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.

A local guy gave me a demo last night and I have to say I had a great time . It's the non cutthroat, narrative based minis game that I've been looking for. I've already decided on a Nurgle themed Warriors of Chaos army.... One question, is it a big deal to use gutrot spume as a chaos champion ? Just curious if that was frowned upon

I wouldn't have thought so, as long as your opponent knows and says it's okay.

 targetdg15 wrote:
A local guy gave me a demo last night and I have to say I had a great time . It's the non cutthroat, narrative based minis game that I've been looking for.

To be fair, every game can be played this way - we do it with flames of war and infinity. If anything, I'd argue this is an attitude-thing, Not a game- thing. Aos is as open to abuse as any gw game (if not more so), but so long as you are ok with organising with your opponent in terms what you both want, what you both want to play, which( if any) comp-system you wish to use and can come to some agreement, you can get value out of it. It's not pick-up-game or tournament friendly without extensive work, however.

And for what it's worth, I hope you have fun with the game.

 targetdg15 wrote:
I've already decided on a Nurgle themed Warriors of Chaos army.... One question, is it a big deal to use gutrot spume as a chaos champion ? Just curious if that was frowned upon

It should be fine - so long as you point out who he is and what he is standing in for, I'd have no issues.

Oh, heads up - try follow mongoosematt on these forums- his posts are generally a joy to read, and he promotes the kind of attitude, offers tips, advice and more importantly, practical game suggestions that will let you get the most out of Aos.

Glad to hear it. Something about the game caught me too. Shouldn't be a problem about the chaos champion thing. There looks to be a nice discounted bundle pack of Warriors of Chaos coming in the next couple of weeks too.

 targetdg15 wrote:
A local guy gave me a demo last night and I have to say I had a great time . It's the non cutthroat, narrative based minis game that I've been looking for. I've already decided on a Nurgle themed Warriors of Chaos army.... One question, is it a big deal to use gutrot spume as a chaos champion ? Just curious if that was frowned upon

Just so you know, you can actually use Gutrot Spume as Gutrot Spume in a Nurgle themed Warriors of Chaos army. His keywords are "Chaos, Mortal, Nurgle, Hero, Gutrot Spume" and he is listed under "Nurgle Rotbringers" but nothing is preventing you from pulling an "Everchosen" and drawing upon the Warriors of Chaos and Rotbringers lists.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Just so you know, you can actually use Gutrot Spume as Gutrot Spume in a Nurgle themed Warriors of Chaos army. His keywords are "Chaos, Mortal, Nurgle, Hero, Gutrot Spume" and he is listed under "Nurgle Rotbringers" but nothing is preventing you from pulling an "Everchosen" and drawing upon the Warriors of Chaos and Rotbringers lists.

I was going to suggest this - use Gutrot Spume as Gutrot Spume. He is not massively powerful and so won't draw any complaints, and your whole force could be his own personal retinue. That would be a very characterful force, and might even affect some of the other models (thinking about the War Shrine that appeared in White Dwarf recently that had Gutrot Spume at its helm like some kind of land ship...).

Thanks for the awesome feedback! I'm digging how faction barriers are pretty much gone. We are trying out the Path to Glory campaign from the first day of the advent calender so I'll be using that chart to plan some flavorful purchases. Just for fun. Glad to see positivity in these forums it makes me want to play all the more

This is a reason i'd like to try AoS too. The lack of points system should draw and keep more mature players together imo.

Miniatures wargaming is a just a fantastic, enjoyable hobby in general. I think that even the most poorly thought out miniatures wargames can be a blast just because of the inherent nature of the hobby.

It's good that you like something, although I'd recommend you maybe demo a different game or two as well before dropping $$$ on Age of Sigmar. Age of Sigmar is beyond a doubt the worst, least interesting or engaging miniatures wargame that's been made in the last generation. No joke. There are many other miniatures wargames that have an awful lot more going for them and are far more satisfying to play.

 eskimo wrote:
This is a reason i'd like to try AoS too. The lack of points system should draw and keep more mature players together imo.

I don't think that's fair. Plenty points-based games draw and keep their share of mature players, and Aos will certainly draw in its share of immature ones. If anything, it's easier to abuse a game as 'grey' and as 'open' as Aos.

