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.

Been looking through the AOS model range for something to use in a mod and they have some really nice minis.

Which minis do you think are better AOS or 40k?

As the AOS setting is newer (replacing WFB I mean) did it benefit from a full revamp of the line? (I never played WFB or AOS)?

If anything AoS suffered because of it. The Old World had been ignored for some while model release wise so AoS is a bit all over the place.

Some armies are totally new such as Stormcast or Khadorans - they have fully new armies.

Some are very well revamped like the Gloomspite Gitz

Others are small, but made of mostly new and very new models like Daughters of Khaine.

Some have small armies, but are mostly older kits like Flesheaters

And some are bigger ,but are full of old models including resins and even plastics - like Skaven.


So its a real hodge podge. That said it is getting new releases all the time; some new models and some replacements.


Also old doesn't mean bad; skaven, for example, have some fantastic old metal models that are every bit as good and stylish as modern plastics from GW.



In the end looks is a personal choice. Some people hate even new stuff like the recent reworked Sisters of Battle; others love it. It's really down to individual taste.

AoS is a very different game from WHFB; it tends to be bigger, chunker, and more elaborate than old WHFB minis did. In WHFB a "small" unit might be 20 models, AoS has much smaller model counts and much bigger models.

I prefer 40k minis to AoS minis generally because I like minis I can customize, convert, part-swap, and generally build in ways other people didn't, and AoS tends way more towards single-loadout single-pose minis.

I'm going to go 40k. But this is also a 40k board, where 40k players are, so presumably, you know, we like 40k.

I don't play AoS or fantasy. Probably never would have, nor will. I prefer tanks and guns and spaceships to knights and magic and castles. At the end of the day, AoS, Fantasy, and 40k all have pretty different aesthetics.

I think it comes down to containing what you like. If you like having lots and lots of grey infantry with pointy sticks and knights on horses with a small number of conventional monsters and steampunk-ish war engines, old fantasy is the game for you. If you want more bombastic dragons and knights-on-mythic-beasts and mages with the high-fantasy turned up to 11, then AoS is the game for you. I however, prefer a more modern look and feel, with battle tanks and howitzer motor carriers and VTOL gunships, so I play 40k.

Makes sense but I figured there would be plenty of people playing both games

Not so much, really. I find people who like AoS tend to have little to no prior experience of GW games and regard 40k as too complicated, and people who like 40k tend to turn their noses up at how much more simplified AoS is.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Not so much, really. I find people who like AoS tend to have little to no prior experience of GW games and regard 40k as too complicated, and people who like 40k tend to turn their noses up at how much more simplified AoS is.

..What? The first bit is confusing because I've seen a lot of 40k players move on to AoS, and tend to have 40k armies as well. If you tend to play one GW game you tend to play a bunch.

2 years ago I split on a AoS box, but never got into it for work reasons. I think the models look nice, and I hear the rule set is better/more balanced, though I never watched a game before.

I find some of the AOS sculpts really interesting, but I bounce off the lore/setting.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Not so much, really. I find people who like AoS tend to have little to no prior experience of GW games and regard 40k as too complicated, and people who like 40k tend to turn their noses up at how much more simplified AoS is.

..What? The first bit is confusing because I've seen a lot of 40k players move on to AoS, and tend to have 40k armies as well. If you tend to play one GW game you tend to play a bunch.

Everyone I know personally who's played either 40k or AoS has a clear preference for one or the other and doesn't put any attention into the other side, your experience may vary. It might be interesting to trawl user profiles on Dakka and figure out whether there is much overlap but I don't know how to do it in an automated way or control for the fact that the 40k forums have been around for a lot longer.

Most AoS are designed to be "counts-as" 40k models.

I think the more expensive minis, 40-60 pounds, in AOS are really detailed and interesting and that’s not really replicated in 40k cos the biggest units tend to be mechanical and so have large plain areas, tanks and knights.

Although I think what I really want is that level of detail on some chaos demons as they are flesh and fire.

Overall I like the 40k models better.

