Age of Sigmar, one year on.

[Jockjay]

Ok to start I fell out with GW when apocalypse came out. And have not bought so much as a brush since (from them). A good friend of mine recently started work there and I popped in to see him and rip the piss a little bit about " the death of fantasy, haha, burn your elves " etc. when he convinced me to try a demo game of AoS.

It was good.....

There. said it. It was hard but I did.

I'm an older gamer, with full time work and family etc, and frankly I own lots of games systems that I don't get to play often, so when I do play a game, it has perhaps been 2-3 months since my last outing with whatever army I used/ played that system. What ensues is me forgetting all my rules for my guys, and the game itself and lots of 'damn I forgot....'

I have found myself drawn to games that are fairly simple rules wise and at least have a sliiight hint of tactics. I like Lion Rampant, frostgrave was alright (but too random for me).
I genuinely think this could be the game I am looking for, and as much as I do not want to admit that ofc.

Don't get me wrong I think the system will utterly suck at pitched battles of no terrain and one long charge line. But I was not a fan of 8th ed (gasp) and this is growing on me. The scenarios in the tomes are cool, and add quite a decent narrative to the games. Which is something I missed in recent GW incarnations of : line up and kill each other...most dice wins. And whilst this game has been described as a 'mosh-pit simulator' I feel the scenarios could make this great for a fun (read small) campaign. I have NO intention of buying the huge models, or playing for competition.

I see what GW have done: "we make ££££ selling marines, there none in fantasy.....stormcast...boom...£££" But GW is always saying "we are a model company first" etc. And if they carry on with AOS, now that models no longer have to stand shoulder to shoulder, they have a lot of scope to make some beautiful, dynamic (read expensive, I'm not a fan boy)  models that were originally designed to be scrunched into a square.

I just wanted to know if AoS has struck any chords with you all or has it really done a number on your fantasy gaming in the GW universe(s)?

Disclaimer: I am not sure if this post is me trying to justify playing a GW game, or a cry for help....

Jay.

[Vermis]

Disclaimer: I am not sure if this post is me trying to justify playing a GW game, or a cry for help...

   I say if you want to play it and have the participants for it, play it.

Me, I'm still pootling along fine without it. In fact, I've almost fallen out of touch with what GW's up to these days. The GW topic here is my only link. Dragon Rampant is still my go-to for small fantasy games. (If I could just put together some of these bleedin' elves to akshurly have a game) The very basic premise of an AoSified stereotypical dungeoncrawl band wandering about a silver tower of Tzeentch (and the first 'official' AoS skaven mini) mildly interested me, but not much else.
I'll admit that I'm still curious to see what they'll do with proper elf (alf... ealf... ailf...) and skaven releases, and how compatible any new style or new humongous size will be.

[Mosstrooper]

AOS got me back into Fantasy gaming after an absence of 20 years , simple rules and fun

[powerfrog99]

After 30 years I have lost interest in todays GW production. Having said that we're still playing 8th Ed, WAB and are starting to test the 9th age.

cheers Thomas

[Barbarus]

Judging from the attention my fantasy version of SAGA got, Id say AoS was probably a huge backfire.
Definitely here in Germany.
And tons of people from around the world told me they were glad for a fantasy version of SAGA cause they had stopped playing Warhammer, either because they didnt like the 8th edition or Age Of Sigmar.

But it seems gamer communities in different countries behave differently, so it is hard to extrapolate the global success of AoS.

The Brits for instance, they seem to be more the "casual gamer" rather than the "competitive gamer"... which I think, is because the base of gamers is a bit older than in other countries... and they grew up with a different kind of games... simpler probably and more about telling a story than winning a match.

And thats probably the "great divide"... this mindset... is a miniature game just "telling a story"?
If you think that, you probably have no problem with Age Of Sigmar being the way it is.
If you think that a miniature game should have a great tactical depth to it and offer a challenge...


I think Warhammer was so popular because it offered both. It offered this huge background on which you could draw your own scenarios and characters and as a game it also had that challenge and competition aspect to it.

And this will probably remain true...the most popular games will be those that offer both these things.

AoS is simple. Too simple for me and a lot of people. So, I guess its fair to say that it only offers the story telling.
And thats critical, cause... a lot of people dont like its background. One of the reasons being that its background is the reason the Warhammer background is dead now.


