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.

For those looking for a more traditional scheme

Yeah, that actually looks great. What is it with AoS armies and the default colour scheme being the most boring possible?

I was hoping it was the paint job - and it...kind of is?

Still there aren't as...exciting as I was hoping they'd be?

Anxiously awaiting the Lamassu - but sort of worried we aren't getting one?

 Alpharius wrote:
I was hoping it was the paint job - and it...kind of is?

Still there aren't as...exciting as I was hoping they'd be?

Anxiously awaiting the Lamassu - but sort of worried we aren't getting one?

I don't need my basic infantry to be exciting - heck I still use the Old World chaos warriors in AOS because I think they look better as wargaming pieces than the current warriors swinging all over the place.

To me the red works and it makes me think other bold colors will probably be fine too - a nice purple might be the way to go.

As far as more units I fully expect a wave 2 at some point.

 ScarletRose wrote:
As far as more units I fully expect a wave 2 at some point.

At the rate GW has been going... 6th edition?

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Yeah, that actually looks great. What is it with AoS armies and the default colour scheme being the most boring possible?

Boring is inoffensive and designed to have mass appeal?

I suspect GW is also getting into trouble by having so many factions. I got the same out of the default Squat color scheme. Also Cities of Sigmar, if I remember my sentiment at the time correctly. It looks like GW wants to have distinct visual identities for its armies, which includes the default color scheme they assign them. An army that comes late has the problem that a lot of color combinations are already taken. Maybe people prefer red and gold/brass for their Chaos Dwarfs, but there's another Chaos faction that already uses it. So they end up with a different and perhaps lesser choice that they somehow have to make work, because all the good ones are already taken.

You wouldn't necessarily think that AoS is old enough to already be there, but starting out with an undue amount of mini-factions speeds up the process.

AoS is 40 years old.

Sure 30 of those years the models were under another product brand and there was that couple of years at the start of AoS when everything was a total mess; but yeah its not a 10 year old game its a 40 year old game with a rebrand.

^ Hes out of line but hes right. I don't like it, I don't agree with it, but I accept it.

Rick Priestly made AoS 40 years ago, and just like Lukas could update his movies years later, now they finally can use the latest computer programs to get Chorfs right!

 Overread wrote:
AoS is 40 years old.

Sure 30 of those years the models were under another product brand and there was that couple of years at the start of AoS when everything was a total mess; but yeah its not a 10 year old game its a 40 year old game with a rebrand.

No.

Age of Sigmar is a very different - and, in my opinion, inferior - game than WHFB/Old World. If you want to go ahead and call Old World a 40-year-old game that took 10 years off then got a rebrand, I can accept that. Age of Sigmar may have some of the same characters, but it is fundamentally not the same game.

Thats kinda reductive. 40k 10th edition is about as different from 40k 3rd thru 7th edition (and even more radically different than 1st/2nd edition) as AoS is different from WHFB of yore. We have no issue seeing a 10 edition throughline and legacy there, but draw an arbitrary line in the sand with WHFB becoming AOS?

Fact of the matter is that AOS is a continuation of the narrative of WHFB and adopted and adapted WHFB concepts into its gameplay from the outset.

This is simply because GW still calls it Warhammer 40k and kept the Edition number going
People see RT different because it got a different name

If GW would have released 10th Edition 40k under a new name and everything staying the same, people would see it as a new game that is disconnected from previous Editions

with AoS, if it would have kept the name, Warhammer Fantasy Battles, people would see it as the same game with a new Edition, but because it got a re-branding it is a new game now

the amount of changes or anything else doesn't really matter here, just the branding

this is also why people only accept a new "Edition" if GW calls it that, while from the name alone every new print run of a rulebook is a new Edition no matter how big the changes are

chaos0xomega wrote:
Thats kinda reductive. 40k 10th edition is about as different from 40k 3rd thru 7th edition (and even more radically different than 1st/2nd edition) as AoS is different from WHFB of yore. We have no issue seeing a 10 edition throughline and legacy there, but draw an arbitrary line in the sand with WHFB becoming AOS?

