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

[snikrit]

Hasn't that been GW's favourite game all along?

AoS may have a lower entry point than 8th, but I think it eventually overtakes 8th edition in terms of cost to the consumer.... especially with all the expensive campaign books that look to be a staple of AoS.

Well my biggest area of concern for the longevity for AoS and GW (which while I think they can be quite a despicable company compared to many given how they conduct themselves legally and to their customers) is that it will seem even higher to newer players. I don't think AoS will become as expensive if it takes off (at least not for quite some time). However, in WHFB if I want to build a 2500 point army, I need buy only the force I want, maybe a couple of other cool things and the occasional update and I am set. Very expensive, but I, the consumer know my approximate costs to play on the same level as others. I think with this model a few bad games against players with an expansive collections will amplify the pay to win feeling beyond what it already is. A bad first impression can kill a game for a customer, and with wargames the high cost only adds another deterring obstacle. To top it all off, the fluff and materials being produced lately are receiving tons of flak online, and while some people will impulse buy models, people getting into the game to keep investing are more likely to take bad press into consideration.

I cannot say what GW needs to make games like fantasy work or keep 40k players invested with their receding store presence, but hopefully they realize reducing their arbitrarily high sales prices could only help. The creation of AoS at the cost of WHFB is concerning as it screams of desperation as a business move. Most companies won't risk a reliable 13% of their income by dividing a fanbase that doesn't grow the same way as those for other products. Remember 10 years ago when Privateer Press was this cute little company with a few cool models for the hobbyists? I do, and I thought nothing more of them at the time, because GW was the name in the biz, pretty much exclusively for most stores in my area, and I imagine it was similar in most places. Privateer Press now sell their robot and monster models for half the price of a dreadnought and are becoming more popular these days. GW has not helped itself with what press it has released, and to take a risk like this at this time is just illogical, it seems like grasping at straws. Even keeping WHFB and launching this as a side product with cross compatibility would have garnered interest in the same ways without risking their current fanbase. Looking at the forums alone you already see clear line between camps, and GW is still a word of mouth business.

 

[Bainbow]

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.

Now I disagree with... almost all of this rant, respectfully disagree of course. But this little bit here is something that I really, really feel the need to single out for being just factually incorrect. Because the order of combat now is the only thing that everyone I know universally agrees is much more strategic than before. Whereas before it was "okay, my I1 units are going to take a beating no matter who I'm up against so I need to be prepared" every single game with no change unless I had Speed of Light or the Timewarp, now actually thinking about the order in which you attack is important. You could attack first with ally unit A because they have a high chance of totally wiping out their enemies, meaning your opponent never gets to attack them. Or you could attack first with unit B because they have a high chance of being wiped out themselves so you may benefit from having them do damage before they die. Let me give you an example from my game the other day, this was my thought process. (The army I used wasn't Lizardmen because I've gotten so good with Lizard tactics now in this new game that nobody can beat me, even when they outnumber me. And I've never used Sudden Death so far, before you ask.)