So, my conclusion is... from what I can see AoS is hanging in there, barely... in most countries.
While it seems popular in the UK.

[noigrim]

The biggest drawback of AoS is that if you deploy only a tomb kings vulture and say that it's fliying high no one can kill him and you instawin the battle  wut?

[The Gray Ghost]

I've bought one AoS figure in a years time

[Elbows]

I'm in no way interested in large formation fantasy battles (I have Lion Rampant if I want to run some guys in small units) but if I were, I'd be immensely turned off by the aesthetic and the overwhelming, near eye-watering prices on the current super-sized AoS range of models.  Everything they bring out is shockingly large and expensive.  I think (personally) that's a terrible way to try to launch a new edition of a game which has been financially failing for a decade or more.

"This didn't sell..."
"Make it more expensive."
"Genius."

*Disclaimer: I know that historically some brands have been able to reinvent themselves, but I don't see this happening with AoS/Fantasy.

[Longstrider]

So AoS models are very expensive, and the aesthetic is very specific, which isn't for everyone. Their rollout was also awful, IMHO - the world as it developed actually wound up having some interesting bits, but those had to fight desperately for space in betwixt immortals who just hung around in slightly different Valhallas.

I think what it MIGHT have done is finally show a generation of gamers (and I'm of that age) who grew up with army lists and points values that you can actually have a fine game without them and with dramatically assymetric scenarios. Now, there's lots of people who resisted that and the option for points is coming (whether it'll actually be any good or not, who knows).

I think Barbarus hit the nail on the head though - on the one hand, they keep telling you "look, you can tell a great story" but on the other hand, their tools for that were a world in which distances are meaningless and anything is anything, so you had no real reason to get invested in a story in it. They've FINALLY started to feature identifiable characters and the like a tiny bit, and with more of that, the world might actually be compelling.

All of the above however leaves aside the destruction of the old world, which I quite liked, so there's that.

[mhsellwood]

Speaking for myself I am really enjoying it. Like yourself Jockjay I like the rules lite approach, but enough interaction between them and the unit rules that different units act like different units. By this I mean that while I accept intellectually that roughly human sized, roughly equally trained, roughly similarly equipped units probably would be indistinguishable in real world combat, from a game play perspective I want my dwarves to be tough but slow, my Skaven fast but cowardly, my orcs brutal but ill disciplined.

In my group there are about 5 of us who play. There is myself and another guy, who have been playing Warhammer for a long time (I treasure my copy of 3rd Edition Warhammer), and the others are basically new to wargaming. We play scenarios, and have just been using wounds to limit army sizes. Scenarios avoid the whole mosh pit in the middle style game and GW have done a bunch of these most of which are good fun.

In terms of it being a competitive game... there appears to be a relatively lively tourney scene in England, with fan generated points systems, tournament focused scenarios, and some minor restrictions or additions to the rules (mostly around summoning). So if people are using AoS in a competitive setting surely it fits the criteria for a competitive rule set.

If you are interested in seeing what some people are up to with AoS and generally good discussions about the game, I have found The Grand Alliance forum to be a good site.

[Duncan McDane]

Bought the 1st book, played the game once, it had a few nice features in it ( e.g. monsters growing weaker when getting beaten up ) but the lack of points value, the rapid releases of new books but most of all the feeling we've played a Beta version of an unfinished game put me off and so far I didn't look back. Not even got back to read the book.
To be honest, it's probably also the miniatures, ehm, the sprues with way too many parts that put me off GW, probably forever. If I want to do plastic modelling I'd buy a Tamiya level 4/5 1:35 kit with photo-etched parts for a gazillion of pounds, but not for some gaming toys... For the same reason, I didn't buy WHQ-Silver Tower. Not only the prices , but the fact that you have to spend about 20 mins cutting/filing/glueing/puttying for a single model and be ready to stick it on a base for gaming is a big no-no in my book. That, + the fact I don't like most of their figures. If I did and/or they were in metal and more affordable I'd probably give AoS a few more tries, but alas, no...
But I really hope GW succeeds with it, nobody benefits from less games, less miniatures, less gamins stores and less potential opponents, whatever they play...

