.

AoS is way more melee centric and units move crazy fast. Combine that with almost card game like combo stacking bleeds a lot of the potential complexity out.

Having said that the move to "unmodified" and "wholly within"
Could be massive for AoS as there is a lot of depth in little finesse moves during movement, pile ins that could really shine if the "3 card combo of doom" elements keep getting reigned in.

Does AoS still have those rules where units can shoot into and out combat with basically no penalty and things like damage spilling over?

 Bosskelot wrote:
Does AoS still have those rules where units can shoot into and out combat with basically no penalty and things like damage spilling over?

Into, but not out of.

Yeah. You can fire into combat with no penalty. You can breathe fire onto a combat and only hurt your opponent. You can drop a bomb into combat and only hurt your opponent.

Yes damage spills over. Wounds carry into the unit as a whole.

The one change they made was a missile unit in combat cannot fire out of combat anymore.

I'm only going to invest in AoS in anything more than Skirmish level when they change such dumb rules as those involving shooting into melee, as well as offering actual functional terrain rules. And, no, I don't mean battletomes for their proprietary terrain kits where moving past a signpost gives you a benefit- I mean actual terrain rules, like rough terrain, treacherous terrain, areas of forest providing cover as well as blocking line of sight, and the like. It's something any half-brain can easily house-rule, but most communities scoff at anything that's "non-official". Garrison rules are only a halfway measure.

right now to someone without tons of knowledge of the game like me (a relative newbie) is seems like AoS games involve terrain that is simply visual variations on buildings and walls.

I just don't understand the game design in a game where a Gyrobomber can pass over a seething combat of Dwarves and Goblins and have their bombs only kill goblins, even if I am being benefited by that as a Dwarf player. It just seems lazy and weird. But I guess that's something you get as a result of a game where all templates are removed from game design, because it's too complicated otherwise.

The latest version of the game threw a bone to people like us by allowing normal forests to prevent shooting through it. It caused a minor uproar but that has since died down.

As it stands I wouldn't expect any more but it was a minor compromise into a wargame with actual terrain rules, though from reading twitters from the designers and listening to what they say at talks at conventions, they are not writing rules for a game that emulates a battlefield so much as they are writing an abstract game that is built on the backbone of collectible card games only with models and dice added for functionality (focusing on combo synergies and removing positioning and maneuver influence, which is where we see armies able to cross the table in one turn to engage, or armies like stormcast that can teleport most of their army wherever they like)

Numerous polls and numerous discussions have led to the conclusion that the AOS fan base is not interested in complexity. Indeed the simpler the game and the more abstract its rules, the better. Things like terrain rules and more complicated issues like maneuver are the opposite of what would be liked by the target audience.

Though every year things change a little. So who knows where we will be this time next year.

 Overread wrote:

Sumilidon wrote:
For me, AOS just lacks the tactical aspect that 40k has. Don't get me wrong, the models are much better and the game is much easier to get into, but I feel the ceiling is just too low.

Which seems odd to me considering that both games basically have the same rules system now. I think about the only big difference is that 40K has more models on the table and a few more options such as superheavies and dedicated air units (AoS has a few of those but they are not their own "thing" quite like they are in 40K).

Otherwise many of the terrain and core mechanics are very similar to each other now.

The main reason I feel 40k is more tactical is specifically because shooting and objectives are more prevalent. Almost all the AOS games I play or watch on Youtube turn into the same type of thing, 2 turns of movement, the rest of the game dedicated to resolving ongoing combats. With 40k however, the game is a lot more fluid, with more units, more viability in falling back (due to shooting) and ultimately more movement due to chasing down maelstrom objectives.