"Alright, I have three units in combat. My Celestant Prime is facing off against 12 Plague Monks, my heavily wounded unit of Liberators are against the same monks, and my Lord is in combat with his Warlord, the Warlord having a 2+ save but being stuck on only one wound. The Liberators, though likely to die if attacked, are a heavily damaged unit so my opponent will most likely not bother to attack them as they're no threat. Even if he did attack them with the monks left over from his attack on my Prime, they're tanky enough that they should survive. Meanwhile my Prime may be capable of wiping out that unit of monks before they get the chance to hurt him, and with their sheer volume of attacks and the ability to pile in and surround him, they can really do some damage, especially if they have a Bale Chime to lower the Prime's armour. They're also the biggest threat to the objective that I'm defending, so if they can break through my line then I will lose. However the Warlord is the enemy general, and his command ability adds an extra attack for all nearby Skaven units, which is hell when he adds that on to the monks because they get the extra attack plus another from the charge, with a base attack stat of 2 anyway and 12 models per unit. Well over 40 attacks, plus two attacks per from the Woe Staves they carry too. The general is the true high priority target here, though he's much less dangerous. I sincerely doubt his ability to hurt my Lord, to be honest. But wait, earlier in the game the Warlord displayed that he had a special ability where, in typical Skaven fashion, he can immediately make a retreat move after attacking. So if I wipe out the Monk unit first to garuntee the safety of my Prime and keep my defensive line standing for a little while longer, he will attack with his Warlord and then make a retreat move. And because he has next turn, then he can just move his Warlord away from my ranged attacks so I won't be able to take him down without chasing him, which will mean I have to break my line up and his units will get through and destroy the gate. But the Warlord has a 2+ save, though I rend it to 3+ and I charged so I get extra attacks, plus my own Command Ability has me hitting on 2+, but there's still no certainty that I'll score the wound I need. And the Monks are nearly sure to hurt the Prime, even if they don't kill him. Though my Prime does have a 3+ save, and still has his Orrey active which can be used to alter a failed save roll should the worst happen to give me some edge. Ultimately, is the Warlord worth gambling my Prime's life?"

Compare that to "I have I1 so I need to be prepared to take hits."

 

[ASSASSIN_NR_1]

That is good and all, but I still feel the system is inferior to 8th. Sure it is different and there are other tactics, but at the end of the day it just feels like some of the same, just tweaked, but with less depth. That is how I feel about it, if you are having a good time with the game, I am happy on your account, but AOS is not a game for me, and to me it seems too simplified.
My statement might have been a little harsh, but that is how I feel about the game.
I don't want to protect my rant, either you agree with me or disagree, that is your choice, I will not try to win you over or anything like that, I am merely stating my opinion on the game.

 

[Bainbow]

That is good and all, but I still feel the system is inferior to 8th. Sure it is different and there are other tactics, but at the end of the day it just feels like some of the same, just tweaked, but with less depth. That is how I feel about it, if you are having a good time with the game, I am happy on your account, but AOS is not a game for me, and to me it seems too simplified.
My statement might have been a little harsh, but that is how I feel about the game.
I don't want to protect my rant, either you agree with me or disagree, that is your choice, I will not try to win you over or anything like that, I am merely stating my opinion on the game.

Oh don't get me wrong, I have nothing wrong with people just stating an opinion. While I do disagree with the rest of your points bar maybe one of them, they're all still perfectly valid points. Personal preference can never be wrong. I just singled out that one part because it was the only part I though was downright incorrect.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

That is good and all, but I still feel the system is inferior to 8th. Sure it is different and there are other tactics, but at the end of the day it just feels like some of the same, just tweaked, but with less depth. That is how I feel about it, if you are having a good time with the game, I am happy on your account, but AOS is not a game for me, and to me it seems too simplified.
My statement might have been a little harsh, but that is how I feel about the game.
I don't want to protect my rant, either you agree with me or disagree, that is your choice, I will not try to win you over or anything like that, I am merely stating my opinion on the game.

Well said!

Sincerely believe that if AoS Sigmar didn't have the backing of GW (but instead was produced by another company), it would have crashed and burned by now. That's my opinion anyways.

 

[tom ndege]

Sincerely believe that if AoS Sigmar didn't have the backing of GW (but instead was produced by another company), it would have crashed and burned by now. That's my opinion anyways

Agreed!

 

[Bainbow]

Well said!

Sincerely believe that if AoS Sigmar didn't have the backing of GW (but instead was produced by another company), it would have crashed and burned by now. That's my opinion anyways.

To be honest, I think that of Warhammer in general.

 

[Pinktaco]

The way I see it, the best we got is to look toward the future, put our faith in GW, and pray they end up with a playable version of AoS with loads of new players they wont so easily throw aside.

http://www.iii.co.uk/news-opinion/richard-beddard/games-workshop-agm:-relentless-profit-machine

Maybe you think you’re a customer, or a potential customer, because you like playing games. But this is the important bit. This is the bit written in every Games Workshop annual report. The company’s mission statement is “we make the best fantasy miniatures in the world and sell them globally at a profit and we intend to do this forever.”

