AoS Played AOS (rant) warning: If you like AOS don't read

[ASSASSIN_NR_1]

This is all my opinion, if you disagree with me, that is fine. To each his own.

The long version:

The bad:

I have just had a game of AOS, and I must say that it is just garbage. No balance of any sort.

My opponent got sudden death, but he could practically not win because he had to kill my Slann and I had Chakax to soak up all wounds.
Besides the sudden death rules just feels very bad to me.

When you can just place whatever you want, it just feels like a big mess.

I don't like combat, there is no initiative meaning that it is basically random as you just choose which unit attacks first, and that doesn't feel good.

Shooting into combat makes no sense what so ever.

Monsters are too good, as they have a lot of wounds and has a lot of attacks and it is easier to get more attacks than an infantry unit. They are immune to battleshock, so why would you ever not take monsters?
That is a problem just like the issue with Saurus warriors and Temple Guards. There is really no point in taking Saurus Warriors when you have Temple Guards.

The good:

My models looked good on the table I guess.


The short version:

Marhlect!

Conclusion:

I absolutely hate AOS and I cannot see me playing it ever again.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Excellent... another servant of the Old Ones who will not be corrupted by AoS. Our legion is growing!

 

[Sleboda]

No balance of any sort.

=> The telltale sign of a head in the wrong place (no offense - honest). Any discussion that begins with "balance" issues tells the reader that the person posting has entirely missed the point. AoS is not about balance, and your biggest clues should be the total lack of a system of points or other mechanism designed to address balance. The game has no such thing. Would you be critical of a steak because it didn't have any fish in it? Would you point out how the baserunner in a game of baseball was an idiot because he failed to get a first down? If you were dirty and took a shower, would you fuss over the fact that there were no airjets blowing into a pool of water like a hot tub?

Why, then, do people play AoS, a game with no point values or other system of balance, and complain that there is no balance?

The other clue should come from the books released so far - they are HEAVILY story-driven with linked scenarios. This new game is about narratives, not tournaments or competitive play - or balance.

When you can just place whatever you want, it just feels like a big mess.

=>Or...it feels amazeballs because you can paint what you like and play with what you like without worrying about having to paint X more of the unit, or having to paint 500 points of something in order to field something else. Also, you can use things that would otherwise sit on a shelf because they would take up 'slots' or points that you "need"to spend on "better" stuff.

Hey, if you don't like the game, that's cool. That's not the issue. The issue is why you would evaluate it based on things it never even pretends to be trying to offer you.


I'll leave the other points alone other than to say what does and does not make sense is relative. We accept dragons and ratmen, but not that the system might allow shooting into combat? Ohhhkaaay. And maybe, just maybe, our idea of what makes sense is tied to baggage from other games? Maybe?

Grr. Sorry, one more point on that. You know, it doesn't make any sense that the first warrior to attack -----always---- wins in Chess. Always. I mean, surely the knight should have a chance to fend off the pawn, right? Makes no sense otherwise. Chess is pretty good, though.

 

[The Red Devil]

Why, then, do people play AoS, a game with no point values or other system of balance, and complain that there is no balance?

If you take into mind that Games Workshop only push AoS now, and do not support old fantasy (Ed. 8) anymore. Your statement falls through.

Since they only push AoS, it is a valid thing to complain that there is no system for balance.

 

[Khelandros]

Personally, I support maintaining balance, but I'm starting to wonder if Warhammer Fantasy was intended to be more AoS-like for some time now. I found this on Warseer yesterday and think it's from around 5th or 6th edition.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

The telltale sign of a head in the wrong place (no offense - honest). Any discussion that begins with "balance" issues tells the reader that the person posting has entirely missed the point. AoS is not about balance, and your biggest clues should be the total lack of a system of points or other mechanism designed to address balance. The game has no such thing. Would you be critical of a steak because it didn't have any fish in it? Would you point out how the baserunner in a game of baseball was an idiot because he failed to get a first down? If you were dirty and took a shower, would you fuss over the fact that there were no airjets blowing into a pool of water like a hot tub?

Why, then, do people play AoS, a game with no point values or other system of balance, and complain that there is no balance?

