AoS Age of Sigmar hate?

[PurpleandGold]

whats with the general dislike for AOS. I hear a lot of people talk about how the dislike or outright despise AOS. I haven't played much of AOS or WHFB so I can't really compare but the biggest changes I hear about from the two is AOS is simpler and GW totally redid the lore and it's bad comparitevely.

 

[Bowser]

There has been hate from day 1. Some people wanted to basically play the same game, or have trouble with change, or genuinely loved the old lore. For the lore, I suppose it would be like letting JK Rowling pen a sequel to the lord of the rings. It wouldn't be the same, you might recognize races and characters, but it wouldn't be Tolkien. For the game you had the T9A people try to enhance 8th, and that evolved into its own thing, and the others who continued on with 8th. They also had rage quitters when 8th came out, and when 7th came out and so on. AOS is just as complex, but easier to get into. I prefer it to WHFB, but it's just a matter of opinion. They all have good points and failings. Some people just haven't let go and believe their opinion needs to be heard. Which is alright. As long as they aren't just using it to pick a fight or start a flame war, then their opinion is just as valid as mine. My suggestion is try KOW, 8th, T9A, and AOS and go with the community or game you like the best. Though some of those communities can be hard to find, players are out there.

 

[Qupakoco]

Think of the end scene in the 1968 Planet of the Apes. "YOU BLEW IT UP!! YOU MANIACS!!!"

Yeah @Bowser pretty much nailed it, for a long time WHFB was the game to play. I've been into it in one facet or another since I was 8 years old, and I'm turning 30 this year. (jeez I feel old now)

As a matter of fact, this very forum didn't even have separate sections for AoS and KoW in the past. It was nearly strictly WHFB, hence the name. We've always been a peaceful community, but with AoS the forum got very heated. Look at the Sticky in the main AoS thread by @Scalenex for an example of the growing pains.

Just remember, change is the only constant. And one likes change.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

AOS is just as complex, but easier to get into. I prefer it to WHFB, but it's just a matter of opinion.

While agree that enjoyment comes down to personal preferences/play-styles/interests, I definitely have to disagree with the statement that AoS is just as complex as 8th edition. The importance of deployment, restrictions on movement, finer degree of refinement/combustibility and the more robust magic phase all make WFB the more complex game. AoS is as you say easier to get into. So while AoS benefits from ease of accessibility, WFB benefits from a greater level of tactical play. So once again it comes down to what you are looking for in a game. I think most of the power gamers (most tactically minded & skilled) went with other games as opposed to AoS when WFB fell... and that definitely happened for a reason.

In my opinion saying that AoS is as tactically challenging as WFB is no different than claiming that WFB is as easy to get into as AoS.

Bear in mind that I am not in this instance equating increased complexity with being a better game. For me personally that is the case because that is what I enjoy about gaming, but others may very well have different priorities and interests.

That's my thoughts on it anyways.

My suggestion is try KOW, 8th, T9A, and AOS and go with the community or game you like the best.

That is definitely sound advice.

We've always been a peaceful community, but with AoS the forum got very heated.

Still not as heated as the infamous Predatory Fighter from supporting ranks debate I take it. I wasn't around here for that, but I heard it got pretty bad.

Your general point is extremely valid, this is definitely a very friendly and positive community.

Just remember, change is the only constant. And one likes change.

Looks like we have a Tzeentch infiltrator here!

 

[Qupakoco]

Looks like we have a Tzeentch infiltrator here!

Now here's the real question... Was that a typo or a Freudian slip? Perhaps the upper echelon of LO has been infiltrated...

The new Kairos Fatrweaver (Lord of Change?) is a really nice model, tbh.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Perhaps the upper echelon of LO has been infiltrated..

I've long suspected that!

The new Lord of Change is a really nice model, tbh.

It is indeed... absolutely stunning!

 

[Ecozh]

At my local gameshops and both game groups have embraced AoS.

Sure, lore-wise AoS can't compare WfB but the game in our community it feels like a breeze.

Yes it is easy to learn but also lacks all the bagage a game like 40k has.

We enjoy it and to be honest, the only time I hear/read about AoS hate.. it is online.

