Age of Sigmar, one year on.

[Shieldwolf Miniatures]

We have had multiple requests by people messaging us to provide miniatures that can be used for the 9th Age, which multiplied many times over after we were the first (and currently only) ones to pledge our active support on the game.
We have had zero requests to do the same for AoS. That should speak by itself... 

[noigrim]

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?

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.

I got it from 4chan, never played AoS so I hope they'll fix this in this summer's update

[Jockjay]

Is 9th age just a fan based 8th ed?

If so, I was not really into 8th. I don't like big blocks of troops. Well not for every faction. See I always envisage ancient/fantasy infantry melee combat split into two distinct groups:

1) the big block of troops who work as a cohesive unit.
2) the big block of troops that are essentially all individual warriors, just really close together

I never though any edition of warhammer got this right. Except when zombies used to auto lap round . I don't see 20 black orcs queuing up to take swings at people.

I also didn't like fantasy as after the first rank, models were nothing more than wound counters. Essentially you could get away with a front rank and 15 tokens.

Admittedly the blocks of Inf etc looks AMAZING, and whilst some people enjoyed the movement phase (where all ranked infantry are blind to the flanks) I just found it too time consuming for the effect it generated.

AoS actually has a chance of remedying all this (but I doubt it will happen), some units could have a 'ranked' (base to base) special rule, kind of like lion rampant's shiltron. lending an emphasis on ranked combat once more but with the free movement of AoS.

For instance: High elf spearmen- special rule 'when ranked high elf spearmen may attack any enemy models in combat with a friendly models of the same unit. etc. whilst swordsmen of hoeth get no ranked special rules, cuz if anything, swinging a zweihander around next to your mates is probably detrimental to that combat style.

or dwarf warriors getting +1 save for being ranked with shields.

Ogres generating more impact hits if ranked etc. caveat being ranked units can't run or something.

I do not think it would be hard to implement. Maybe in AoS second ed, which with GW's turn around will be before christmas .

[Major_Gilbear]

I hesitantly reply here... But I don't think AoS has been a big success - at best it's doing no worse in profit terms than WHFB 8E was doing.

I have no issue with telling a story vs tactical competition games.

I also don't mind unequal forces, but the scenario needs to recognise that imbalance in some way (e.g.: "You're going to lose all your manz, but how many turns can you you hold out?" Or, "You get 25% of your opponent's force, but you get to set up X defences and arrange the scenery on your half of the table as you wish, whilst your opponent rolls to see what comes onto the table from his army each turn.")

Unfortunately, a lot of the AoS story was poorly conceived and written, and the scenarios were... Not very interesting. The terrain and realm rules felt very procedural and created situations where players had to get around them rather than having the rules integrated into the games played.

Add to that the rather basic (and yet still somehow vague) rules, and the games more often than not seemed to lack much in the way of tactics. I think this may be partly due to the way the initiative is worked out, which doesn't allow for much planning or precision.

So, to get a "good" game in, there needs to be some negotiation/discussion about what is being played, who will bring what, etc. For players with more limited collections (especially beginners) this is another limitation. For players who rely on pickup games, this is a pretty big turn-off, and they are usually those people most pushed for time to get a game in.

What AoS reminds me of most is actually LOTR, but without proper scenarios, detailed rules, points, and with lots of extra random thrown in to make up for those missing elements.

On top of all that is the prickly question of the miniatures: size, transportability, cost, aesthetic, assembly difficulty, etc. These issues are already well-covered in the giant LAF GW thread, and are not actually super-relevant to the game itself, so I'll not get into that again. What I will say that I admire their quality, and that I long for their current era of "big box" three/four-part plastics to be the norm for all their kits (yes, too complicated for a boardgame, but way simpler than most of their unit kits).

I would certainly be interested in the new Matched Play AoS, but a lot of that will depend on how convoluted it gets, how many supplements I will be expected to acquire and memorise, and how much prominence "pay to win" is given via model rules. At least if smaller warbands of troops can be played using interesting rules against other equivalent forces, players can come up with backstories and scenarios themselves.

[Hobgoblin]

I downloaded and read through the AOS rules when they came out. My immediate thought was "this is a poor man's Lion Rampant". I mean, it seemed to take quite a few of the basics of that game - the loose formations, IIRC the 3" rule, everyone fights, etc. - but with all kinds of fiddliness tacked on. I also suspect that all the silly miming rules are a sort of distorted echo of LR's boasts.

