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.

I’ve always been more interested in fantasy models compared to sc-fi 40K but when ever I watch a battle report they all look the same. Battlefield with wide open space middle board with a couple of terrain pieces either edge of the board and then 2 armies facing each other that just charge for each other with not much shooting or tactical terrain decisions(like trying to get cover) coming in to play. This isn’t a chance to run the game down as I want to love it and with AOS 4.0 around the corner should I dip my toes or stick with what seems to me a more thinking man’s game of 40K? Hopefully you guys/girls can tell me what I’m missing from AOS? (Also I have no interest in playing old world, movement with rank and file blocks is not my cup of tea)

There are much smarter, decision-heavy games on the market if you are looking for less silly randomness, more satisfying intellectual challenge. I, myself, can recommend Warmachine for that but there are plenty of others.

Just don't expect as big a community as for GW games - it's like Monopoly, accessible, simplistic, random, family friendly, so, coupled with GW's market share it will always go for mass appeal over more niche target audiences.

I would firstly check who you are going to play the game against. No reason to get excited about an ambitious, intellectually challenging game if there are zero opponents to be found.

The most tactical Fantasy game using your models I have encountered is kings of war. There there are plenty of others like dragon rampant.

Just note that things like skill and terrain can vary a lot based on player skill too. Sometimes a lot of youtubers might be good at making videos and getting views, but they might not be super-skilled players.

I'd also argue that wargames have a huge black hole in player skill and teaching. You can get teaching in everything but as soon as you start going down play and tactics the advice dries up super fast.
People will argue for pages about what paints to use; what brushes; how to sculpt; what to do to get a specific colour but you'll be fighting to get more than a handful of casual replies to tactics discussions.

 Overread wrote:
.
People will argue for pages about what paints to use; what brushes; how to sculpt; what to do to get a specific colour but you'll be fighting to get more than a handful of casual replies to tactics discussions.

Isn't it just a case with most GW games, though, due to their nature - bloated and overcomplicated but very shallow?

For example take a look at Warmachine University, a wiki for the game listing all units' rules and tactics - tricks, uses, combos etc. There are tons of tactical content here : https://warmachineuniversity.com/mw/index.php/Iron_Lich_Asphyxious

(This is an example of a page for a warcaster - just a single, though admittedly most pivotal, model in the game which has hundreds of warcasters and several times more units of other types)

munnster wrote:
I’ve always been more interested in fantasy models compared to sc-fi 40K but when ever I watch a battle report they all look the same. Battlefield with wide open space middle board with a couple of terrain pieces either edge of the board and then 2 armies facing each other that just charge for each other with not much shooting or tactical terrain decisions(like trying to get cover) coming in to play. This isn’t a chance to run the game down as I want to love it and with AOS 4.0 around the corner should I dip my toes or stick with what seems to me a more thinking man’s game of 40K? Hopefully you guys/girls can tell me what I’m missing from AOS? (Also I have no interest in playing old world, movement with rank and file blocks is not my cup of tea)

What I love about AOS:

There are far less layers of rules (no stategems, for example) so we notice less "Gotcha!" moments that can be unsatisfying in a game session. I spend more energy focusing on
movement and how to use commands, etc. and less time worrying about the things my opponent can do that I have no idea about.

army building is not overly complicated

movement and positioning and use of re-deploy command and the like are extremely important. As is deployment, etc. It is loaded with tactical and strategic choice and execution.

improvements are coming to 4th edition, minor tweaks that seem quite positive.
really exciting: there will be a Spearhead format, in AOS 4E, that allows one to play with just the spearhead sized box set for each faction. Rules will be the same as AOS, but uses a card deck to guide
battle tactic choices.

I am probably biased; our local store boasts the 2nd largest AOS scene on the west coast, but 40K does quite well too in town. But every 40K player I've seen really give AOS a chance has acknowledged it is a tight and fun game system -- even if they opted to stick to 40K due to liking the setting better.

If you are keen on fantasy theme, the AOS setting is now quite established and the lore is fun, models are smashing good. consider getting a good demo match and certainly keep Spearhead on your radar to give it a try affordably.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

 Shrapnelsmile wrote:

army building is not overly complicated

I had a 4 page flow chart to remind myself how my army was constructed and worked. I had to refer to it constantly and needed a second copy to give to my opponents so they understood it too.

 Shrapnelsmile wrote:
movement and positioning and use of re-deploy command and the like are extremely important. As is deployment, etc. It is loaded with tactical and strategic choice and execution.

My army just set up in a block and waited for my opponent to move into charge range. I'd just do nothing for the first turn unless their was something in range to shoot or cast at.

 Shrapnelsmile wrote:
I am probably biased; our local store boasts the 2nd largest AOS scene on the west coast, but 40K does quite well too in town. But every 40K player I've seen really give AOS a chance has acknowledged it is a tight and fun game system -- even if they opted to stick to 40K due to liking the setting better.