Im glad we all enjoy it

 

[Scalenex]

Still not as heated as the infamous Predatory Fighter from supporting ranks debate I take it. I wasn't around here for that, but I heard it got pretty bad.

My dad had a joke he liked to say in situations like this. "The fighting is so fierce because the stakes are so low."

The mathematical difference between Predatory Fighter supporting attacking and Predatory Fighter front attacks only was pretty small.



To be candid about Age of Sigmar. I though Age of Sigmar 1.0 was so simple the game was forever ruined. I resolved to play 8th edition when I could and talk as many local players into Kings of War as I could. I did not want ot publicly badmouth Age of Sigmar too bad because some people liked it and there is no reason Lustria-Online should only endorse one narrow dying game.

My understanding is that the GW leadership treated all their customer like they wanted to be treated. To them, painting awesome models is where all the fun was. Balanced game was an afterthought. They didn't understand how diverse their customer base. There are players that love to paint models and don't care about game play and their palyers that love to play the game and find putting the models together a chore and everything in between. Games Workshop faced a backlash.

Then Games Workshop got a new CEO. Not only is Age of Sigmar 2.0 much more playable but they also lowered the prices on models and books.

Age of Sigmar 2.0 is not everything I want in a game, but it's a playable game with lots of potential for depth and variety. Before the revamp I had maybe 4 players in my area I could occasionally play 8th edition or Kings of War with. Now I have 20 people I can play Age of Sigmar with.

I want a game with large armies fighting and that is 8th ed or Kings of War, not small skirmishing groups like AoS V 1.0 or Warmahordes. AoS 2.0 provides me with battles between medium sized armies. That's what most of my friends and local game stores want to play, so I am adapting.

 

[n810]

Back it 8th edition I had like 6 opponents.... (and no game store)
Now I have none. sooo yeaaa.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

My dad had a joke he liked to say in situations like this. "The fighting is so fierce because the stakes are so low."

The mathematical difference between Predatory Fighter supporting attacking and Predatory Fighter front attacks only was pretty small.

That's a great observation by your Dad! The stakes couldn't be lower... a very small mathematical effect in a game belonging to a niche market!

Back it 8th edition I had like 6 opponents.... (and no game store)
Now I have none. sooo yeaaa.

I feel your pain. In my case that just means more time for PS4. Wargaming will never be for me what it once was. I'm still into it, but to a lesser degree.

 

[Bowser]

The importance of deployment, restrictions on movement, finer degree of refinement/combustibility and the more robust magic phase all make WFB the more complex game.

I have to disagree with your deployment and movement restrictions being a finer degree of refinement. Movement works differently, but as you may have to contend with the opponent having a double turn, or yourself having it, movement and deploymwnt in AOS is more complex, and requires a greater amount of tactics to move properly and effectively. You need to be able to think 3-4 rounds ahead. That being said the more fluid movement does make it easier to come up with new tactics for movement. The restricted movement and reforms had challenges, and required good thoughtful tactics, and was definitely more restricted by terrain choices, but it is no less important in AOS. As someone who has played both, I can tell you for certain that deployment and movement are just as tactically challenging, just in a different way. And if you only like the challenges offered by one that is fine. It is okay to play to your tastes.

Can't argue the magic point. The magic is simplified, and nowhere near as complex or tactically important as it used to be. There will still be make or break magic spells in some games, but not to the extent it was in 8th or end times.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

I have to disagree with your deployment and movement restrictions being a finer degree of refinement. Movement works differently, but as you may have to contend with the opponent having a double turn, or yourself having it, movement and deploymwnt in AOS is more complex, and requires a greater amount of tactics to move properly and effectively. You need to be able to think 3-4 rounds ahead. That being said the more fluid movement does make it easier to come up with new tactics for movement. The restricted movement and reforms had challenges, and required good thoughtful tactics, and was definitely more restricted by terrain choices, but it is no less important in AOS. As someone who has played both, I can tell you for certain that deployment and movement are just as tactically challenging, just in a different way. And if you only like the challenges offered by one that is fine. It is okay to play to your tastes.

Can't argue the magic point. The magic is simplified, and nowhere near as complex or tactically important as it used to be. There will still be make or break magic spells in some games, but not to the extent it was in 8th or end times.

