What is it people like about AoS?

[NagaBaboon]

Ok, right from the off I have to say I'm not a fan. I think it's a pretty bad game I just don't see the appeal of AoS but clearly there are plenty of people who do. Unfortunately there is not much of a community supporting it around my area so I have no one to really ask questions like this. I have only played it 3 times so my experience is not vast, and I'm not saying I didn't have some fun, I just have much more fun playing a lot of other games (I play 40k, WFB, Malifaux, Guildball, X-wing, Armada, Batman and am starting to get into Relic knights, Dropzone commander and Infinity too).

I commend the attempt to make such a streamlined rule set, my favourite game is x-wing for this very reason but to me x-wing seems neat and concise, where as the games of AoS I played felt like there were rules missing. It also feels like it's really lacking room for tactical play (outside of math hammer, which I don't think is the same as tactics) and the models don't really feel like they are interacting with each other. I'm not saying it is devoid of these features, just lacking compared to the other games I play.

Anyway basically that's where I am. I'm not trying to troll or anything, I want to hear about everyone elses experiences, good and bad, and I'm really curious to find out what it is that works for those people who have really taken to it, especially those who play other non GW games systems and are a similiar age to me (ie late 20s - early 30s).

[Mr Mystery]

It's well paced.

I have access to all the rules for free, and none of my existing collection has been rendered obsolete.

There's far more depth to it than many give it credit for. Example? Getting the most out of your 'Reach' units. Anything with 2" range or more can be deadly, as they can stick it to the enemy, cranking up their Battleshock modifier, whilst staying safely out of reach behind a friendly units.

Match this with a decently armoured, ideally multiple wound unit, perhaps with a buff to their armour of some kind, and you can give pretty much any unit a really bad day.

Rock/Paper/Scissors planning has largely gone. Everything is a threat to everything now, thanks to the fixed (but still modifiable) rolls. You can't really listhammer to victory now.

In short? It's just fun. The very basis of how one selects an army encourages sportspersonly conduct. Beardmongers can no longer hide behind their powerbuilds, claiming the fault is with the writers - their powergaming penchant is now laid bare.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

I have played a massive variety of games of AoS now and I think it is great fun. I love heroes and big monsters. I can now finally take these without any restrictions. I love the freedom of being able to go to GW and buy any Fantasy model without the need of setting aside money for lots of basic infantry. I can just buy and play with models that I want.
I believe the game flows well, and there is a lot of tactics involved in the combat phase. There have been several games where a decision has flipped the game.

[Auticus]

What I like

* free rules
* IMO the best models of any game (aesthetics are important to me)
* great looking terrain (aesthetics are important to me)
* simpler rules. I hate rules lawyering, I hate having to stop a game a dozen times to flip through a rulebook and try to find a rule and then argue with someone over the english definition of a conjunction as they try to twist something to give them an advantage
* simpler rules II - less rules means less finding obscure loopholes to game
* movement. I actually thought I'd hate it and I would like some formations to return but I like how armies flow
* simple mechanics and the special rules on scrolls - again I hate memorizing 100-200 pages of rules and then having to reference rules all game
* battleshock - I like that everything is not all or nothing now. armies fight like I would picture them to, with guys running here and there, not wholesale
* battle lines that resemble battle lines, not squares slamming into each other statically with arbitrary combat modifiers
* battle lines that don't just all vanish right away due to a bad roll.
* I am a big fan of the Total war series, and the games of AoS resemble total war much more than arbitrary blocks do.
* abilities, command abilities - each commander has different things they contribute, unlike older edition where it was go level 4 or go home because of the weight of the magic phase


What I don't like
* no facings, no rears, no flanks (warmachine gives you a bonus for fighting in the rear of a model for example)
* no balancing mechanism - its hard to run events and write scenarios for people to just drop whatever models they want on the table
* no balancing mechanism - everything seems to be about taking all elite now - the lack of requirement to take mainstay units "core tax" is kind of annoying to me because I like armies that are representative of the whole, not cherry picked special forces every game

So to me the pros outweigh the cons and I will continue to write scenarios and run events for my area and share them until something else comes along that hooks me more, which to date has not yet happened.

