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.

You replied. All of GW's properties have a similar fantastic feel. I'm surprised that people can like one but not like the others.

AoS and 40k basically have the same rules engine.
40k 8th builds upon the AoS 1.0 foundation and started out quite strong, and kept a few rules to give it a slightly different feel than AoS.
A year later, AoS 2.0 comes out, which improves on nearly all fronts and critisism, it's streamlined and easy to learn, but has the same strengths as AoS 1.0.
In the 3 years since 8th, 40k did nothing but add rules upon rules, which don't add complexity, but add rules bloat spread over a massive amount of books.

As of today, I'm not sure why people hate on the AoS rules. 1.0 was kinda wonky, no excuses here. But 40k builds upon the same rules, but is missing the AoS 2.0 engine update.

(Part of) the same reason people hate PL 40K. Though AOS is much better balanced than 40K PL (and maybe 40k as a whole), it lacks a lot of unit customization and that takes away some of the fun of list building.

AoS isn't doing much for me, if I'm honest. I know that's not true for many people, but I'm not invested in it as much as I am in 40k. Are some of the models pretty awesome? No question.

Are they better than 40k minis? Entirely a matter of opinion. Some may well be, but I personally wouldn't generalise along those lines.

Problem with AoS for me (note I haven't played in over a year) is the fact it is largely just throw your strongest units at the opponents weaker units, there was some level of rock/paper/scissors there and getting combos off but that was about it.

Problem with AoS is that I can't have pike formations. I really wanted a Tilean army back in the day. I may pick it up if they come back...

I like both. I play Chaos soup for 40k and Gitz for Aos, the aesthetics on both are great although i lean more toward 40k due to the Horus Heresy books and the deep lore attached.

I don't have the time nor the energy to play two miniature wargames so I stick to 40k now.
Back in the day I played WHFB as a kid but when I returned to the hobby it was gone and AoS had taken its place. Not liking the game and the setting, I sold everything and switched to 40k.

There have been a few good looking new AoS miniatures (Chaos Warriors, Gloomspite Gitz, part of the Kharadron range) but most of the ones I like are still old WHFB models (Skeleton Warriors, Lizardmen, Dwarves). On the other hand, I struggle to find a new 40k miniature I really don't like.
The lore is another part of the hobby where there's simple no comparison to be made, but 40k is a 30+ years old setting so it's only natural it's way better.

I tend to like AoS's 'centrepiece' models more than those in 40k.

Purely personal preference, obviously, I just prefer the aesthetics of a Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon or a Treelord to a Wraithlord or Baneblade.

What I dislike is that AoS tends to make those centrepiece models all but mandatory in many armies.

 vipoid wrote:
I tend to like AoS's 'centrepiece' models more than those in 40k.

Purely personal preference, obviously, I just prefer the aesthetics of a Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon or a Treelord to a Wraithlord or Baneblade.

What I dislike is that AoS tends to make those centrepiece models all but mandatory in many armies.

I'm basically the opposite.


is much more awesome than




A war machine created by humankind is far more awesome a animated tree or overgrown lizard. Also, a tank [or plane, ship, ballistic missile, etc] can blow something up from 3 kilometers away, a dragon maxes out at like a tenth that if even, a dragon flies at like 8-10 mph versus a tank driving at 30mph off road, and while a dragon's scales may be protection from an archer with a longbow, they are nothing compared to 1300mm RHAe of composites. Technology > Fantasy

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I tend to like AoS's 'centrepiece' models more than those in 40k.

Purely personal preference, obviously, I just prefer the aesthetics of a Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon or a Treelord to a Wraithlord or Baneblade.

What I dislike is that AoS tends to make those centrepiece models all but mandatory in many armies.

I'm basically the opposite.

Spoiler:

is much more awesome than

Spoiler:

A war machine created by humankind is far more awesome a animated tree or overgrown lizard. Also, a tank [or plane, ship, ballistic missile, etc] can blow something up from 3 kilometers away, a dragon maxes out at like a tenth that if even, a dragon flies at like 8-10 mph versus a tank driving at 30mph off road, and while a dragon's scales may be protection from an archer with a longbow, they are nothing compared to 1300mm RHAe of composites. Technology > Fantasy

If you play Chaos, you use Soul Grinders in both 40k and AOS which are the best of both worlds.