A lack of points systems brings its own problems that being 'more mature' won't necessarily solve. A game without points thst revolves around player consent as Aos does requires your opponent to enable you and your desires in order for it to work. It fails the second that one says 'no' to the other, and that's not necessarily them being the villain in the story- that's simply two people having different impressions on what makes a 'fair','fun', or 'reasonable' game. Points based games have the advantage of what amounts to a 'universal language', or 'common ground' around which you can meet. Aos doesn't have that. It doesn't have 'go-to' sizes, it doesn't have 'go-to' composition rules etc, so there is the potential for a lot of missteps in that minefield.

Don't get me wrong. Aos has value. It has 'game'. But its strongest within a small group of like minded players who have the time and patience to build a game over a weekend and who especially enjoy 'being in the driving seat' in terms of writing their own games and scenarios, along with a bbq and a crate of beers kind of scenario. It does not work at all well with regard to either pick up games or tournaments, and there is great value to both of these too.

But for what it's worth - give it a try. I hope you have fun. I'll say what I said before - follow mongoosematts posts.

^ There seems to be some success in the UK with tournament play. Some of the big tournament playing names from before like Dan Heelan and Russ Veal have been very positive about it and are running the SCGT. Holy Wars in America sounds amazing as well.

coldgaming wrote:
^ There seems to be some success in the UK with tournament play. Some of the big tournament playing names from before like Dan Heelan and Russ Veal have been very positive about it and are running the SCGT. Holy Wars in America sounds amazing as well.

My issue though is the host of fan-based composition systems that have sprung up. I think there is a definite issue here in that a lack of central organisation and authority will hamper this. I think Aos is more suited to 'event-based play' and leagues tournaments, but whether gw will ever run any kind of official leagues as pp do is questionable at best.

coldgaming wrote:

I also find AoS attracts a more positive community, so far at least.

Does it? I've heard my share of horror stories about it. It's also burned a lot of bridges too.

To be fair to it though, it's a new game. With a 'different' attitude behind it (but don't let the historical players hear you say it's new. They've been doing it for decades).that will generate positivity. For plenty, I'm sure it's their first foray into something that 'isnt' 40k tourney/power build, and that can be a breath of fresh air. That will also generate positivity. For plenty more casual players that don't want intricate hundred page rulebooks, it will generate positivity.

Whether that game has stamina to retain interest over the course of years (as opposed to a brief flash in the pan) is another guess though. The game has issues. Having a formless game that you have to constantly negotiate and pre-build can get wearisome. That positivity might erode rapidly if the game can't generate its own ecosystem of a backbone of new and regular players. And it seems to be struggling a bit here (then again, new untested game, with a lot of baggage and broken relationships in its wake so that could be a big part of the reason too).

But we shall see. Like I said, I think it's got game. Whether it's got legs is another question.

 Mysterious Pants wrote:
Miniatures wargaming is a just a fantastic, enjoyable hobby in general. I think that even the most poorly thought out miniatures wargames can be a blast just because of the inherent nature of the hobby.

It's good that you like something, although I'd recommend you maybe demo a different game or two as well before dropping $$$ on Age of Sigmar. Age of Sigmar is beyond a doubt the worst, least interesting or engaging miniatures wargame that's been made in the last generation. No joke. There are many other miniatures wargames that have an awful lot more going for them and are far more satisfying to play.

The rules for AoS are free, miniatures can always be used for other games or under other rule sets. If the OP has played a game and likes it and also likes the miniatures, then I don't see any good reason not to start a small AoS collection and see how it develops.

If the game loses its appeal later on, no worries because you haven't spent money on any rules so far, pick up a rule book for KoW, Frostgrave or whatever and go from there.

 Mysterious Pants wrote:

It's good that you like something, although I'd recommend you maybe demo a different game or two as well before dropping $$$ on Age of Sigmar. Age of Sigmar is beyond a doubt the worst, least interesting or engaging miniatures wargame that's been made in the last generation. No joke. There are many other miniatures wargames that have an awful lot more going for them and are far more satisfying to play.

Sometimes you feel like a nut, and sometimes you don't. That's why there are both Almond Joys and Mounds. Some people just like Almond Joys. Some people just like Mounds. Some folks like both, depending on their mood. I, personally, don't care for coconut, so I like neither. But it's good that there are options available, so that everybody has potential to find the game that speaks to them. I may not like Almond Joy, but I'd never recommend someone else not eat one because I don't know, maybe they'd like it. Everybody has different tastes, and if I tried to limit the world to only candy bars without coconut (goodbye Zagnut!), it would make the world a more boring place for everyone else.