[NagaBaboon]

I forgot about the lack of balancing mechanics, which is odd becasue that's perhaps my biggest gripe! I have to admit a lot of these points are positive spins on things I had seen as bad before, I'm still not convinced but I think I need to try it some more games with these approaches in mind.

Regarding the models I really am not overwhelmed by them which has not helped, I think so many systems are making better models now that the GW minis are less of a draw than they used to be (and it's more about the minis than anything for me too), they do have the big and grand models though, which not many other companies can compare to yet and that is the only real attraction for me as of yet.

[Mr Mystery]

Giving it a try is the most one can do. There's games which, on paper, I should be all over like a rash, but upon trying them just didn't do it for me.

Another big plus?

There's Judas Priest songs which just fit AoS. Judas Is Rising fits, Nostradamus (substituting the instances of Nostradamus with 'God King Sigmar', Painkiller. All put me in the mood to descend from Azyr and get some righteous smiting on!

Plus, background wise, I find it very refreshing to see Chaos as the one whose dominance is under threat. It's a different take than we're used to from Warhammer and 40k both, which are both tales of entropy.

[NagaBaboon]

That's true, that is kind of refreshing but to be honest I've always found the chaos vs. man story a bit tedious, it just feels like it gets a lot of focus and I'm a bit bored of it. I like all the fringe forces like Tau and Tyranids for 40k and lizardmen and beastmen (ok they're chaos but they have their own aesthetic and it's the warriors of chaos I don't like so much) and these always seem to suffer with a lack of attention in the fluff if not the actual rules.

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

I can actually make the army I actually want now! Never liked any of the core choices in tomb kings, only liked the snakes and sphinxes and other non-humanoid things, and I can actually build an army of that stuff now.

In the old game I only liked TK and Skaven, in the new game there is Sylvaneth and Stormcast Eternals. So more factions I can appreciate.

I Prefer the backround/setting of AoS - more high fantasy and more weird and otherworldly locations/terrain fits my taste better.

Rules are simple enough that my learning disability doesn't get in the way, so I can actually get into the game side finally.

[nsc]

Free rules and nothing limiting force composition and combat is actually a game now, instead of resolving attacks in initiative you can actually choose something which has a lot of impact :).

Also if I see a box of cool looking fantasy models, I can buy them and play with them. There's nothing which says I can't, I don't need to buy a full army book, or a full army, I can just use whatever I want.

Is age of sigmar the best game ever? No, it's not. There are countless games, but as far as fantasy miniatures I personally don't believe there's a game better than age of sigmar.

That people say there's no tactics is complete crap. As always, the definition for tactics is carrying out a plan, this translates to positioning for almost every wargame. Even infinity, tactics is about firing lanes, and preventing your opponent for doing something. Killing a tag by first wiping out support infantry and then focus firing a tag is a strategy, not a tactic. The tactic is maneuvering your forces to wipe out their light infantry before you collapse your forces onto the unsupported tag and dismantle it with heavy firepower.

Age of sigmar has a lot of depth with using your units effectively. If you play without tactics then sure, there are no tactics, however if you maneuver your shock infantry into a flank of soldiers who are engaging a line of your own soldiers this does a few things:

1. Hitting a 'flank' of a rectangular formation minimizes return attacks against you
2. You've maximized your unit saturation against an enemy force, bringing more attacks to bear and killing more guys
3. Taking more causalities worsens their morale which causes units to flee and route.

Next you have to balance spell buffs, command buffs (such as general commands and auras from battle standards), watch out for their guns, their magic, their command buffs, the threat range of their units, your threat range.

There are a lot of tactics, whether you use them or not are up to you.

As far as balance goes, you and every other naysayer are using the word incorrectly. Age of sigmar is without a doubt 100% balanced. You can't even say that about chess. In age of sigmar you have at your disposal everything your opponent does, you can field whatever you want, who goes first in a round? It's 50/50, perfectly balanced who will go first in a turn.

You have some idea about FAIR though, you want guidelines to determine which force is fair and which force isnt--currently, I've never found a perfectly fair system for a wargame, even infinity (my favourite) has many terrible unit choices which if they make up the majority of a force, the other side will be obliterated by an "optimized" list. This is true in 40k, warhamhordes, star wars, etc etc etc. There will always be units which have rules which make them better or worse than other units. I've seen greatly imbalanced point fights in 40k go both ways, with horrible tablings, close fights, and everything in between. Often the points were irrelevant in the out comes. Chances are you've seen this too, if you take a "fluffy list" against someone's tourney-tested list, it very likely will be a slaughter.