The first AoS models I really didn't like at all. Huge (to me) goofy Sigmarines, the little bucklers on the Khorne guys, super elite Orks, really super elite everything.

The newer models, from Daughters of Khaine onward, have been better. I still don't like enough of any one line to make an army and play it, but I've picked up a few here and there for RPG use.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Not so much, really. I find people who like AoS tend to have little to no prior experience of GW games and regard 40k as too complicated, and people who like 40k tend to turn their noses up at how much more simplified AoS is.

I've not experienced that, but yeah, I haven't seen a lot of overlap between 40k and Fantasy or AoS. There are a couple of distinct groups I've surmised:
People who played fantasy, but quit because AoS is different. These people aren't going to pick up 40k just because they're unhappy about the fantasy re-do, and are just going to take their ball and go home [play with each other old-style]. Sometimes they come back and play AoS. Some switched to Conquest of Kings of War or some other medieval-esque wargame, though I still never really see them.
People who played fantasy, and switched to AoS, or started with AoS. These people are overwhelmingly happy with AoS, and have no incentive to switch to 40k. They're happy, after all.
People who play 40k. Once again, we're happy with 40k, and have no incentive to switch.
The last group are people who more recently picked up AoS/Fantasy or 40k. This is the most likely group to have both. They were introduced to wargaming through one, but their real passion was for the themes of the other, and they'll switch over completely eventually. This describes my high school group [started off playing 40k, most of the other eventually fully transitioned to fantasy and then quit after the End Times. I stuck exclusively with 40k, there's one guy to mostly moved to fantasy but came back to 40k after the End Times, and there's one guy who never played Fantasy but picked back up AoS after falling off the wagon and the earth for a couple of years], and most people I know who at one time played both.


The only people I've met who are pretentious about rules are old-school fantasy holdouts. Those I know [and some who have quit] are basically always very pretentious about how everything new sucks and will be quick to tell you how AoS or 40k are gak games or something because they don't have rank bonuses or formation flanking or whatever.
40k players will tell you that their game is better than yours because we have power-armored super soldiers, super-heavy battle tanks, gigantic robots, mad-max dragsters, lasergun hovertanks, anime jetpack mechas, hordes of alien bugs that tunnel up from the ground, killer robot terminators, and what have you. We're adults and like to make laser gun noises while pushing around toy robots!
AoS players seem a little more timid and like "I know, I know, I play AoS but I actually really like it and it's fun. Pleasedon'texecutemeforheresyplease"

 Sim-Life wrote:
Most AoS are designed to be "counts-as" 40k models.

...How so? What would you proxy, I don't know, one of the big pantsless dwarves (sorry, "Fyreslayer Hearthguard") as?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Most AoS are designed to be "counts-as" 40k models.

...How so? What would you proxy, I don't know, one of the big pantsless dwarves (sorry, "Fyreslayer Hearthguard") as?

I think Sim is being sarcastic/trolling/going for a joke etc...

I think most people tend to be one or the other at any one time as they are both bigger games and more serious time and money sinks. Whilst games like infinity and such can easily run alongside for many as they are cheaper and require far less models so you can easily slip them into budgeting. That said I'd always seen people as being potentially open to both games, its just that some people are very set in tehir ways or don't have enough money to invest into two big game systems.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Most AoS are designed to be "counts-as" 40k models.

That’s not entirely untrue, Daemons certainly flit between the two on purpose.

Personally, I’m using Sigmarines as Custodes, and I could see them used as Primaris. Others might be a bit of a stretch - ossiarchs as maybe Necrons, maybe ghoul courts as Tyranids, Kharadon or Empire as Guard. Don’t think Elves could pass as Eldar, though Orks are Orks - even thought of getting the ones in “metal” armor for my son’s army as mega armor nobs.

Played both 40k and WHFB before that was killed off, but now have no desire to get into AOS. Some of the sculpts are great, but the setting feels totally off (plus no legacy WHFB just invalidated thousands of pounds of my collection).

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Not so much, really. I find people who like AoS tend to have little to no prior experience of GW games and regard 40k as too complicated, and people who like 40k tend to turn their noses up at how much more simplified AoS is.