[Cubs]

Keeping strictly to the subject of the AoS game alone, I've heard plenty of good stuff about how playable the rules are as a light afternoon distraction. Don't get me wrong, a lot of people turned away from GW and stopped buying the mins for it when they not only killed the Golden Goose (or at least Bronze Goose), but threw the carcass away onto the rubbish heap. But the rules themselves appear to be quite fun, if not quite the addictive gaming experience that previous editions of WHFB were. As a big fan of the whole Oldhammer thing (whatever that term may mean to you), I'm very happy that there's been a huge upsurge in people turning to nostalgia to get their Warhammer fix, both in models and rulesets.  

[Vermis]

on the one hand, they keep telling you "look, you can tell a great story" but on the other hand, their tools for that were a world in which distances are meaningless and anything is anything, so you had no real reason to get invested in a story in it.

That was just about the final nail for me, when I had a look at the campaign download for the... ice-world thingummy, not long after AoS's release. It boiled down to 'there's this ice world. It's always snowing and the tribes are always fighting. Once every thousand years, when it snows, they get together for a fight. What do they look like? Well, they're shapeshifters, so anything.'

[Jockjay]

I got some of the 'tomes' and the first campaign book with the ice world.

I'm older to gaming, so remember how the fluff developed over time in the GW universes. I'm hoping they get a bit more solid with it. It feels like they are stuck in a: "what do the fans want/ what will sell more/ we made a casual game for hardcore gamers" loop, where the are trying to please too many types of gamer at once (barring oldhammer ofc). And the fluff mirrors this imho. With so many armies with so many sub factions (fluff wise) it seems they are writing anything at all about any faction, just to cover that base. But leaving what is written open ended enough to go firm when they get round to spending time on the game.

I have watched ALOT of battle reports since yesterday and I am going to take the plunge, it looks like it plays similar to lion rampant, but a bit more individuality to the units, plus heroes have some buffs and abilities (in rampant I found heroes redundant). Which adds a bit of narrative and ticks my boxes. I don't like saga, I know, weird right? It was just missing something and I couldn't quite place it. I think I don't like doing my admin 'off board'.

If it all goes tits up I can just use the models with dragon rampant rules

I do hope they get on top of it. I am trying to think that all the guys who loved 8th ed, how long it took fantasy to get there, and given a bit more time, AoS may be as revered one day.

Have any of you played the campaign scenarios and what do you think of them?

The biggest drawback of AoS is that if you deploy only a tomb kings vulture and say that it's fliying high no one can kill him and you instawin the battle  wut?

If you play someone who does this, you are in the wrong club he he. I have met a few people where winning was more important than the game. I play them once, and never again. I'm a 'beers, mates, dice' guy. But that's probably why I am drawn to a game I want to hate ha ha.

Many thanks for the replies, good to hear back.

Jay.

[mdauben]

Ok to start I fell out with GW when apocalypse came out.

I'm in somewhat the same boat.  I'd been playing WFB for a long time (since some time in 4th ed) but the last couple years I was becoming increasingly disenchanted with GW's two main games and with the release of AoS I just gave up on them and focused my gaming time and money on other games (LOTR, Warmachine, Frostgrave, FOW, etc.)

I was temped early on by the "Start Collecting!" boxes, which were quite good buys, and considerd picking up the Serephon (Lizardmen) one.  More recently, I was tempted by the new "Flesh-Eater" faction (as subset of the old Undead army, consisting of a variety of Ghouls and Vampires).  The miniatures for both these factions appealed to me, which is critically important for a game where I might spend weeks or even months assembling and painting my army.

Finally, the recent news that GW was releasing a points system for AoS again temped me as that was one of my big complaints about the new game.  I've played "pointless" game systems before and they can work, but they require a lot more effort to put together anything close to a balanced game.  Since most of my WFB gaming was "pick up" or "campaign" games, I just couldn't be bothered to put the effort into trying to balance games on the fly with people in the shop.

In the end, though, the reason I still have not stepped back into AoS is just that there are few if any people playing in my area.  We had a modestly successful local WFB community that collapsed and disappeared as soon as AoS was released.  It doesn't matter if I like the game or not, if I can't find anyone to game with.