I respectfully disagree.

ASSASSIN_NR_1's point on a lack of balance is a very real gripe when discussing the pitfalls of AoS. Like it or not, AoS is the replacement for Warhammer fantasy, so comparisons between the two are not only completely valid, but should also be expected. Not only that, but as a war game, AoS will be compared to other war games of which most if not all have some sort of balancing system.

If you're personally interested in a narrative driven experience and less so in balance, then AoS might be a perfect fit for you. In such a case, you should go along and enjoy it... nothing wrong with that. However, for those people interested in a more balanced or competitive setting, AoS is not a good fit and they have the right to the judge the game on those short comings.

Chess is pretty good, though.

Here we agree.

 

[Sleboda]

If you take into mind that Games Workshop only push AoS now, and do not support old fantasy (Ed. 8) anymore. Your statement falls through.

Since they only push AoS, it is a valid thing to complain that there is no system for balance.

There's no connection there.

It's not that they "only push" AoS. It's that this is the game now. What came before doesn't matter, and even if it somehow did, just because an older game had a system for balance it does not mean, at all, that a new system should be expected to have a system of balance.

Honestly, I just don't see your point. It -sounds- like you are saying that somehow it is valid to complain that a new thing is lacking because, even though it was never put forth as containing a thing (in this case, a balancing system), you wanted it to contain it.

In other words, McDonalds put out a new chicken sandwich and you are telling them they are wrong for not making sure it includes a beef patty.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Personally, I support maintaining balance, but I'm starting to wonder if Warhammer Fantasy was intended to be more AoS-like for some time now. I found this on Warseer yesterday and think it's from around 5th or 6th edition.

View attachment 17501

I'd choose option #2.

 

[Sleboda]

Personally, I support maintaining balance, but I'm starting to wonder if Warhammer Fantasy was intended to be more AoS-like for some time now. I found this on Warseer yesterday and think it's from around 5th or 6th edition.

=> I believe you are correct. For many years GW has said it's not about winning, not about balance, not about all that stuff and encouraged us to play that way....but they included rigid systems all geared towared winning, balance, and so on.

So, they were saying one thing and then doing another.

Now, much to their credit, they have matched words with deed. They have produced a rules set that does, in fact, match their stated goals. It's remarkable, actually. It's freeing, for me at least. Now I can play the rules AND the values/style without conflict. In Warhammer I always felt I had to maximize, do my best to win, etc. In Age of Sigmar, I feel like I can play with my favorite toys with little to no concern over how they perform on the table. It's great!

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Honestly, I just don't see your point. It -sounds- like you are saying that somehow it is valid to complain that a new thing is lacking because, even though it was never put forth as containing a thing (in this case, a balancing system), you wanted it to contain it.

In other words, McDonalds put out a new chicken sandwich and you are telling them they are wrong for not making sure it includes a beef patty.

In that case I'll design and sell you a car without brakes or safety belts. Would not judge my car based on the fact that it lacks those things (even though I designed it not too)?

You probably would negatively judge my car poorly because those things you would expect to be included in a car. In the same breath, I'd expect a balancing system to be included in a table top strategy war game.

 

[Sleboda]

ASSASSIN_NR_1's point on a lack of balance is a very real gripe when discussing the pitfalls of AoS.

Gah! No, not really. It's only a real/valid gripe if the AoS were put forth AS a system with balances. Like I said in my examples, it's not right to complain over something being missing from something when that thing never was supposed to have it.

What's that? My new pair of shoes does not have a beverage cooler built in?
Um, sir, we never told you it would. We never meant for the shoes to have that.
But I want beverage coolers in my shoes!
Then, sir, might I recommend you look for a different pair of shoes?

AoS is the replacement for Warhammer fantasy

=> That's the exact kind of thinking I wish people could move past.
It's not.
I mean yes, in one sense there used to be a game called Warhammer, which is now gone, and now there is a new game called Age of Sigmar, but that's about it. AoS is not the new version of Warhammer. It's a new game. A new start. Just looking at all the other changes, this should be apparant. No to hit charts, no wound charts, no templates, no spell lores, nothing of what Warhammer had...just like it does not have points or a balancing system.