I've not known many people to make the switch from 40k to AoS unless they already owned Daemons of Chaos.

 Shrapnelsmile wrote:
I am probably biased; our local store boasts the 2nd largest AOS scene on the west coast, but 40K does quite well too in town. But every 40K player I've seen really give AOS a chance has acknowledged it is a tight and fun game system -- even if they opted to stick to 40K due to liking the setting better.

I've not known many people to make the switch from 40k to AoS unless they already owned Daemons of Chaos.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Uptonius wrote:
Different strokes for different folks I guess.

 Shrapnelsmile wrote:

army building is not overly complicated

I had a 4 page flow chart to remind myself how my army was constructed and worked. I had to refer to it constantly and needed a second copy to give to my opponents so they understood it too.

 Shrapnelsmile wrote:
movement and positioning and use of re-deploy command and the like are extremely important. As is deployment, etc. It is loaded with tactical and strategic choice and execution.

My army just set up in a block and waited for my opponent to move into charge range. I'd just do nothing for the first turn unless their was something in range to shoot or cast at.

 Shrapnelsmile wrote:
I am probably biased; our local store boasts the 2nd largest AOS scene on the west coast, but 40K does quite well too in town. But every 40K player I've seen really give AOS a chance has acknowledged it is a tight and fun game system -- even if they opted to stick to 40K due to liking the setting better.

I've not known many people to make the switch from 40k to AoS unless they already owned Daemons of Chaos.

were you not playing a matched play, standard game? or did you just not care about scoring objective points or battle tactics?

Uptonius wrote:

I had a 4 page flow chart to remind myself how my army was constructed and worked. I had to refer to it constantly and needed a second copy to give to my opponents so they understood it too.

This is unironically, and with no hint of jest or insult intended, a skill issue.

I'm going to guess Skaven back when the general would unlock Battleline choices but only if all your units were a specific clan, which was the most complicated army building ever got, and that was still just "pick a General and 3 Battleline, then whatever you'd like" (for 2k).

If 40k is your gold standard for a "thinking man's game" I'm sure AoS will also be right up your alley.

I dropped 40K as they tried to turn the game into a deck building MOBA. Do not go to 40K they don't have a consistent design ethos and were trained as gamers by mobile games. I miss the era when folks who created game systems had their personal roots in D&D. I Picked up AoS and it was better, but now with 4th they're following in 40Ks design steps, so I dropped that too. Look to other companies for a tactically challenging game or just play the ultimate test of ability: Chess. For the record I got into 40K for the potential to fight over alien worlds, an outpost lost in a jungle, a lava planet with changing avenues of movement and other fantastical battlefields. Not perpetual city fight.

munnster wrote:
I’ve always been more interested in fantasy models compared to sc-fi 40K but when ever I watch a battle report they all look the same. Battlefield with wide open space middle board with a couple of terrain pieces either edge of the board and then 2 armies facing each other that just charge for each other with not much shooting or tactical terrain decisions(like trying to get cover) coming in to play. This isn’t a chance to run the game down as I want to love it and with AOS 4.0 around the corner should I dip my toes or stick with what seems to me a more thinking man’s game of 40K? Hopefully you guys/girls can tell me what I’m missing from AOS? (Also I have no interest in playing old world, movement with rank and file blocks is not my cup of tea)

Maybe try middle earth. It's possibly the most tactical of GWs games and (depending on taste of course) has the best looking minis. The game scales really well from 10- 100 miniatures.
Personally I don’t consider 40K or AoS as the "thinking games" of GW. 40K is more about preparation. You need to know all your army and special rules and maybe even your opponents' stratagems, but when you know all that stuff, the game runs smoothly in the way that you can plan pretty much ahead what you want to do with your army. It's gotten more complicated since 8th due to stratagems and deeper CC in the way that you can't walk away from the table anymore when it's not your turn. But it’s still far less interactive than say Middle earth or Oathmark.

munnster wrote:
but when ever I watch a battle report they all look the same. Battlefield with wide open space middle board with a couple of terrain pieces either edge of the board and then 2 armies facing each other that just charge for each other with not much shooting or tactical terrain decisions(like trying to get cover) coming in to play.

I think you've answered your own question here, but I'll elaborate.

I think much of what you're seeing and disliking is not a function as much of the rules as it is a function of the people playing and how they construct their scenarios and Terrain layouts.

Any game can devolve into a predictable slugfest if players revert to simplistic scenarios and mirrored terrain setups.

On the other hand even the most simple rulesets can provide tactically interesting games with well though out terrain layouts and scenarios. This of course requires having like minded players, and being willing to have conversations about what folks expect from a given game, but the results can be spectacular.

By way of example, my club plays allot of One Page Rules. It's an almost comically simple system, but we love it and have allot of very interesting games, brought about largely by dense, thematic table layouts and interesting scenarios.

You can see many examples of that here:
https://www.chicagoskirmishwargames.com/blog/