This is not saying I dislike AOS, it's more to say that I quickly get bored of it and find it as a nice short-term break from 40k

Sumilidon wrote:

With 40k however, the game is a lot more fluid, with more units, more viability in falling back (due to shooting) and ultimately more movement due to chasing down maelstrom objectives.
This is not saying I dislike AOS, it's more to say that I quickly get bored of it and find it as a nice short-term break from 40k

The games are very similar but it seems that the fantasy community always was a little less open towards scenarios and different victory conditions
40k had the same problems until Maelstrom Cards became a thing while it made the game more dynamic it also gained the "victory by lucky cards draw" aspect

AoS also has something similar but somehow most games you see are the standard deployment and victory by killing more units than you opponent we have seen for 20 years now with the same problems.


Rulewise I would say that 40k has the better Core rules while AoS has the better faction rules but the differences are in details (shooting Alpha Strike VS no Maelstrom Card Deck) and if someone likes the current 40k he can also enjoy AoS

 kodos wrote:

Sumilidon wrote:

With 40k however, the game is a lot more fluid, with more units, more viability in falling back (due to shooting) and ultimately more movement due to chasing down maelstrom objectives.
This is not saying I dislike AOS, it's more to say that I quickly get bored of it and find it as a nice short-term break from 40k

The games are very similar but it seems that the fantasy community always was a little less open towards scenarios and different victory conditions
40k had the same problems until Maelstrom Cards became a thing while it made the game more dynamic it also gained the "victory by lucky cards draw" aspect

AoS also has something similar but somehow most games you see are the standard deployment and victory by killing more units than you opponent we have seen for 20 years now with the same problems.


Rulewise I would say that 40k has the better Core rules while AoS has the better faction rules but the differences are in details (shooting Alpha Strike VS no Maelstrom Card Deck) and if someone likes the current 40k he can also enjoy AoS

That is not my experience at all. Maybe 7th caused that to happen, but in 5th and 6th people were always vying for something other than Pitched Battle. Essentially living between three cities during the tail end of 5th all the way to the early days of 7th, it was never difficult to get oddball games. Hell, we were still doing Albion scenarios all the way into 7th.

 Just Tony wrote:
Maybe 7th caused that to happen, but in 5th and 6th people were always vying for something other than Pitched Battle. Essentially living between three cities during the tail end of 5th all the way to the early days of 7th, it was never difficult to get oddball games. Hell, we were still doing Albion scenarios all the way into 7th.

It started here with 6th as Pitched Battles with the 20:0 system (total killed points /100 = tournament points, wiping out the opponent = 20:0) became tournament standard and somewhere mid 6th everyone refused to play something else than this

The irony here is that the 20:0 system was developed because the killing everything lacked for tournaments and something more detailed than win/draw/los was needed, and now people still use it here for tournaments trying to get the 40k Maelstrom and AoS Victory Points system to translate somehow into this instead of just adopt the new system that has scenario/victory points and don't need an artificial translation of killed units into those

From 6th thru 7th for a solid 8 years I could never get my area to move beyond pitched battle. It was always about matching tournament standard always and pitched battle was the defacto only used scenario.

I ran a lot of leagues in those days and anytime i tried introducing a scenario into whfb 6th or 7th I received 10x of hell for it.

auticus wrote:
From 6th thru 7th for a solid 8 years I could never get my area to move beyond pitched battle. It was always about matching tournament standard always and pitched battle was the defacto only used scenario.

I ran a lot of leagues in those days and anytime i tried introducing a scenario into whfb 6th or 7th I received 10x of hell for it.

My local meta wasn't too dissimilar. However, my LGS would often change up the tournament scene by being wacky with the army organization permits. There was always the standard 1850 game, but there was often a 1000 point game where the required number of units was changed from Troops to Elites, Fast, or Heavy. We even had one where it was a team game at 2000 points, but instead of 4 armies of 2000 points or 4 armies of 1000 points, a pair would share the 2000 points, and they would split it up as they chose between them. This helped to break up the Steamroller-only mentality that has infected the WMH meta.

Damn, guess I was just lucky. Even with our tourney minded folks we still did more than just Pitched.