It does not mention games. In conversation, I’m told that the word “Game” in Games Workshop encourages the misconception that games are its business, but that only about 20% of Games Workshop’s customers are gamers. The rest are modellers and collectors. Maybe half of them think about playing now and then. The other half have no intention. People actually walk into the stores because they’re curious about modelling fantastic armies.

When another shareholder asks if the company would sell games with pre-painted easy to assemble miniatures like the popular Star Wars themed X-Wing game, there’s a collective growl from the Games Workshop people. It wouldn’t be a hobby business then, it would be a toy company.

I leave the Games Workshop fortress confident of one thing. Managment have set a course and they will not be deviated. Ultimately, shareholders who question it come up against the mission statement. Games Workshop exists to make models, because that’s what it does well.

 

[Bowser]

I think the biggest complaint about aos is no balance. Except from people who want balance. They make it their business to find something to balance it out. Clash of swords came up with a system for tournaments and balance. Check out the heelanhammer 135 podcast to find out about it. Ppc came out with competitive rules and balancing points. My Point is you can complain about it, or you can do something about it. Research how people are running their tournaments and fiding balance. It's a quick search. You have a blank slate. Create, playtest, evolve. That's how warhammer got to an 8th edition in the first place. Or even a first edition. The game might change but the drive to paint, play, create, and compete is up to you.

 

[ASSASSIN_NR_1]

Might be that it can be balanced, the issue, as I see it, is that GW did not bother to do this themselves.
I mean it is a hobby where you spend a lot of time assembling, painting and playing the game, so to demand, that we ourselves also balance it, is a little much to ask, and from my point of view, GW seems lazy for not balancing it, or at least give us a way to do it. Besides, you would never know if your opponent wants to use the same balancing system, so you will not know what game your are getting into.

 

[El Caimán]

Up to aos i swear i ALWAYS saw the same armies over and over again. I stopped playing, along with other people, cause it became redundant...
Once you saw which army your opponent was using, you'd know everything. Same armies, same tactics, same old same old.
Rarely I saw stormvermin (which were and are great units) for example with skavens, just to name a unit.
If we receive an official balancing, we're back to the old monotony.

Yes aos is simpler, but simplicity doesn't make sonething bad, in my opinion. Heck, i even find more "realistic" (please consider the meaning of these quotation marks) the system of bringing what we want to the table. You have your troops and the "enemy" has his; quantity doesn't always win, as we know. For this, ge made battle tomes. Not just plain old field and fight to the last man, but many scenarios and options which can make the game interesting. These give advantages and disafvantages to armies. If your opponent has a way bigger atmy than yours, use an interesting scenario and....the sudden death rules. So in addition to different battle styles we get these. Less troops, more options to win.
Of course, common sense. No one will acceptto battle 50 bloodthirsters. Yet again who in the wirld is gonna come in with such a crazy army? HONESTLY. we know our warhammer friends, it wont happen.

Many hate change and wont accept it. But hey things go on. Monotony aside, 8th edition it doesn't need any more updates. 8th edition isn't dead unless you continue playing it.

I enjoy aos and have had nice matchs; not to mention the new gamer-friendly atmosphere. New people are buying models and playing - something that was not happening so much before, right? Aos is not BAD...it'll evolve with time

In conclusion, good or bad, we all agree that each and every one of us has their preferences and likings. Gw wont go back to old editions - the arduous judgement be left to posterity. (Quote from Manzoni's "cinque maggio")

 

[El Caimán]

Man and sorry for all the typos and grammar mistakes :/

 

[ASSASSIN_NR_1]

I just cannot agree with you, but I won't try to change your mind, as your opinion is just as good as mine.