So, if there was a thread titled, "I just had this amazing candy bar called an Almond Joy" and went into it and said, "Almond Joys taste like vomit. You should try a Milky Way instead," about how helpful do you think my comment would be (on a scale of 1 to 10)?

@Sporgar - My thoughts exactly. Saying that AoS is in fact the worst game is like saying that a horse is the worst animal. Bears no meaning and follows non of the rules for burden of proof since it's a very subjective think.

I find it disturbing and frankly a bit annoying that the AoS haters spend time here trying to hijack threats and turn a positive post into another 'bashing-threat'. OP asked about one thing, so please keep oppinions that have nothing to do with this out of the threat.

On that note - AoS is very open about wysiwyg, and you will probably never have any problems using Gutrot as a champion. That way you can also switch it up between games if you want to try out Gutrot with his own rules.

My issue though is the host of fan-based composition systems that have sprung up. I think there is a definite issue here in that a lack of central organisation and authority will hamper this.

Why? There have been player added comp in GW games for years. For years players have complained about X Y or Z in tourneys. Sure, one can pointlessly wish that GW 'fixed' stuff (or fixed what you thought was broken even if not everyone agrees) but that is just wishing for something that isn't likely.

Fan based comp/points is much better. Fans can get the stuff working how they want for competitive games, if it doesn't work they can change it in a matter of minutes.

Having different systems isn't bad. TOs can look around and see what ideas are out there. They can experiment and arrive at what works for them and gets players turning up. Players can look around and see which looks most fun for them. If more than one system survives any length of time then it is because they have some merit.

Was just listening to a podcast from a couple of long standing warhammer players who went to a competitive tourney and it sounds like it was the most fun they had had in years. One scenario got some stick but beyond that they were singing the praises of the tourney. Even the guy who lost 6 games out of 6 said it was great.

puree wrote:

My issue though is the host of fan-based composition systems that have sprung up. I think there is a definite issue here in that a lack of central organisation and authority will hamper this.

Why? There have been player added comp in GW games for years. For years players have complained about X Y or Z in tourneys. Sure, one can pointlessly wish that GW 'fixed' stuff (or fixed what you thought was broken even if not everyone agrees) but that is just wishing for something that isn't likely.

And frankly, most of those comp systems were utterly terrible. ymdc is littered with the corpses of thousands of terrible ideas, fandexes, comp systems and so on. So many of them basically boil down to punishing people for playing something thst the writer doesn't agree with, or thinks is having fun the wrong way. And ultimately, most didn't really fix anything, and just broke the game in other ways instead.

If anything,Complaining about x or y or z just indicates that gw have (or had) a terrible system in place. And showed little interest in either maintaining, or improving it, to be fair to them, they were not interested in this aspect and gw games are not really suited for tournament play. Other systems from other companies are. privateer press' 'steamroller' set of tournament packs are frankly brilliant for this aspect of play. They're continually updated and improved and while there have been complaints and some poor scenarios over the last few years, these have been continually updated, improved and fixed. Privateer press do a lot of things wrong (and hey, I'm a big fan of them), but they are spot on with organised play. Which is neither here nor there with regard to talking about age of Sigmar.

But let's leave that aside for the moment. We're talking about Aos.

puree wrote:

Fan based comp/points is much better. Fans can get the stuff working how they want for competitive games, if it doesn't work they can change it in a matter of minutes.

Having different systems isn't bad. TOs can look around and see what ideas are out there. They can experiment and arrive at what works for them and gets players turning up. Players can look around and see which looks most fun for them. If more than one system survives any length of time then it is because they have some merit.

I generally agree. Having different systems isn't necessarily a bad thing in general (and probably a good thing in diy-based gaming which i also enjoy), but it isn't necessarily 'good' either, especially for organised play.

For a start changing things in a matter of minutes won't really happen. I've turned up to a tourney with a plan in mind, with my army to hand, and now there is a chance that, on a whim, your to is gonna change up everything. What - I've got to bring my whole collection, or go home for other stuff? It has every chance of cluttering or messing things up, and you should be extremely wary of just chopping and changing when you are in the middle of it.