AoS is not more simplified than 40k. Theres just not 60 billion stratagems per army.

The core game systems are pretty dang analogous.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Not so much, really. I find people who like AoS tend to have little to no prior experience of GW games and regard 40k as too complicated, and people who like 40k tend to turn their noses up at how much more simplified AoS is.

PLayed Fantasy from 4th till 8th (stopped when 8th came out) played 40k end of 4th and still play it, i also play Necromunda, warcry and many others of GW mini games.

AoS imo is the best GW game so far, right now 40k is not to complicated, it has almost all rules bloat, which is not the same. In AoS i feel there is actual strategy, i win sometimes by defending only, other times by attack, some times by faking attacks, etc.. you can't do that in 40k. You either kill or get killed. Necromunda on the other hand is very complicated.


As for OP, i like AoS models and playstyle more for now, but my over all favorite playstyle was Corsairs in 7th. I've always loved Beastmen looks and have had Beastmen for over 20yrs now and still love them. I have had many armies in both 40k, fantasy, and sigmar. They all had/have great models i just like mythology more than syfy. With that said tho a small problem with 40k is a lot of the times the miniatures lack real details and life, the new SOB has much more, and 40k is moving toward more details. Look at a Termagant, there is no life in that model, look at SM's for the most part the same thing. You don't need to be dynamic like Harlequins to have life as they are plain too, but details in the hands, faces, gear, differences in clothes, etc.. makes models better IMO. A good example is the Underworlds warbands, they have so much to them.

Play both systems. Like both systems. Space Marine/Epic 40k was my original love

Currently I would say AoS is a bit cleaner system due to how younger it is many ways model-wise and they haven't fallen into the stratagem pit yet. Or rather, AoS tends to keep bespoke stratagems as unit abilities that may or may not cost CP instead of faffing around with cluttered stratagem system. I mean, why does a Retributors stratagem need to be a stratagem and not an ability on the datasheet that costs CP.

Ultimately I feel like they made 40k as a narrative game(that they are trying to make competitive), but genuinely tried to make a match game out of AoS. Both systems are enjoyable.

I have both a Chaos Space Marine and Slaves to Darkness army. They are even painted in the same colors (black and gold). I couldn't really say a brand new Chaos Warrior is better or worse than a brand new Chaos Space Marine. I can say that I think my Slaves to Darkness army overall looks better because everything has a more coherent look. The new Chaos Warriors blend with the old ones great. The new Chaos Knights (AoS ones) stick out a bit mostly because the old ones have glaives and not actual lances. I can't say that with my Chaos Space Marines.

The old CSM don't mix well with the new ones for the most part. I have been the process of replacing them with the new models. I haven't updated my Dark Vengeance Chosen to bigger bases mostly because I think they are going to still look a little short as Aspiring Champions or Actual Chosen with the new models. I do think the Raptors/Warp Talon hold up very well as I could see them shrinking a bit to make true flight easier. The vehicles are where it really starts to fall apart as they are starting to become three eras of plastic CSM vehicles. Era one is spiky space marine vehicles and the Defiler. super blocky and/or low baroque detail. They just stand out compared to everything else without heavy customization to make them fit in better. The second era are the dinobots (Forge Fiend, Mauler Fiend and Hell Drake). They bridge the gap and work well enough with the new infantry stuff. However, the third era consists of the Vemoncrawler and Disco Lord which up the baroque detail enough to stand out when next to the dinobots.

***

As for comparing Age of Sigmar to Warhammer 40k, I think I like Age of Sigmar better. The games share a lot of mechanics, but I prefer the fact that Command Points are very specific in what they can be used for and pretty limited in their acquisition. I am less enthused by the proliferation of meta resources (Destiny Dice, Aether Gold and whatever OSR use) though. I also do like while AoS has is mostly an IGOUGO game, the melee combat is alternating activation which works great so long as the game continues to be melee focused. Which is probably one of the things I like best with AoS is the fact that it is melee focused. I have an army, and faction, with incredibly limited ranged attacks but I haven't been that hamstrung by it. I basically play my army as a rank and file one without movement trays having to pile in manually.