 

[El Caimán]

Sure man it's not about convincing someone

So you practically never play aos?

 

[ASSASSIN_NR_1]

I played it once, and I just have to say that I did not enjoy it as much as I enjoy playing 8th or soemthing similar like 9th age.

I might end up playing it more, but that is just because one of my freinds does not want to play anything that is not from GW (tsk tsk tsk, a shame really, as there would be more variety and options). I probably won't be enjoying it, but if I play it again, I might just go monster crazy and take my 3 carnosaurs, 2 stegadons and my Bastiladon, no matter what he takes.

 

[El Caimán]

My 2 cents would be to read the warscrolls carefully and choose units who make sense together.

Other than that, since you prefer 8th, i hope you have someone who prefers that one too around

 

[Khelandros]

I think the biggest complaint about aos is no balance.

There are tons of complaints about AoS, including the following generalizations:

• radically changing the Warhammer framework
• altering the existing fluff
• shifting to circular bases
• dropping FAQ and errata for house rules/opponent negotiations
• lack of game tokens, army summaries, etc.
• still relatively expensive

Dropping 8th edition entirely and invalidating "The End Times" rules 3 months after the final book was released isn't particularly encouraging to existing players, but that can hardly be blamed on AoS.

My Point is you can complain about it, or you can do something about it. Research how people are running their tournaments and fiding balance.

I enjoy aos and have had nice matchs; not to mention the new gamer-friendly atmosphere

I recently played a local AoS tournament where I found myself at an innate disadvantage thanks to their house rules. The organizers forgot to mention that you could only summon a new unit if you had a similar one in your starting army, so I had to start the game with fewer total wounds than my opponent and was limited to summoning individual models that had died. On the flip side, my opponent had blocks of skeletons in reserve and received periodic reinforcements every turn thanks to their special rules.

Despite these handicaps, I was about to table my opponent until he stated there was a house rule for sudden death where the army with more models alive from the original starting force wins. Apparently, reserves and summoned units did not count towards combat resolution, so I lost the tournament by 3 models despite destroying all his summoners/monsters and safe-guarding my Slann.

After that match, I now literally have to ask a slew of pre-game questions for every AoS match:

• How is balanced achieved?
• Is summoning allowed?
• Are there any model restrictions?
• How to deal with models with variable attributes?
• Are buffs stackable (e.g. Mystic Shield)?
• Do units (friendly or foe) block line of sight?
• How to handle 1+ rolls?
  
• Can I summon units via an Arcane Vassal?
• What can I use Lord Kroak's dice on?
• etc., etc., etc.

As far as I'm concerned, every venue has a slight variation on how they handle rules, and it honestly has become so much more difficult to tailor a competitive list with so much variation on the rules/comp to use.

New people are buying models and playing - something that was not happening so much before, right?

I was under the impression that it was encouraging more of the opposite.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

I was under the impression that it was encouraging more of the opposite.

+1

 

[El Caimán]

Regarding the sales. Ok, when i say "playing" i meant here in japan, i could have specified that. My bad. It IS encouraging the opposite to players who wont budge from 8th, mainly cause there is no marketing campain for newcomers.

Got many friends who play in italy and who prefer 8th but man, i don't feel all the whining. They still go aos and beleive it has potential.

Regarding the two listings.
The guy stated "main complain" and it's true; points.
All the other ones (price........summaries, bases, erratas etc) are just nostalgic (and a little arrogant) talk. I guess it's still early to say this. Most probably every army will be updated and we'll maybe gets books and new info, which is not essential. Some things are answered if thought well, eg bases, cause they give more "freedom" when using a formation. It's just not a table with all square formation units, as a matter of fact you can move em as you like, taking advantage of the pile-in feature for attacks snd defence. Just one example

Then the second listing you gave. Legit questions, but many of those are answered if searched for or easier than we think, thus there should not be house rules for them. Such as:
Balance, none and i stated the reason in my big post above.
Arcane vassal, read slann's warscrol.
Kroak's dice, clearly says anything.

