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.

Let's have an overwhelmingly positive thread for a change! Let's talk about what we like about AoS - and please, no sarcastic bs answers like "I like that it is so stupid so I left GW to go play Mantic games instead". We're better than that. So, things we like about AoS. I'll start.

I just received my Overlord Bastion in the mail and in the process of putting it together, and I think it really showed me why I like AoS so much. I mean, I like the rules because they are 4 pages and easy to remember, the modular nature of the rules, the emphasis put on tactical positioning, and all that stuff. But what I really like about AoS is the sense of spatial depth. That's going to sound weird, but there is just something about a spatially complex, three dimension scene. Things with depth and height - it sets my heart all aflutter. I have a lot of video games (too many, maybe) but there's just nothing that compares to that feeling.

I was setting up my AoS and Warmachine models into little dioramas on the shelf, and that's when I noticed just how much more spatially complex Age of Sigmar is. With Warmachine, there's three base sizes and most of the models are roughly the same height. When you put a bunch of infantry models next to each other, when they are painted in a similar color scheme, they just sort of mush together, becoming a giant amorphous blob. And Warmachine players hate playing terrain. Seriously, watch any WMH battle report and you'll see the majority of terrain features are flat. Guerrilla Miniature Games has a bunch of battle reports for a bunch of games, with all sorts of painted terrain available, but the Warmachine tables are two dimensional. Warmachine isn't real 3D. It's just lumps in the carpet.

Not so with Age of Sigmar - at least the starter set guys (not sure the rank and file minis are quite as dynamic). They've all got very different silhouettes, different heights and shapes. For instance, there are twenty Bloodreavers, but they've all got different profiles. Some are raising their weapons, some have them out to the side. The standard bearer, horn, and unit leader all stick out much higher than the rest of the group. The Lord Celestant sits above the crowd, higher even than the Prosecutors, with their huge wing spans. It's just, even with a bunch of models all grouped together, they stick out. Throw in the amazing AoS terrain (which I hope they make more of), and the sense of depth and space is just amazing.

Now, there are other games that do this too. A good Infinity table or the Deadzone terrain sets my heart all aflutter (catwalks are my catnip) - and I totally intend to try those games out (already ordered Deadzone) - but I don't think the individual models contribute much to the feeling of depth on the table. The models do nothing for me. I have no idea if 40k is as interesting as AoS, but from what I've seen in people's army pics, it is similar to Warmachine in that there are a few basic lump profiles that the units share. The block units in WHFB and KoW really reduce the profile of individual units in favor of rectangular clumps, and their size prevents the terrain from getting to complex. And, of course, LEGO sets are still the reigning king in this area, but if you thought Games Workshop was expensive...

Anyway, that sense of depth is probably my favorite thing about AoS. I like a lot of things about it, but I think AoS, more than most mini games, really understands the physicality of miniature games. If you just want to play 2D games, there are hundreds of video games that are better than anything the tabletop space has to offer. But there aren't any video games that can produce that kind of physical sense of space.

What I like about AOS? Is the openness of it and what you can do with it. Do you want brets riding giant lizards who come from the realm of ashqy? You can!

A vampire who uses tomb king warriors you can do that also! Plus I can have a decent game with my vampires without investing 200+ pounds.

Plus I like the look of the models on circle bases I can do a lot more with them in terms of conversions. Since I am more of a collector than a gamer.

Oh and I like where the fluff is heading in my opinion that's what I like about AOS.

I like how gamer friendly it is. I've seen players who build insanely over powered lists, and soon enough they have no-one wanting a game. People are playing it for fun, mostly, and I think that's really important to any game.

The fun elements of lists can be explored really easily as well, which is another reason I'm so attracted to playing. Winning at all costs isn't the aim of the game for those that are really enjoying AoS, and that makes the overall atmosphere quite nice.

What I like as it relates to the overall Hobby - AoS is more accessible to newcomers, in both its simplicity and art direction.

What I like just for me and it might be crazy - I actually like the idea of Post-Apocalyptic Fantasy. Practically every fantasy setting has some prophecy of what will happen when the Big Bad End Guy destroys the world...AoS delivers that. I want to see a Fallout-esque Empire army of the descendants of the End Times survivors that didn't make it into Azyr. I myself have been playing with an Undead army to reflect how many died.

-Easy to remember rules coupled with the individual special rules that only come into play when using those units.GW hit it out of the park with how they presented the rules in this game.

-Plays fast

-Take what you want,play what you want.This is genius as it really makes players think about the game experience they want AND take into consideration the game experience of their opponent...I don't think there is many games out there like that,at least in my 40+ years of gaming I haven't seen many.
Of course for event/tournament play I can see the need for some level of comp due to their competitive nature and time constraints.

-The models are top tier,some of the best ive seen from GW.Im much more a gamer than a collector but this new release has me actually wanting to complete collections.

-The fluff is much more open than it was and presented in a very engaging way.

-The books are very well done.

-Overall gameplay is simple at first glance but the more you play the more it becomes apparent that there is much more to the game in terms of an overall strategy and the tactics used to excecute it.

Pretty much agree with all these

Love the flexibility of the armies to match the fluff.

I like how, once we know for sure which models will remain, be anle to make ultra themed armies not possible before. Dragon ogre clan? Warrior priest retinue? Dragonriders? All possible! This also seems to be the direction GW is going with pestilens, sylvsneth etc. Anyone else have any good themed armies?

I like that Khorgorath seems (to me) to be based on the Backson from Winnie the Pooh. No sarcasm, it might be not based on it at all (though I really am dead convinced it is lol) but if it was it would be cool. Khorne Backson lol.

First off:

 Sqorgar wrote:
I have no idea if 40k is as interesting as AoS, but from what I've seen in people's army pics, it is similar to Warmachine in that there are a few basic lump profiles that the units share..

Basically yes, but this rule of thumb is getting broken by new releases so the tendency is to diversify.

Second, what I REALLY liked in AoS and why I decided to try it in the first place:

1. The tables with random stuff (I'm a sucker for these - this is carried over from early editions of 40k) - these add so much to the character and appeal to the game. My main gripe with these was that the number of such tables was soo much less than what I wanted/expected.

2. The fixed to hit/to wound target numbers. Most of the time you would try to catch a strong enemy unit with a strong unit of yours and they'll be evenly matched, or you'll want to bog it down with a poor unit and it will suck just the same. Strong vs Strong is evenly matched, Strong vs weak - weak units will still loose (because they're designed as weak) and Weak vs Weak - both suck just the same so they are evenly matched. To me this was an interesting decision and one I found intriguing.

There is already a thread for this, still at the top of the page. No need for two.

Indeed!

Here it is:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/664468.page

Please go there and spread the positivity!