I don't know if this is true, but I have had far less misfire games in Age of Sigmar. Certainly my very first game was a Kobayashi Maru scenario going against a S Tier brand new army (Bonereapers) with my building instruction warscrolls weeks before the new Battletome, but most games been pretty close. I can't say I have had that as much in Warhammer 40k. Those games more often than not feel kinda one sided from the get go.

Legal-e-tea wrote:
Played both 40k and WHFB before that was killed off, but now have no desire to get into AOS. Some of the sculpts are great, but the setting feels totally off (plus no legacy WHFB just invalidated thousands of pounds of my collection).

You know about The Old World? It may take a couple of years, but maybe your collection will be useful again.

Ranged attacks have been a problem for 40K for some time. GW's answer tends to be right now to make it possible to get into combat much much faster so we suddenly get turn 1 and 2 close combat much more often from more armies. Which I think eats into the terrain setup being less and less important in many ways.

However both forms of combat are also very killy; so things die really fast. Which, of course, makes both much more deadly and puts the game much more on the knife-edge of balance where sometimes whoever goes first or who ever gets the drop on the other player tends to get a huge advantage.


AoS has only one rule in it that allows that - the initiative for start of turn where its possible to get a double-turn. A rule so contentious that it can spawn huge long arguments all of its own. Other than that one rule AoS feels like a tighter system.



I also agree that army building in 40K has become more convoluted and messy. For some armies more than others. It's not helped that the game still retains its upgrade and weapon systems of old. So each model can be quite diverse in its role and function and performance. Add to this multiple detachment types and suchlike spread over a few books and it gets more complex to build and see how to build an army up from the ground.
Fantasy of old and AoS tends to have far less weapon variation and no upgrades for stats on models (or if there are, very few of them exist). AS a result its much easier to build an army.


Of course I also envy that the 40K system has more unit niches and weapon options. For AoS I think this will come in time as GW shifts from adding new armies to bulking up existing ones. By adding more tactical niches and unit variety without units having to trip over each other and outperforming or having such limited performance differences that it makes little matter which you take.

 Overread wrote:
Ranged attacks have been a problem for 40K for some time. GW's answer tends to be right now to make it possible to get into combat much much faster so we suddenly get turn 1 and 2 close combat much more often from more armies. Which I think eats into the terrain setup being less and less important in many ways.

However both forms of combat are also very killy; so things die really fast. Which, of course, makes both much more deadly and puts the game much more on the knife-edge of balance where sometimes whoever goes first or who ever gets the drop on the other player tends to get a huge advantage.


AoS has only one rule in it that allows that - the initiative for start of turn where its possible to get a double-turn.

This is not true. Various armies/sub-factions/battalions/units have the rules you claim don't exist.

I think, in general GW's sculptors are very technically competent, for both games.

I think they're failing heavily in the "make a useful, transportable gaming miniature" zone, as they seem a bit too anxious to build detailed but awkward miniatures - more suitable for a painting competition than actual use in a game. From overzealous basing, to terrible flying stands (or flight modeling), etc...they're pushing the boundaries of "How the hell do I get that to a game without breaking it?" in a lot of their new model lines.

I think most of their models lines still suffer from "cranked up to 11" in many instances, featuring way too many pieces/bits/elements/details on a lot of miniatures - this is likely a result of using CAD in place of classic sculpting. I suspect having access to such a huge digital parts bin probably gets the better of many of their digital sculptors. This guy is particularly egregious in this regard...and...straight up comical when you consider he's supposed to be a "stealthy" model of some sort:



On the AoS side, I feel like they have a pretty solid design language for most of the newer factions. I don't like the factions, and couldn't be less interested in the setting/aesthetic of AoS. Old, grimy, simple fantasy is far more appealing to me. The exaggerated...almost anime-esque fantasy styling leaves me completely cold. Again, competent and well sculpted...but if a consumer (myself), doesn't like the look, it's all irrelevant.