 

[Sleboda]

In that case I'll design and sell you a car without brakes or safety belts. Would not judge my car based on the fact that it lacks those things (even though I designed it not too)?

You probably would negatively judge my car poorly because those things you would expect to be included in a car. In the same breath, I'd expect a balancing system to be included in a table top strategy war game.

Here's the differnce. It's pretty important. All cars need breaks and must have them. All wargames do not need points or balance. I don't know your wargaming background, but you may recall in the 70's there were many, many games that made no pretense of balance or points. The fun was in seeing how well you could do in unwinnable situations, perhaps even switching sides with your opponent to see if he could do better than you did.

You may expect points and balance in a wargame, but that's your choice, and is not a failure of ones that don't have it.

I expect my chocolate to be sweet, but no matter how much I expect that, if a chocolate company makes bitter chocolate it does not make it bad chocolate simply because I expected something that was never a requirement for that thing to be.

Again, you don't have to like bitter chocolate or wargames without points, but it really is unfair to say they failed for not including the options you wanted.

So, yes, I would judge your car harshly, but that because cars, all of them, need breaks.

Let's expand your analogy.

Design a new motor vehicle. Choose to make it a fuel efficient, small, passenger car.
I buy your motor vehicle. I then complain to you that your car is bad because it does not have sufficient cargo room to transport a new sofa from the store to my house.

You might very well tell me that I should have purchased a different motor vehicle, one designed with cargo room. A pickup truck for example.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

All wargames do not need points or balance.

Some people might argue that point.

Everything we judge we do so against a certain set of criteria that is specific to our own personal needs. Some people require a game to have a balancing system, and will negatively judge a game that does not contain such.

I personally feel that a war game needs a balancing system just as a car needs safety belts. I require a game to have a more competitive, strategic and intellectual edge to it. However, not all players are looking for the same experience. So in my case, I would pass poor judgement on AoS, where you might not because the criteria you use to judge the game are different. My judgement of AoS's lack of balance is valid for myself and anyone wishing to engage in a similar experience as I am seeking, while it may have no influence on your judgement of the game.

=> That's the exact kind of thinking I wish people could move past.
It's not.
I mean yes, in one sense there used to be a game called Warhammer, which is now gone, and now there is a new game called Age of Sigmar, but that's about it. AoS is not the new version of Warhammer. It's a new game. A new start. Just looking at all the other changes, this should be apparant. No to hit charts, no wound charts, no templates, no spell lores, nothing of what Warhammer had...just like it does not have points or a balancing system.

While you wish people to move past this, I feel is important not to.

AoS did replace warhammer. Yes it is a different game (and in my opinion a sad shadow of the game that came before it) it is still a replacement.

• they are both Warhammer games
• AoS took the place of Warhammer fantasy (in the stores, on the website, etc.)
  
• they both take place using pretty much the same setting, with pretty much the same characters in play
• AoS continues on where Fantasy left us

I agree with you that AoS is not the next version of Warhammer (it doesn't have the merits to claim that title), but it is the replacement of Warhammer fantasy. As a consequence comparisons between the two are legitimate sources of judgement on AoS.

 

[Sleboda]

Some people might argue that point.

=>They would be wrong to do so. Chocolate does not have to be sweet. Wargames do not need a balancing system.

Everything we judge we do so against a certain set of criteria that is specific to our own personal needs. Some people require a game to have a balancing system, and will negatively judge a game that does not contain such.

=>I'm with you there. I'm just saying that when they treat a personal preference as if it were a requirement, they are off base.

I personally feel that a war game needs a balancing system just as a car needs safety belts.

=>Bold mine, obviously. You have a personal feeling on what is needed. I personally feel the Steelers should get a 10 point head start evey time they play the Patriots just to make up for all the times the Patriots have cheated against the Steelers. My personal feeling does not change reality any more than yours does. Cars do, in fact, require safety belts (it's the law). Wargamers do not require balancing systems.