From what I've seen, through playing many AoS games, most units are fair when compared to similar units. Yes there are stronger ones, yes there are weaker ones, but they all "fit" something, or can be used and enjoyed. Sure this unit of infantry might not be as good as Pheonix Guard, but they're good enough within an average power-level.

[Anthrax ion pusscabe]

I like it because I pretty much always play against the same opponent (a friend who has dwarves and also does fluff list) and most of the games we play will be part of a continuing narrative of a struggle between our armys which is why I like the scale of the mortal realms, we can literally forge entire nations with our campaigns without majorly breaking the map (one of our campaigns in 8th went particularly one sidedly and saw half of Sylvania get put to the torch until winter forced his dwarfs to retreat)
Then there's as mentioned the battle lines look more like proper melee where unit formation breaks and the two regiments mix across a sprawling melee.
And all armys seem to have units that are evenly matched depending on their classification, for instance skeleton warriors and dwarf warriors (both light infantry) have almost the same basic stats, and when upgraded to have one better another worsens by the same amount, only thing that doesn't fit neatly into the types of light infantry/cavalry, heavy infantry/cavalry, monstrous infantry/cavalry out of the regiments is really chaos warriors and storm cast eternals (to much hp for heavy infantry to little for monstrous infantry) but I feel like every alliance will get a unit of 2hp infantry eventually.
All in all I just like the option of being able to play large continent shacking crusades that would not work in the world that was

[NagaBaboon]

As far as balance goes, you and every other naysayer are using the word incorrectly. Age of sigmar is without a doubt 100% balanced. You can't even say that about chess. In age of sigmar you have at your disposal everything your opponent does, you can field whatever you want, who goes first in a round? It's 50/50, perfectly balanced who will go first in a turn.

Ok balance may not be the right word here but I think we all know what it means, we are talking about a balancing mechanic aren't we? The argument that no game has perfect balance, while perfectly true, is a little redundant. We can use points in any game as a guideline, once we know a game we know what works and can better balance it among friends, when I used to play 40k more often we gave pyrovores torrent weapons for example but that only worked among my main group and we could only do that because we knew the game intimately. AoS doesn't seem to offer even fundamental building blocks. I suppose it bothers me becasue I can win a game but I really don't know if it was down to skill or a better army (again I know that can always be the case but there is skill in list building when you have a mechanic, and at least that balance limits how out of kilter it can be) and that feels like a hollow victory.

Guildball has a model limit, that is it, you get one captain, one mascot and 4 players, some are better than others but it doesn't matter because the game is very multi faceted, each model has it's own way of helping to win the game, either by scoring, beating up the opponents team or buffing or de-buffing in various ways to allow the scorers and beaters to do their jobs better. Though it is a very sweeping generalization, essentially, AoS seems to be about killing the enemy, there maybe slightly different ways to achieve that but there always is in any wargame. It's not fair to compare the games as they are completely different things but it seems mad to me to suggest that abusing the 'pile in distance' and weapon ranges in a game constitutes as anything like the tactical, or strategic, depth of Infinity.

[nsc]

I find age of sigmar is much more tactical than infinity.

Infinity is a game of firing lanes, controlling the battlefield with redundant firing lanes.

Age of sigmar has a similar idea, where your units control space, they have hard control (enemy models can't be within 3" of one of your units during the movement phase) and soft control (move+charge range, aka threat range).

In infinity the "soft control" (aka threat range) is very simple, very easy to understand. The model (or unit) has LOS and an effective range of the equipped weapon, if you enter a firing lane with multiple rifles then your model will probably die.

However here is where Age of Sigmar starts to get a little more, tactical, once you start looking at things such as command abilities and abilities in general things become a lot more complex. Suddenly the generals have a secondary soft control zone which is their buff zone, and consequently units have secondary threat areas where they're more deadly do to buffs and damage potential, units like bestigors suddenly have a secondary threat where they have a bonus to strike totems, banners, flag wavers and standards. Stormvermin threaten units smaller than them, etc etc.

