First game of Age of Sigmar - Elves v Chaos (2nd game added)

[Nord]

Tried this newfangled game, here's my thoughts.

http://paintsngluenrocknroll.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/a-game-of-age-of-sigmar.html

And here's a pretty pic to whet the appetite.

[Sir_Theo]

Interesting post. Your thoughts pretty much echo mine!

My WHFB arms will now be mostly used for Kings Of War, which manages to combine a modern stream lined simplicity while keeping the psychology, unit facing etc parts I miss from Warhammer.

I may also try my hand at a spot of oldhammering...

[Nord]

For those interested, the elves march to war again! Full report on my blog.

http://paintsngluenrocknroll.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/a-second-game-of-age-of-sigmar.html

[Major_Gilbear]

I know this may seem a bit rude to ask, but have you tried proxying the models in the AoS box instead of just using the models in your collection with the get-you-by lists? For example, using the Elves as Sigmarines and Chaos as, er, Chaos?

I ask as it might be worth seeing whether it's the game itself at fault, or the probably hastily cobbled together Warscrolls for the older WHFB armies that's the problem? Also, if you're playing with the "out of the box" contents from AoS, one presumes that an element of pre-balancing is done for you, and should therefore help you judge the game a bit less subjectively (which is damned hard without any sort of guidance otherwise).

Even so, the more I see posted about the game itself (as in, feelings about the models aside), the less convinced I am that it's a game for me - it seems like at it's worst it's a half-baked LOTR, and at it's best it's a half-baked WarmaHordes. Anyway, I'd be interested to see what you thought after trying a few "out of the box" AoS games if you get around to any.

[Nord]

I wanted to try it as I would have played WHFB in the past, under 4th - 8th edition. Regiments in formation, characters, war machines, etc. When I first heard the rumours I was quite interested, being able to play games with smaller units like back in the days of 4th edition (4 models wide, remember them?) was appealing. While I like the mechanics of 8th best of all versions, it was engineered to require large units which was offputting. So first couple of games was to try out this theory. It just doesn't work the same at all, so I don't think it will be a replacement for WHFB, which to be fair it's not meant to be.

My next game is going to be either as you suggest, or something similar, with units containing the smallest number possible - 5 elite, 10 standard, etc. I was going to play a Lion Rampant style army, stick with small units of 6 or 12, about 4 to 5 units on each side, minimal characters (1 each), no magic etc - just to do as near a comparison to LR as possible - will even pick one of the LR scenarios because I think they add a lot to the gaming experience. I suspect it will play better this way.

I want to give it a fair try before I give up, so 2 or 3 more games at least before I decide.

[Malebolgia]

At first I was curious about AoS with the total new approach to Warhammer...but each review and playthrough I have read make me conclude this is not my game at all. I think it's a real shame the tactical depth of the previous Warhammer games is gone as AoS quickly leads to a big mosh pit in the centre. It just seems a bit...dull in comparison. I'm wondering where the long term fun is in this approach of the game. Has GW made sure the game is still interesting to play after a year?

[Nord]

I think it's more about making fantasy palatable for their core audience, which are predominantly 40kers. That's a poor game in my experience, full of holes and ridiculousness, but it keeps on selling and selling. I reckon their grand plan is to merge all their game systems into one and thus allow any figures from any range to be played with any figures from any other range. Note they are also rebranding from Games Workshop to Warhammer! I suppose Game Workshop just didn't have the right tone.