 Hanskrampf wrote:
...As of today, I'm not sure why people hate on the AoS rules. 1.0 was kinda wonky, no excuses here. But 40k builds upon the same rules, but is missing the AoS 2.0 engine update.

I think there are four things that they fixed in 40k based on problems with Sigmar: character protection (the ability to snipe down squishy characters in Sigmar by focusing all your ranged weapons on them makes ranged attacks and squishy characters difficult to balance), Strength v. Toughness/mortal wound spam (it feels like nothing's really "tough" in Sigmar, the emphasis on quantity of Wounds over quality of Wounds makes a lot of mid-size units feel pointlessly squishy), overcomplicated statline degradation tables (40k's tables are much simpler and much more standardized, it's much harder to play Sigmar without flipping through a pile of datasheets every thirty seconds), and damage spillover (multi-damage attacks killing multiple models in Sigmar makes it feel like there's no difference between anti-horde weapons and anti-large-things weapons). Sigmar also has overly-dissected army design; 40k feels like you can build a lot of different lists out of one Codex but in Sigmar you get entire army books with five or six datasheets that feel very one-dimensional mono-build.

While there are a lot of similar things between the two I find Sigmar feels one-dimensional and overly-abstracted to a greater degree than 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
...a dragon flies at like 8-10 mph...

...That's kind of a crap dragon. I just double-checked the D&D 3.5 stat tables and the big ones there can go 140mph at a sprint. No patch on a jet fighter, but 8-10mph is like...the world record for slowest sustained flight by a bird.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

I'm basically the opposite.

Spoiler:

is much more awesome than

Spoiler:

A war machine created by humankind is far more awesome a animated tree or overgrown lizard. Also, a tank [or plane, ship, ballistic missile, etc] can blow something up from 3 kilometers away, a dragon maxes out at like a tenth that if even, a dragon flies at like 8-10 mph versus a tank driving at 30mph off road, and while a dragon's scales may be protection from an archer with a longbow, they are nothing compared to 1300mm RHAe of composites. Technology > Fantasy

That's fair. Different strokes and all that.

Though I'll confess to being curious as to how you obtained the precise flying speed of a dragon.

 vipoid wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

I'm basically the opposite.

Spoiler:

is much more awesome than

Spoiler:

A war machine created by humankind is far more awesome a animated tree or overgrown lizard. Also, a tank [or plane, ship, ballistic missile, etc] can blow something up from 3 kilometers away, a dragon maxes out at like a tenth that if even, a dragon flies at like 8-10 mph versus a tank driving at 30mph off road, and while a dragon's scales may be protection from an archer with a longbow, they are nothing compared to 1300mm RHAe of composites. Technology > Fantasy

That's fair. Different strokes and all that.

Though I'll confess to being curious as to how you obtained the precise flying speed of a dragon.

5e for an adult red dragon lists it's move as 80 ft per 6 seconds. That's 9 miles an hour. Theoretically, if it dashes it can move like 18 miles an hour.

The problem with talking specifics and dragons is - you gotta state what kind of dragon.

We could through the Dragons from Pern into this and things change dramatically with what they can do.

Or we could up the scale and put the dragons from Temeraire into this where some might be faster or slower, but the largest are massive beasts.



In the end I think if you're going to get into the battle of Tank VS Dragon the most logical choice is

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
...5e for an adult red dragon lists it's move as 80 ft per 6 seconds. That's 9 miles an hour. Theoretically, if it dashes it can move like 18 miles an hour.

Why is 5e D&D more authoritative on how dragons in WHFB/AoS work than 3.5e D&D? (250ft per move action for the older age categories of white and brass dragons, sprint with the Run feat is 5x, 1,250ft/6 seconds is about 140mph)

My opinion: WFB over 40k over AOS.

It is no wonder they are bringing back the Old World. Glass Half Dead made the point that a lot of pc/video gaming IP is set in the WFB world with people liking Total War. They won't look for AOS, they'll look for WFB, maybe Warmaster. AOS has its place as a skirmish game and WFB as a pitched battle game (especially 5th edition).

I really like the models, but no one here plays it. In general it has a very similar vibe to Warmachine/hordes and I like those games better.