Yes infinity has things like facing, numerous guns, melee weapons, ammo types, smoke grenades, ordnance, order management, but age of sigmar has almost as much you will fine.

Numerous guns, this goes without saying, there are tons of different weapon profiles in age of sigmar.
Ammo types, similar to the weapon profiles this is more accurately the rend and damage values.
Smoke grenades, you can use your units to block LOS, sure it's not as impactful as putting down huge templates which obscure LoS, but obscuring LoS isn't as important in age of sigmar. Conversely, many games will feature a lot more models in age of sigmar (compared to infinity) which help you block more LoS, etc etc. It's a bit of a water finding its level point, where having more guys means you can block more LoS but possibly you have more LoS that you need to block.

Then of course in age of sigmar there's pinning down combat, there's selective tanking, (https://hobbykiller.wordpress.com/2015/08/17/getting-tanked/) spell casting range management, unbinding range management, objectives in tourney comp packs, objectives in the campaign book scenarios, terrain inferred spells and the areas these threaten, terrain inferred abilities and the ares these threaten.

There's much more to age of sigmar than, "abusing the pile in distance and weapon ranges."

[Auticus]

Yeah - I'm not super knowledgeable about Infinity but I do know that there is a lot more to Age of Sigmar than people are giving credit to.

[40kGamer]

I find age of sigmar is much more tactical than infinity.

Infinity is a game of firing lanes, controlling the battlefield with redundant firing lanes.

I would have to disagree. Infinity has a lot more depth than just controlling fire lanes. If that is the way the game shakes out it is either from limited terrain or players using specific shooty builds.

[Xaric]

Ok, right from the off I have to say I'm not a fan. I think it's a pretty bad game I just don't see the appeal of AoS but clearly there are plenty of people who do. Unfortunately there is not much of a community supporting it around my area so I have no one to really ask questions like this. I have only played it 3 times so my experience is not vast, and I'm not saying I didn't have some fun, I just have much more fun playing a lot of other games (I play 40k, WFB, Malifaux, Guildball, X-wing, Armada, Batman and am starting to get into Relic knights, Dropzone commander and Infinity too).

I commend the attempt to make such a streamlined rule set, my favourite game is x-wing for this very reason but to me x-wing seems neat and concise, where as the games of AoS I played felt like there were rules missing. It also feels like it's really lacking room for tactical play (outside of math hammer, which I don't think is the same as tactics) and the models don't really feel like they are interacting with each other. I'm not saying it is devoid of these features, just lacking compared to the other games I play.

Anyway basically that's where I am. I'm not trying to troll or anything, I want to hear about everyone elses experiences, good and bad, and I'm really curious to find out what it is that works for those people who have really taken to it, especially those who play other non GW games systems and are a similiar age to me (ie late 20s - early 30s).

Unfortantly this post is pointless and really feels like a way to goat people to give more negative reviews of the game and looks like a troll ill give my reasons why.

"Ok, right from the off I have to say I'm not a fan. I think it's a pretty bad game I just don't see the appeal of AoS"
This tells me your already off to a bad start you have no intent to be positive with this topic so you will focus your core point on the weak links in the system and try to put them out there to boost the negative side lets put it blatant shale we every game has things people dislike and things that people like if you go into a topic with a negative mind-set you are going to be negative regardless of what everyone said if they do say positivity.

"Unfortunately there is not much of a community supporting it around my area"
Going to a area that people have little insight or already are stuck into another game and do not wish to play another game due to investments this is common I would say branch out a bit you cant expect people just to throw there cash around when the next new thing comes out we all know GW stuff is expensive investment but please don't dismiss something because its not doing well in your area for you have given us very little information to what your area is like for all we know it could be a small village with a pop of 50 people and about 10 of them play war games.

"I just have much more fun playing a lot of other games"
This bugs me more them most of what you said you already have your mind split to other games of course your going to be jaded and fragmented your playing 10 different games with a high amount of rules memorising and learning to play each wile paying out money for each game is expensive in its own mind you need to learn to tone down on the amount of games.

"I commend the attempt to make such a streamlined rule set"
dude the rules are as streamline as there going to get with 4 page's in age of sigmar it just gives us a more freedom to do what with the rest you don't need 200 page's of rules to declare how to play a game you only need rules for the game to play it look at games like chess you can summarise the rules on 1 page and chess is considered a sport.