I require a game to have a more competitive, strategic and intellectual edge to it. However, not all players are looking for the same experience. So in my case, I would pass poor judgement on AoS, where you might not because the criteria you use to judge the game are different. My judgement of AoS's lack of balance is valid for myself and anyone wishing to engage in a similar experience as I am seeking, while it may have no influence on your judgement of the game.[/quote[
=> Sure, it's valid for whether you like it or not. Of course. That's not what I saying. I am saying it's wrong just say that the game is inherently bad/flawed/wrong because it does not contain an option that you like. They game can be a good game without you liking it or wanting to play it, but it's not fair to hold out lack of balance as a flaw within the game itself. A car without belts is flawed because a car, regardless of opinon, is required to have them.

 

[Gazbal]

Hi Sleboda,

For decades GW has brought out each edition of Warhammer, closely followed by a new set of army books and starting the cycle all over again.

Each time a new edition of Warhammer arrives we naturally compare it to the current version. What rules will be different, which armies will benefit etc. These things are hotly debated across the internet with each new edition because they will have a direct impact on how we play our army.

This is because when you play a game with someone, you want to know that you both have an even chance of victory at the beginning.
It makes no difference whether you are playing to just have fun with your mates or struggling against strangers in competition, if the game is unbalanced at the beginning then one player has an unfair advantage over the other. This is a bad thing because being crushed with no chance of victory is not fun - which is purportedly the entire purpose of playing this game.

A large part of Warhammer is working out what is strong in your army compared to potential opponents armies and what tactics can be leveraged to overcome any perceived deficiencies your chosen army or units may have.
Because no game can be perfectly balanced. But by learning about which armies, units or combinations are out there you can ensure that your army is equipped to deal with it when they appear. You won't be blindsided when a 14 year old with deep pockets and a box of the latest overpowered combination bellies up to the table. In effect you are insuring that you can still have fun in these situations because you still have a chance.

Actually winning in these situation is where tactical depth becomes important. Warhammer is a game where you can shift the odds of winning by using clever placement of troops or combinations of units in support of each other. The challenge of applying these tactics successfully, especially against someone who is forewarned adds another element of fun to the game. Without this tactical depth, the inevitable imbalance of some armies against others cannot be countered and both players might as well just stand at the table and roll dice all day without miniatures. The entire game will be ruled by probability and winning or losing become meaningless.

I know that not everyone plays this game with the same intensity or even interest in competitiveness. However at the heart of it, this is a 2 player game where 2 armies compete for victory.
It is not a co-operative game.
Nor is it snakes and ladders or any other "competitive game" where the players victory is based almost entirely upon luck.
GW itself sells the game with the idea of epic conflicts and duels between powerful characters. Without some way of shifting the odds in your favor there are no epic conflicts because the chances of victory are already known and even more importantly, out of the players control.

Now after decades of this formula instead of another edition, GW brings out AOS.
This is the successor to Warhammer. Literally.

The problem is that it is so different that many people judge it to be inferior to Warhammer and are understandably displeased.
Points values are not just the way almost every game of Warhammer is balanced, they are where army building and comparison between units begin.
Removing it means that the building blocks of most thought processes about Warhammer do not apply to AOS.

Sorry if I went on and on there. Just trying to explain that Nightbringer has a point and his point of view is widely held. Even if you don't agree with him (which is perfectly ok of course).

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Some people might argue that point.

They would be wrong to do so. Chocolate does not have to be sweet. Wargames do not need a balancing system.

They would not be wrong. All of this is subjective... none of it is absolute. What a game needs is going to be different for each and everyone of us.

I would say that Wargames need a balancing system just as chocolate needs cocoa.

I'm just saying that when they treat a personal preference as if it were a requirement, they are off base.

EVERYTHING in our hobby comes down to personal preference. We determine our own requirements, or groups of gamers determine their group's requirements. Heck, we don't even need models to play any of these games.