It sounds better rules wise than 40K, but infinite summoning and double turn are such bad mechanics it kills my desire to play it.

 Da Boss wrote:
It sounds better rules wise than 40K, but infinite summoning and double turn are such bad mechanics it kills my desire to play it.

There's no infinite summoning in AoS.

The double turn is hotly debated but honestly isn't nearly as big of a deal as people make it out to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I tend to like AoS's 'centrepiece' models more than those in 40k.

Purely personal preference, obviously, I just prefer the aesthetics of a Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon or a Treelord to a Wraithlord or Baneblade.

What I dislike is that AoS tends to make those centrepiece models all but mandatory in many armies.

I'm basically the opposite.

Spoiler:

is much more awesome than

Spoiler:

A war machine created by humankind is far more awesome a animated tree or overgrown lizard. Also, a tank [or plane, ship, ballistic missile, etc] can blow something up from 3 kilometers away, a dragon maxes out at like a tenth that if even, a dragon flies at like 8-10 mph versus a tank driving at 30mph off road, and while a dragon's scales may be protection from an archer with a longbow, they are nothing compared to 1300mm RHAe of composites. Technology > Fantasy

We have those. They're boring in reality, so they're even more boring on tbe tabletop.

That's why the only 40k vehicle that doesn't look like a box of tissues with a straw in it to me had to have a full pipe organ on it.

Infinite summoning is wrong, okay. Call it summons you don't pay appropriate points for which are not available to all factions equally, how about that?

As for double turn, nope. It is a stupid mechanic and I have no interest in playing a game that is THAT luck based. It should be alternating activation by now anyway, everyone knows it is better than IGOUGO.

 Da Boss wrote:
Infinite summoning is wrong, okay. Call it summons you don't pay appropriate points for which are not available to all factions equally, how about that?

We've not found this to be a real problem.
1) You know it exists, so like with anything you can plan for it.
2) Plenty of factions have some sort of summoning.
3) & it's not at all impossible to stop.

 Da Boss wrote:
As for double turn, nope. It is a stupid mechanic and I have no interest in playing a game that is THAT luck based. It should be alternating activation by now anyway, everyone knows it is better than IGOUGO.

As long as you're not tourney focused it's not that hard to simply talk to your opponant & change the turn structure back to IGOUGO.

Speaking of IGOUGO.... You're playing a GW game. Virtually all of them are built on that. You don't like it? Don't play. Or, if you've changed it to something else, congrats, you play with people you can talk to about the rules & it's not a problem.

Yeah, like I said, I don't like it, so I don't play.

 Da Boss wrote:
Infinite summoning is wrong, okay. Call it summons you don't pay appropriate points for which are not available to all factions equally, how about that?

I'll freely confess to not being an expert but summoning in AoS seems very strange to me.

Like, if I understand correctly, undead armies can summon stuff like Skeletons and Bat Swarms back (but only with CPs and only if their general is close to a specific point on the board). That seems pretty reasonable - you can resurrect your crappy little units but if you lose your heroes or your monsters, they're gone for good. But then you have stuff like Seraphon who can summon anything other than a Slaan (including all manner of monsters), or even the various daemon armies being able to just call down anything up to and including a greater daemon.

Again, it's possible they managed to balance it but from the perspective of a relative outsider it seems very strange.

 Da Boss wrote:
Yeah, like I said, I don't like it, so I don't play.

You don't play AoS?
You don't play 40k?
Or you don't play either?

 vipoid wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Infinite summoning is wrong, okay. Call it summons you don't pay appropriate points for which are not available to all factions equally, how about that?

I'll freely confess to not being an expert but summoning in AoS seems very strange to me.

Like, if I understand correctly, undead armies can summon stuff like Skeletons and Bat Swarms back (but only with CPs and only if their general is close to a specific point on the board). That seems pretty reasonable - you can resurrect your crappy little units but if you lose your heroes or your monsters, they're gone for good. But then you have stuff like Seraphon who can summon anything other than a Slaan (including all manner of monsters), or even the various daemon armies being able to just call down anything up to and including a greater daemon.

Again, it's possible they managed to balance it but from the perspective of a relative outsider it seems very strange.

You also have to do specific things, gain enough points to do so while still fighting.