The problem with player designed tournament packs is that everyone ends up playing something different with fan based comp/points systems (assuming they work - see my above point). Professional sports work by having defined standards and governing bodies overseeing these. It's what's necessary for organised play to thrive and grow. There is no central system, standards or authority for organised play with fan-based packs. It's hard to build on this on anything larger than a local level - which is fine, but when you want to organise the community on a larger scale, and get everyone from different areas/groups on the same page, this diy approach hampers, rather than helps. Like I said, everyone is playing a different game, and what works for some won't work for others - it ends up fracturing the community further. And Aos, a new untested game with a small player base with a lot of extra historical baggage doesn't need this extra hurdle on top of everything else.

A further problem is how it puts a lot of extra work on the part of the the tournament organisers to do this. I remember a thread here where a guy ran an Aos tourney, and rather than the '4 pages of rules', he had to build a tournament pack that was over 20. That's five times the workload that shouldn't have been necessary for him to do. Tournament organisers Have enough on their plate with organising and running a tournament (take that from experience) - that's plenty workload to be getting on with - writing the damned rules/comp on top of this is just a further unnecessary hassle. And I'd rather run a tournament, not run an 'experiment with what works'. What happens when it doesn't work? People won't be interested in it the next time. And I don't fancy players wanting to act as guinea pigs repeatedly in these experiments. Most just want to get on with it.

It's why I made the point that Aos isn't really suitable as a tournament based game, and probably better treated as based around 'hosting events' and 'game days' that push a story/narrative to get involved in, rather than as a competitive endeavour with an overall winner. Matt has posted up some of those events that gw have organised, and I think this is the way to go to get most value out of it.

I hope this clarifies my position. It's not 'Aos sucks'. Even though I think it's mechanically poor and uninteresting - It's not the game for me, but it's got game for others. It just needs to be handled the right way.

Played with actual scenarios - rather than pitched battles - and using the terrain rules, and no comp, AoS is the most fun I've had on a tabletop.
Possible exception of Bloodbowl.

RoperPG wrote:
Played with actual scenarios - rather than pitched battles - and using the terrain rules, and no comp, AoS is the most fun I've had on a tabletop.
Possible exception of Bloodbowl.

Had a game of Kings of War this saturday night. Played a scenario with my Stormcast Eternals against an army of Elves, where we had to take as many treasures as possible. It was fun, fast and simple - no need of sheets for every unit, just a few general rules and profiles and that's it. Was one of the most fun I've had on a tabletop.

Yeah, that kind of comment is totally subjective and useless to prove anything.

As long as the players have fun, any game will be relevant.

 targetdg15 wrote:
A local guy gave me a demo last night and I have to say I had a great time . It's the non cutthroat, narrative based minis game that I've been looking for. I've already decided on a Nurgle themed Warriors of Chaos army.... One question, is it a big deal to use gutrot spume as a chaos champion ? Just curious if that was frowned upon

Enjoy, ill fight your army, ill bring 1:1 treemen to your basic infantry

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Mysterious Pants wrote:

It's good that you like something, although I'd recommend you maybe demo a different game or two as well before dropping $$$ on Age of Sigmar. Age of Sigmar is beyond a doubt the worst, least interesting or engaging miniatures wargame that's been made in the last generation. No joke. There are many other miniatures wargames that have an awful lot more going for them and are far more satisfying to play.

Sometimes you feel like a nut, and sometimes you don't. That's why there are both Almond Joys and Mounds. Some people just like Almond Joys. Some people just like Mounds. Some folks like both, depending on their mood. I, personally, don't care for coconut, so I like neither. But it's good that there are options available, so that everybody has potential to find the game that speaks to them. I may not like Almond Joy, but I'd never recommend someone else not eat one because I don't know, maybe they'd like it. Everybody has different tastes, and if I tried to limit the world to only candy bars without coconut (goodbye Zagnut!), it would make the world a more boring place for everyone else.

So, if there was a thread titled, "I just had this amazing candy bar called an Almond Joy" and went into it and said, "Almond Joys taste like vomit. You should try a Milky Way instead," about how helpful do you think my comment would be (on a scale of 1 to 10)?

Best response I have every had the pleasure of reading! I don't play AOS was just lurking but had to respond