You have a personal feeling on what is needed. I personally feel the Steelers should get a 10 point head start evey time they play the Patriots just to make up for all the times the Patriots have cheated against the Steelers. My personal feeling does not change reality any more than yours does

There is no "reality" when it comes to war gaming. It's a bunch of made up lore, with made up rules and made up ideas. You keep speaking as if your argument comes from a "true" reality, when in fact it's just your opinion vs. mine. This isn't Physics where there are scientifically testable absolutes (E=MC^2, Absolute zero = -273.15C, etc.). Our gaming judgments (yours, mine and those of everyone else) all come from personal preferences.

Cars do, in fact, require safety belts (it's the law). Wargamers do not require balancing systems.

Cars in some (perhaps even most) countries require safety belts, but not in every country. Secondly, even in countries where it is required, that requirement is based on the personal judgements of groups of people in positions of authority. Which is once again in no way absolute. In fact a balancing system is present in NEARLY EVERY GAME (wargame or otherwise), it is probably the most absolute requirement that games in general have. Imagine a game of soccer where teams could field any number of players they wished or a game of chess where you'd show up with a King and two pawns against my King and 31 queens.

 

[Sleboda]

I would say that Wargames need a balancing system just as chocolate needs cocoa.

Well, we appear to be at an impasse. Unless we can agree on this starting point, any discussion flowing from it cannot reach an understanding.

Chocolate does need cocoa to be called chocolate.
Wargames don't need balance to be wargames.

You believe an opinion is as untouchable as a fact, whereas I make a distinction.

No room for productive debate if we can't agree at that level.

Was fun and civil though, which I appreciated. Thanks!

 

[NexS1]

I think one of the main attractions of (up to) 8th Ed fantasy was the tactical and competitive capability. Having taken that aspect away from the models that so many people still own is upsetting for everyone involved.
If you're one of either, "Don't care - just wanna roll dice" or "I'm adaptable and just want to play with my models", then the changes won't affect you. Otherwise, your first born child has been whisked away to be taught to love the Chaos Gods.

 

[Mr Phat]

Not to take high-ground on this one, but both sides are right and wrong.

Sleboda is right in the name of logic.
When you judge a game you should do so on its own merits.
You can rant on a game for missing pieces, but NOT because those pieces are present in other games.
"I didn't like the new Star Wars game because there is no falling blocks like tetris"

You have to look at the games own intention, and for the sake of all GW's intentions with it: AoS is a success and well-designed for happy playtime with models.
As soon as you start putting your own intention and wishes into the mix you judgement is clouded.

But this is where the other side gets it right.

In this case it is really hard NOT to consider Warhammer Fantasy in the mix, because AoS is not a entirely new game, it is a REBOOT.
A reboot usually changes things and keep itself to the original games core game-play.

Like when Devil May Cry got a reboot called DmC. The game was the same with a few tweaks, but the package and story and wrapping changed dramatically.

The problem with AoS is that it is a reboot who DOESN'T give much credit to its predecessor.
If something has "Warhammer" on it, if it offers you to use your Fantasy miniatures and if it includes direct connection to the old game in its story you would expect it to be somewhat close to its parent.
When fair comes to fair: you can say it does, but the meta which WAS 8th edition is dead and buried (good or bad is another discussion).
The problem is that its not enough.
AoS seems like an entirely new game and should have been packaged as such.
What makes the judging side right is that you cant simply reboot a game and then make it something else.

To take an example in the real world: the major football leagues all of a sudden said
"we are no longer interested in football, from now on the leagues are about volleyball, as we believe this is what is right for our fans"


The opposing sides anger should be vented at GW's decision making, and not AoS.
AoS does exactly what it is supposed to, and never tried to be the new Warhammer Fantasy.
Its that lack of trying that you are all so angry about.
You might as well hate the new 40K edition for not being Fantasy enough for you

 

[Crowsfoot]

I mean yes, in one sense there used to be a game called Warhammer, which is now gone, and now there is a new game called Age of Sigmar, but that's about it. AoS is not the new version of Warhammer. It's a new game. A new start. Just looking at all the other changes, this should be apparant. No to hit charts, no wound charts, no templates, no spell lores, nothing of what Warhammer had...just like it does not have points or a balancing system.

This sums it up for me, they are not the same game, I never played warhammer of any edition but AOS is a new game so you either play AOS or play Warhammer or another wargame.