Fact of the matter is that AOS is a continuation of the narrative of WHFB and adopted and adapted WHFB concepts into its gameplay from the outset.

That's not even close to being true. AOS was such a break from WHFB rulewise and lorewise that if they hadnt kept some of the names, it would be barely be possible to make a connection between the two.

There was a pretty big difference between 7th and 8th edition of 40k, but it still feels like the same game/setting

Put it another way, if someone stopped playing WHFB during 8th edition, and you showed him a game of AOS, he probably would think its a completely unrelated game (bar if the game contained one of the few factions that are iconically WHFB and that barely changed like night goblins, Chaos, Skaven and the new Chorf).

If you'd do the same exercice with a player that stopped at 40k 7th edition and you showedhim a 10th edition game, he'd immediately recognise it as being 40k

Though, weirdly enough, it seems that they are trying to make it more similar to WHFB lately. It might only be my impression, but the latest release all seems much more related aesthetic wise to the old warhammer. See the chaos dwarves and the skaven which are pretty much identical to their old incarnations. In the first few years, it seems that GW was much more original in their concepts for their new factions. Which gave some good (KO, DK) and bad (SCE, Kangoroo Elves, Fyreslayer, bonereapers) results.

but main reason to recognize the game would be because the majority is still some version of Marines
people playing AoS with the remaining 8th Edition factions and people would recognize it as well

the main difference being that AoS has way more new factions and models compared to 40k, not because the rules are off similar design

 kodos wrote:
but main reason to recognize the game would be because the majority is still some version of Marines
people playing AoS with the remaining 8th Edition factions and people would recognize it as well

the main difference being that AoS has way more new factions and models compared to 40k, not because the rules are off similar design

Not at all

WHFB being a regiment based game was one of the big reason that made it warhammer. The change to a "skirmish" game is a drastic departure from it. And the lore is also completely different to WHFB for the most part. Hell, as a long time WHFB player which never got into AOS, i dont understand a thing about the setting bar for a few similarities it has with WHFB (mostly the chaos gods). I havent really been following 40k for the last few years, but the few times that i did, the setting still is familiar

There was no change in 40k that was as drastic (bar maybe the RT one)

so because you are more invested into the fantasy games you can spot the difference and therefore it is not the same for you

but because you did not pay a lot of attention to 40k everything looks still the same from the outside

and it would be similar for AoS, someone seeing the same Nagash model commanding skeletons would spot that they are on round bases standing base to base where before it was squares (the same way someone would spot that 40k now uses much larger bases than in the past) but without knowing the details it would still be familiar

You misunderstood what i meant. I was as involved into both settings in a certain point of time. Yet for numerous reasons, i havent paid a lot of attention to them in the last few years.

40k still seems familiar to me, while i cant barely make a thing out of AOS. Not trying to be insulting, but I wonder if you are old enough to have lived through the transition between AOS and WHFB, cause pretty much everyone at the time was acknowledging that AOS was pretty much a whole different game than WHFB.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
For those looking for a more traditional scheme

They do look better this way, and I think they'll look even better with a dirtier paintob (if that makes sense).

I started Warhammer Fantasy with 5th and 40k with 4th Edition
and paused both systems for several years in between before I tried them again and decided they are not for me
I also tried AoS several times.

8th Edition Warhammer already felt different enough from 6th that the game wasn't for me
the big monsters and hero focus was very different to what we had before and by now I see more similarities between AoS and 8th Warhammer than between 6th and 8th

For 40k, 6/th7th was already a cut from the previous style and while with 8th it looked like going back to previous design space the current version is different again with a very different focus on what the game should look like


So overall there is no real consistency over 10 Edition and both games changed a lot in style and design with 40k having the advantage that there are poster boys that basically still look the same, something Warhammer Fantasy never had because there the actual poster boys are Chaos Warriors but you never use the bad guys for marketing
otherwise AoS would have a very recognizable model line over 30 years as well

show someone who played 5th/6th Edition Warhammer Fantasy an AoS Chaos Army and they are going to recognize that as the same