As a Guard player, I don't understand how alternate activation would be balanced. A small, elite army would have a massive advantage over a cheap horde one, no? I had the same fears before the introduction of kill points, and I was right about that screwing over Guard. I don't know exactly what such an activation system would mean though, just feels like elite>horde in that system.

ccs wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Yeah, like I said, I don't like it, so I don't play.

You don't play AoS?
You don't play 40k?
Or you don't play either?

I no longer play either, though I am still interested in both games.

I don't want to drag this off topic, but alternating activation does not have to disadvantage Guard at all. You get more activations per round than your opponent, that is a huge advantage.

If you care about quality of lore then 40k or whfb. If its just modeld then its subjective. I think Aos models are a hit and a miss. I LOVE the Blood Warriors from the starter set because of their helmets, while the mppk is just okay. Likewise, we also got some cool stuff like the new squig units and boss, and entire "armies" of horrid models like the Idoneth and Fyreslayers (And most Stormcast)

I find that then "wow factor" of AoS minis runs dry way, way faster than with 40k minis. AoS models I get bored of after seeing them once while some 40k and newer whfb models are still impressive to me


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
It sounds better rules wise than 40K, but infinite summoning and double turn are such bad mechanics it kills my desire to play it.

There's no infinite summoning in AoS.

The double turn is hotly debated but honestly isn't nearly as big of a deal as people make it out to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I tend to like AoS's 'centrepiece' models more than those in 40k.

Purely personal preference, obviously, I just prefer the aesthetics of a Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon or a Treelord to a Wraithlord or Baneblade.

What I dislike is that AoS tends to make those centrepiece models all but mandatory in many armies.

I'm basically the opposite.

Spoiler:

is much more awesome than

Spoiler:

A war machine created by humankind is far more awesome a animated tree or overgrown lizard. Also, a tank [or plane, ship, ballistic missile, etc] can blow something up from 3 kilometers away, a dragon maxes out at like a tenth that if even, a dragon flies at like 8-10 mph versus a tank driving at 30mph off road, and while a dragon's scales may be protection from an archer with a longbow, they are nothing compared to 1300mm RHAe of composites. Technology > Fantasy

We have those. They're boring in reality, so they're even more boring on tbe tabletop.

That's why the only 40k vehicle that doesn't look like a box of tissues with a straw in it to me had to have a full pipe organ on it.[/quote

Dragons imo have always been boring that once I found out something revolves around them I lose interest ( Games like Skyrim with a heavy focus on dragons)

Tanks always have and always will be cooler. Thats why making a famtast movie is way more risky than making one set during ww2 for example

Trickstick wrote:As a Guard player, I don't understand how alternate activation would be balanced. A small, elite army would have a massive advantage over a cheap horde one, no? I had the same fears before the introduction of kill points, and I was right about that screwing over Guard. I don't know exactly what such an activation system would mean though, just feels like elite>horde in that system.

DZC had a system where you activated your army in 3rds-through-6ths or so. It was pretty decent. You actually generally wanted to split up your units so you had units that could go first and get their hits in early before the enemy could react, and have units that could respond to what the enemy did during their activation. Straight alternating activations wouldn't work for 40k, where one army might have like three dozen units and another might have less than 10.


That said, I'm also not a huge fan of alternating activations in general. It's just kind of messy and much slower, especially as the game gets larger.

ERJAK wrote:
We have those. They're boring in reality, so they're even more boring on tbe tabletop.

That's why the only 40k vehicle that doesn't look like a box of tissues with a straw in it to me had to have a full pipe organ on it.

Lizards are boring. Even big incendiary lizards are still just animals. They exist to eat and breed.

Tanks are machines. That's instantly more awesomeness right there. I've always engaged stronger with things people make to do things than things that just exist naturally without purpose. In fantasy, siege engines and castles are way cooler than dragons and other monsters, and sci-fi is just cooler than fantasy because it has space ships, laser guns, and bigger explosions. [Also, it's in the future, not the past.]

These opinions of Katherine are 100% fact, and irrefutable. It's also not wholly off topic.


Anyway, I don't like the aesthetic of AoS, but I also didn't like the aesthetic of fantasy, so I think 40k miniatures are way better than either. After all, we have tanks and jet planes and artillery.