"It also feels like it's really lacking room for tactical play"
Playing 3 games and your complaining about tactical play... it sounds like your just plopping down any model and making a B line to the enemy model expecting to win via luck... I can do that in 40k and fantasy 8th edition so sorry what you say about tactics is invalid and quite honestly silly to say there is no tactics or lack off. If a game has variables via stats or modifications those can be converted into a tactics to best the weakness of a foe if you fail to relies this then you must be a really poor tactical player.

"I'm not trying to troll or anything"
The big thing no one should ever say in a post... it is the people who comment will declare whether you are trolling or not disclaimers will always declare you if its a attempt to protect you... anyone can say "well I am not a troll so this is legit" so telling me your not trolling is basically telling me your trolling at this point to fuel the hate that is going around.

[Cutter]

Unfortantly this post is pointless and really feels like a way to goat people to give more negative reviews of the game and looks like a troll ill give my reasons why.

And now we know why you like AoS.

[Filthy Casual]

I feel that what people liked about WFB that's now gone were never really what WFB was supposed to be. I think AoS is much closer in concept to pre 4th edition, smaller units of dudes with Heroes who can stomp about the battlefield throwing in when they need to all set in a world where victory is a temporary thing as there will always be more fighting to do tomorrow. Its a story based system, tons of the rules in the campaign books are about playing in the Realms or at certain times in the Age of Sigmar, its about the setting and the heroes and the people struggling through it. Its got a lot of promise and some great hooks to expand on.

The WFB people are missing is better suited to a smaller scale anyway, 6mm like Warmaster (which was a fantastic game) better represents that kind of tactical challenge and there are lots of 6mm or 15mm Fantasy rulesets out there with big blocks of units which replicate those grand battles a lot better.

[nsc]

I don't find heroes stomping the battle in age of sigmar, but I do agree that it feels more like warhammer to me than 6/7/8 ever did.

It feels like kill-team and mordeheim, it feels like warbands from realm of chaos, it feels like you can make a collection of models your army

The rules are tight, keywords make many rule interactions very straightforward (though people will argue the opposite of the rules no matter the game I have found), you're allowed to play with your toys. It's a good thing.

[Charon]

I think AoS is much closer in concept to pre 4th edition, smaller units of dudes with Heroes who can stomp about the battlefield throwing in when they need to all set in a world where victory is a temporary thing as there will always be more fighting to do tomorrow.

I guess the point is that a lot of people were happy to finally get rid of 4th edition "herohammer".
That was about the time I started where my glorious Khorne Lord with infinite items and his horde of minimum troops and the allied Verminlord battled my friends Glorious Elf General Mage with infinite items accompanied by minimum troops and an allied Dwarfen Anvil for even more characters.
For a short time we found that hilarious and "fun" but soon the battles grew stale and we discovered a new way to play by resticting our characters and forcing us to take more troops. We were happy when 5th hit and 4th was gone cause the way the editions developed was also the way as we developed our game.
I did only quit because GW decided to invalidate 3 of my armies and I could not be bothered to start again from 3 or 4 units with 40k right next to me.

[Auticus]

Those are very valid. I also was happy to get out of 5th edition hero hammer and into a more unit-centric game. I come from historicals so I wanted the game to reflect that more.

That being said, I've embraced games like Hail Caesar more now and I think that warhammer can be both though it takes some work to make it as such.

[Filthy Casual]

The heroes are tuned down compared to 4th, certainly, the lack of customisation and obscenely powerful Magic Items makes sure of that, but they're definitely strong units that can multiply the effects of infantry.

Making sure you have the right ones at the right times is key to things going well for you.

The game as a lot to it that people are missing by focusing on what they see as negatives, yes there is no point system and that means it could be abused, but WFB had a point system that could be abused, people are going to be bad players to each other sometimes.

This way, when someone is a bad player, they can't pretend they're not because "technically the rules say I can do this" it brings the social contract that was always supposed to be there right to the front of things and makes it the most important part of having a fun game.

The focus was never supposed to be who can beat their opponent, that's never been part of the game, the aim is for the players to have fun, your objective is to win and your method should be to win in a way that doesn't invalidate the aim.