What makes (in my opinion) WFB movement/deployment more tactical is the difficulty it poses in relation to recovering from a position. The restricted movement of WFB means that errors in the movement phase and during deployment can be very penalizing. Having played 40K, I've experienced how much easier it is to recover when movement is less rigid. In my experience it is simply more forgiving and easier to handle tactically. You most definitely have to think many turns ahead in WFB in order to properly maneuver your forces.

The potentiality of the double turn does add in a bit of complexity, but also a whole heap of randomness. I can see how some people would like that, but it is definitely not my cup of tea.

My comments regarding a finer degree of refinement/customization, where not in reference to movement/deployment. It was directed at the skill of list building. While AoS does have some level of customization, it is not has robust as 8th Edition (though that doesn't make AoS bad). I think skill in list building and character customization gave WFB a tactical edge over AoS.

That's how I feel about the topic anyway, opinions will most definitely vary.

 

[DeadlyRecluse]

AOS haters are very prominent in online communities for whatever reason, while I find that once you make it in store people are generally just stoked to see people playing with their guys. I feel like gw didn't handle end times particularly well and it left a bad taste in everyone's mouth. It really could've been done better, possibly releasing age of Sigmar instead of narrative play, and let wfb be its own thing instead of the GHB. Honestly I can say that after watching some wfb games that AOS is much better suited to newer players or people who like their games a little more simple but hectic, whereas WFB is more suited to the power gamer type who loves list building and more robust gameplay. Theyre two totally different games that(IMO) aren't really similar enough to compare against each other. Sure they have the same name but they play like two totally different games with their own totally unique strategies and synergies. I personally prefer age of Sigmar, but I do see the appeal of WFB, and in turn definitely understand being a little upset that Gw literally wiped the entire game from existence. What I don't understand is the people who still think AOS is a dead game that will die in a few months. My local GW's manager told me before age of Sigmar fantasy used to account for around 15%of his sales, with lotr making around 10%, 40k was about 50% with the last 25% being made up of paints, books, brushes, tools, etc. As of last quarter AOS made up a whopping 30% in sales, with 40k making 45% of sales. If you were to use this store as your only sample, I think it would be fair to say AOS and 40k may be on a level playing field in terms of budget for new sculpts and products sometime in the not so distant future.

In short,

F*ck the haters, revel in their puddles of delicious tears, AOS will be here 5ever get used to it

 

[pendrake]

I personally prefer age of Sigmar, but I do see the appeal of WFB, and in turn definitely understand being a little upset that GW literally wiped the game from existence...

I don't understood the attitude of the WFB crowd...GW didn't suddenly beam all the existing rule books back to the mother ship. All the models sold are still out there...but so many people seem to think they need permission to carry on playing the game...?

 

[SpringStingray]

I don't understood the attitude of the WFB crowd...GW didn't suddenly beam all the existing rule books back to the mother ship. All the models sold are still out there...but so many people seem to think they need permission to carry on playing the game...?

I guess the real contention is that the rules won't be officially managed anymore, so any of the shortcomings in the current edition won't be universally resolved.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

I don't understood the attitude of the WFB crowd...GW didn't suddenly beam all the existing rule books back to the mother ship. All the models sold are still out there...but so many people seem to think they need permission to carry on playing the game...?

The problem lies in the fact that once a game is unsupported the player base slowly dwindles into oblivion. As proof check out how much 8th edition content is discussed on here today as opposed to 2 years ago. This is the same for any unsupported game (perhaps Bloodbowl aside, which seemed to survive without support for decades until they recently revived it). If GW discontinued AoS it would dry up quickly too... the same is true for KoW or any other game system. Most people are constantly looking for the next shiny thing... not support = no more shiny things.

So while all the rules are still valid and intact, there aren't many players around. That might explain some of the AoS hostility. It would have been interesting to see how AoS would have been received if it's arrival didn't bring about the death of WFB. It may still have been ridiculed for its simplicity (especially in the early days of no points), but I don't believe there would have been such impassioned hatred directed towards it. We'll never know of course, but interesting food for thought.