By dint of "liking the lore or aesthetic", I'd lean toward 40K...but I dislike a heap of their latest models too, so...I think I'm leaning away from GW heavily regardless. Do love some of their Shadespire boxes though, they've got some real nice kits there.

When I think about the models from each game that I like the best, the overwhelmingly common trend is that I like the ones that were released sooner. CSM and the bonereapers are my two favorite factions for models right now, and those are both less than a year old. I think AOS benefits by having had a more diverse array of recent releases for the substantial parts of its armies (battlelines and monsters), while 40k has mostly been marines of various temperaments and a whole lot of characters I have no interest in.

the_scotsman wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Not so much, really. I find people who like AoS tend to have little to no prior experience of GW games and regard 40k as too complicated, and people who like 40k tend to turn their noses up at how much more simplified AoS is.

AoS is not more simplified than 40k. Theres just not 60 billion stratagems per army.

The core game systems are pretty dang analogous.

AOS feels like 40k with power-level instead of points. All the same cool stuff is there (command points, formations/detachments, relics, WL traits, etc.), but the armies aren't quite so refined that you feel like you have lost a small bit of control for the sake of simplicity. I don't get the feeling that is is my flamer squad, this is my GL squad, and this is my plasma gun squad, even if they all are really just the same 10 man unit with one different special weapon. In AOS it's all, "this is my shield rank with the one guy with has a greatsword" x 3. I suppose I'm just deceiving myself when I play 40k at best and wasting time with all the minor choices at worst. Maybe AOS is more geared towards actually playing the game instead of obsessively optimizing a list, but I find list building to be quite fun.

 Stormonu wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Most AoS are designed to be "counts-as" 40k models.

That’s not entirely untrue, Daemons certainly flit between the two on purpose.

Personally, I’m using Sigmarines as Custodes, and I could see them used as Primaris. Others might be a bit of a stretch - ossiarchs as maybe Necrons, maybe ghoul courts as Tyranids, Kharadon or Empire as Guard. Don’t think Elves could pass as Eldar, though Orks are Orks - even thought of getting the ones in “metal” armor for my son’s army as mega armor nobs.

I've been thinking about converting a boneshaper to a cryptek myself, but I'm also pretty sure that some lumeneth models will work well as storm guardians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:
I think most of their models lines still suffer from "cranked up to 11" in many instances, featuring way too many pieces/bits/elements/details on a lot of miniatures - this is likely a result of using CAD in place of classic sculpting. I suspect having access to such a huge digital parts bin probably gets the better of many of their digital sculptors. This guy is particularly egregious in this regard...and...straight up comical when you consider he's supposed to be a "stealthy" model of some sort.

On the AoS side, I feel like they have a pretty solid design language for most of the newer factions. I don't like the factions, and couldn't be less interested in the setting/aesthetic of AoS. Old, grimy, simple fantasy is far more appealing to me. The exaggerated...almost anime-esque fantasy styling leaves me completely cold. Again, competent and well sculpted...but if a consumer (myself), doesn't like the look, it's all irrelevant.

AOS isn't exactly bright fantasy once you go past the Stormcast. You could say the same thing about 40k if all you knew from it were the marines.

But it's hard to argue that this guy isn't also "overdesigned" or the old Calgar and honor guard set aren't. In fact, It wasn't long ago where people were complaining that Intercessors and the rest of the primaris line were too plain and uninspired. iirc they blamed CAD for that too.

I didn't say AoS was "bright"...but it's not a simple, subdued low fantasy. It's exceptionally outlandish in its appearance and story. That style doesn't appeal to me, simple.

Beserk isn't the only anime out there. But it sounds like you want a fantasy universe that has less magic than 40k. Even WHFB must have seemed a bit silly with its Brettonians and Lizardmen by the standards you seem to have.

 Eipi10 wrote:
Beserk isn't the only anime out there. But it sounds like you want a fantasy universe that has less magic than 40k. Even WHFB must have seemed a bit silly with its Brettonians and Lizardmen by the standards you seem to have.

Are you somehow upset that I don't like the lore/styling of AoS? Why do you keep talking?