It seems a lot of WFB players lost sight of that aim, as people were trying to win without caring how terrible and boring it made the game for their opponent, which put people off playing it once they encountered that. It was a good game but in the hands of bad players quickly became a chore. A bad match up of 40k is one thing but a bad match up in WFB was soul destroying, mainly because it too so bloody long.

[nsc]

Yeah I love the social contract, it really falls in line with the spirit of "warhammer for adults"

If you're going to put time into painting and building toy soldiers you should put time into having fun with them, not abusing the rules to destroy someone else's toy soldiers.

[Xaric]

And now we know why you like AoS.

Yes I do like AoS and I identified and broke down his wording in the topic subject matter giving my personal view points on what the op said and by my personal wording I believe what I said was true you can choose whether to accept this or deny it that's your personal optional.

Whether this makes me a fan boy or not I don't really care much for a silly tagline to be honest but if I am not allowed to speak my mind based on the evidence provided that is validated to the topic at hand then what's the point of a topic?

- - - Updated - - -


Yeah I love the social contract, it really falls in line with the spirit of "warhammer for adults"

If you're going to put time into painting and building toy soldiers you should put time into having fun with them, not abusing the rules to destroy someone else's toy soldiers.

Unfortunately the competitive mind-set do not understand that there is more to a game then just domination and number crunching for 100% optimizations.
Unfortunately the lazy gamer mind-set do not understand that because having a army full of unpainted and poorly assembled models was too much effort to begin with the mind-set of looking online for a easy I WIN build...

[Caitsidhe]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnFAAdOBB1c

It somehow seemed appropriate.

[Charon]

Whether this makes me a fan boy or not I don't really care much for a silly tagline to be honest but if I am not allowed to speak my mind based on the evidence provided that is validated to the topic at hand then what's the point of a topic?

I do find that line of thought interesting.
There is no "evidence". It is your personal opinion you suddenly call "evidence".
Also you demand the freedom to speak your mind while bashing everyone and lashing out to everyone who does not share your opinion.

And to be fair. Most unpainted and barely assembled armies I have seen are from casual players which do not bother with the other aspects of the hobby.

[Xaric]

I do find that line of thought interesting.
There is no "evidence". It is your personal opinion you suddenly call "evidence".
Also you demand the freedom to speak your mind while bashing everyone and lashing out to everyone who does not share your opinion.

And to be fair. Most unpainted and barely assembled armies I have seen are from casual players which do not bother with the other aspects of the hobby.

Wow just wow where to start okay lets look up some words on the internet.

What does evidence mean: The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

what does personal opinion mean: A personal view, attitude, or appraisal. 3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: a second medical opinion. 4. the formal statement by a judge or court of the principles used in reaching a decision on a case

Okay now that you can learn something from this mind reading what I said above Charon "my personal view points on what the op said and by my personal wording I believe what I said was true you can choose whether to accept this or deny it that's your personal optional."

now use your brain I clearly said "What I said was true you can choose whether to accept this or deny it that's your personal optional." welcome to the internet buddy just because you don't like what I have to say does not mean I have to agree with you I am not bashing anyone or lashing out at anyone I am putting my own feedback and input into the topic discussion if this is too hard for you to accept then being on a forum might not be the best place for you.

Also about the unpainted and barely assembled armies has a high chance to be true people who care only for winning will take a list from the internet forums with a number of models that can sometimes bend rules or be used in ways that other people would not use them for secured victory's welcome the cheese/death star builds. Now I am not saying all of them are bad creative ones are good but who remembers when screamers and flamers got buffed to the point where they steamrolled then when the new codex came out got nurfed into the ground causing so much uproar.

I personally don't mind people who are bad at painting and don't wish to paint the models because of fear of ruining the model and have fun but it bothers me when you can tell its "that guy" the one who plays the game just to brake it by bringing spam list of high powerful models E.G 5 greater daemons and accept it as the norm then claim the game is broken or enter a game with such negative attitude because they have a plan to turn people away from what they dislike.

[Xaric]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnFAAdOBB1c

It somehow seemed appropriate.

hehe that made me laugh could be possible true on both sides with haters and fan's but thanks for the entrainment just reminded me to watch some south park :D