 

[Crowsfoot]

The problem lies in the fact that once a game is unsupported the player base slowly dwindles into oblivion. As proof check out how much 8th edition content is discussed on here today as opposed to 2 years ago. This is the same for any unsupported game (perhaps Bloodbowl aside, which seemed to survive without support for decades until they recently revived it). If GW discontinued AoS it would dry up quickly too... the same is true for KoW or any other game system. Most people are constantly looking for the next shiny thing... not support = no more shiny things.

So while all the rules are still valid and intact, there aren't many players around. That might explain some of the AoS hostility. It would have been interesting to see how AoS would have been received if it's arrival didn't bring about the death of WFB. It may still have been ridiculed for its simplicity (especially in the early days of no points), but I don't believe there would have been such impassioned hatred directed towards it. We'll never know of course, but interesting food for thought.

So with the points being added and the GHB do you not want to try AOS?
I know it will never be WFB but as a stand alone game it is fun, I don't think it was supposed to be a replacement for WFB and I would have loved GW to make WFB 9th edition as 8th does look good, complicated but in a good way, I have the rule book and will try it in the future.

The thing with AOS is it's easy for a complete novice to pick up and play that is a massive advantage, (I still think they copied bits from KOW)

 

[Killer Angel]

I have to disagree with your deployment and movement restrictions being a finer degree of refinement. Movement works differently, but as you may have to contend with the opponent having a double turn, or yourself having it, movement and deploymwnt in AOS is more complex, and requires a greater amount of tactics to move properly and effectively.

What makes (in my opinion) WFB movement/deployment more tactical is the difficulty it poses in relation to recovering from a position. The restricted movement of WFB means that errors in the movement phase and during deployment can be very penalizing. Having played 40K, I've experienced how much easier it is to recover when movement is less rigid. In my experience it is simply more forgiving and easier to handle tactically. You most definitely have to think many turns ahead in WFB in order to properly maneuver your forces.

Movements in AoS and WHFB are totally defferent beasts, and the tactical approaches are also different.
In 8th, planning was vital, you suffer the consequences of bad moves in the following turns and it's harder to recover.
In AoS, you don't suffer long-term consequences for a bad move... because you're probably going to be immediately blasted away. If that doesn't happen, then consequences are minimal.

My opinion is that both games require a good level of tactics, but in different ways, 'cause mechanics, effects and timings are different.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Movements in AoS and WHFB are totally defferent beasts, and the tactical approaches are also different.
In 8th, planning was vital, you suffer the consequences of bad moves in the following turns and it's harder to recover.
In AoS, you don't suffer long-term consequences for a bad move... because you're probably going to be immediately blasted away. If that doesn't happen, then consequences are minimal.

My opinion is that both games require a good level of tactics, but in different ways, 'cause mechanics, effects and timings are different.

Making a major mistake in Fantasy will often result in getting beaten and broken in combat (aka immediately blasted away). However, it's the difficulty of recovery from more subtle mistakes that sets WFB apart from AoS, due in large part to the increased complexity of the movement phase.

AoS is pretty much a simplified 40K and 40k has never been as strategic as Fantasy. My opinion is that AoS is nowhere near as strategic as WFB, KoW or T9A. Of course you are welcome to feel differently.

 

[Jason839]

I hope they cut back on magic to be honest. As a long time Fantasy player magic is part of what killed that game. Rank and file turned some people off sure, instantly getting units wiped out in combat res was dumb, but it was magic that made people quit playing. It was subject to power creep more than anything else, and for the most part if they dedicated an army around it, there was nothing you could do to stop it. Dispelling hardly worked aside from scrolls, and basically you just waited for them to spend their dice on their biggest most scary spell and threw all your dice at it and hoped. That was all you could do. I fear AOS is going the same way.

Take the new Tzeentch book for example. A completely magic focused faction. Ranged mortal wounds. Mortal wounds for every magician around my units. The ability to replace my casting dice with the highest so my magic always works. And other than getting super close to dispel, or getting lucky killing the wizards early, there is nothing you can really do to stop it. emphasized the last part because that is what really will drive new players away. Its uninteractive, its punishing, and as the person on the receiving end, it drives home a feeling of negative play experience.