Yes there are a few that urge explanations from gw like stacking; even though since mothing states this i guess it is possible.

If people would just stop using anatreptic arguments and give it time...


I really don't disagree with you when it comes to the house rules issue, yet i don't think it's done for aos.

 

[Khelandros]

It IS encouraging the opposite to players who wont budge from 8th, mainly cause there is no marketing campain for newcomers.

I'm assuming this differs by region, as GW has been going to conventions, doing magazine inserts, and giving free starter sets to independent retailers.

All the other ones (price........summaries, bases, erratas etc) are just nostalgic (and a little arrogant) talk. I guess it's still early to say this. Most probably every army will be updated and we'll maybe gets books and new info, which is not essential. Some things are answered if thought well, eg bases, cause they give more "freedom" when using a formation. It's just not a table with all square formation units, as a matter of fact you can move em as you like, taking advantage of the pile-in feature for attacks snd defence. Just one example

You can argue nostalgia for not keeping the core framework and fluff around, but how is it for the rest? GW's competitors certainly have wargaming products that provide a larger emphasis on FAQs and erratas while GW's design teams are considering dropping the former entirely. If I was a new player, I would not want to wait months/years for them to repackage their existing range with circular bases or be at a tactical disadvantage for not paying extra to rebase existing models.

Then the second listing you gave. Legit questions, but many of those are answered if searched for or easier than we think, thus there should not be house rules for them. Such as:
Balance, none and i stated the reason in my big post above.
Arcane vassal, read slann's warscrol.
Kroak's dice, clearly says anything.

If balance means nothing, then by all means, there is no point in interpreting those rules. There are very game-breaking mechanisms in AoS when using the RAW, and in a competitive environment, having FAQs, errata, and community feedback is vital for these venues, especially given that they promote and generate hype for the game in question.

Up to aos i swear i ALWAYS saw the same armies over and over again. I stopped playing, along with other people, cause it became redundant...
Once you saw which army your opponent was using, you'd know everything. Same armies, same tactics, same old same old.
Rarely I saw stormvermin (which were and are great units) for example with skavens, just to name a unit.
If we receive an official balancing, we're back to the old monotony.

And it is not redundant now? Infantry sucks for the most part while monsters are relatively overpowered. There is going to be a status quo for any game and game edition, and it is not that hard to figure out who the current breadwinners are.

Yes aos is simpler, but simplicity doesn't make sonething bad, in my opinion. Heck, i even find more "realistic" (please consider the meaning of these quotation marks) the system of bringing what we want to the table. You have your troops and the "enemy" has his; quantity doesn't always win, as we know. For this, ge made battle tomes. Not just plain old field and fight to the last man, but many scenarios and options which can make the game interesting. These give advantages and disafvantages to armies. If your opponent has a way bigger atmy than yours, use an interesting scenario and....the sudden death rules. So in addition to different battle styles we get these. Less troops, more options to win.
Of course, common sense. No one will acceptto battle 50 bloodthirsters. Yet again who in the wirld is gonna come in with such a crazy army? HONESTLY. we know our warhammer friends, it wont happen.

I do not see why 8th edition had to be dropped or how the sudden death rules suddenly present new tactical depth. "Kill some unit(s)" and "Hold ground" scenarios have always been around, and there were expansions for 8th edition as well. Furthermore, I do not game with local buddies for AoS, so emphasis on rules and balance mechanics are of particular interest when battling strangers.

If people would just stop using anatreptic arguments and give it time...

AoS has a minimalistic framework, and the current hardcover books keep reprinting the same rules. As far as I'm concerned, GW considers these rules to be complete and will more likely shift their marketing strategies or produce new models with attractive statlines than produce a second version. Maybe GW will start listening to community feedback, reinstate official tournaments, or lower prices in due time, but from what I have compiled, the company is more interested in short-term profits than the longevity or popularity of its games.