What I couldn't see was any reason to prefer it to LR. Jockey mentioned heroes, but Dragon Rampant has taken care of that elegantly (and indeed that stuff was widely trailed on Dan's blog long before the DR rules came out).

On matters of editorial aesthetics, I also instinctively disliked the thesarusitis with terms like "Rend" being part of the game's official lexicon.

[jim rae]

I hesitantly reply here... But I don't think AoS has been a big success - at best it's doing no worse in profit terms than WHFB 8E was doing.

Going (somewhat anecdotally) the local store (who do around 90% of their business online) have said that sales of AoS have been somehat disappointing. Saying that, sales of the recent GW 'bumper packs' have been good, as the value they offer is impressive.

Not got any kind of dog in this fight as personally, I find AoS doesn't ring any bells for me. Now, if it was a straight Medieval/Fantasy system I just might be convinced... 

[Barbarus]

Not got any kind of dog in this fight as personally, I find AoS doesn't ring any bells for me. Now, if it was a straight Medieval/Fantasy system I just might be convinced... 

That is another really good point. WHAT THE HELL IS IT???

It is not your classical fantasy setting, though it is a kind of fantasy setting.

And then it feels very Sci-Fi with a faction like the Sigmarines = Stormcast.
Whose armour, lets face it, just doesnt look like from a potential/alternative past, but from a future where someone decided to let his design borrow from the past.

And that whole dimensional bubble thing...first, they dont really get it to work, and second, it is another thing that feels very Sci-Fi, at least the way they do it.
If you think of Narnia, that is another another-dimension-setting and doesnt come across as some poor attempt of using quantum mechanics to explain a fictional world.

[Jockjay]

I agree with what Major says about the terrain, it should be utilized, not avoided at all costs. I did not like that. Not one bit.

Just to reiterate, all we are planning on doing is getting the starter. adding one or two units extra max. No HUGE weird shit big models. Again, Major has that one on the head; how the hell am i supposed to carry a 1 foot tall dragon between games? .

The plan is to follow the space mar....stormcast/ chaos narrative and scenarios for a short term fantasy fix. I just really like hearing peoples views here, you guys are an excellent community. Personally, we will not bother with all the dodgy 'this singular rock is....inspiring' rules. load of tosh.

We will used SDK for 'points'. No take what u likes.

I hate GW, I hate how I felt when they brought out a 10 leman russ boxed set. But their decision process in 2016 has made me look back over my shoulder. The specialist games have been a good nod to the gamers who are not 10 years old etc. The 'new' white dwarf is rumored to be as it was back in WD 2** and aimed at gaming rather than catalogs.

I guess I am just hoping they can pull their finger out. If this upward trend keeps going, maybe they can plug the hole they made with AoS with said finger.

A final (probably) question; other than a free army and price drops, what would get you playing AoS?

[richstrach]

I got back into gaming about a year ago, after a 20 year absence, and concentrated on things like Frostgrave and Pulp Alley at first - smaller scale fun rulesets that I could play with my daughter. I can't remember exactly what it was that drew me into AoS, but I've been loving it so far (with some caveats). It's definitely not as simple as it first seems, and the range of special rules and synergies for different units does make for a satisfying tactical experience. I'm in two minds about the upcoming points system though - a tournament I played in recently used the SCGT system, and while this is the only way you could arrange a fair match-up between different players, it does inevitably lead to underpowered units being dropped from your list. The forthcoming 'General's Handbook' will still support narrative-style games, but it's inevitable that the points system will come to dominate in clubs and shops.

On the whole I like the over the top sci-fi/fantasy aesthetic, although I'm just finishing off an army of Fyreslayers for an upcoming tournament and I'm getting increasingly sick of the unnecessary amount of detail on the miniatures. It seems to take twice as long to paint them. As a break I painted some older WHFB dwarfs to use as an allied unit, and they were a joy to paint - unfussy, nice basic sculpts with lots of character. So, I like the AoS aesthetic, but the punishing level of detail is starting to really put me off painting anything else (although that could just be fatigue from getting the army done). The prices are insane as well, and once the Fyreslayers are finished I'll just be adding occasional units to it - I can't see myself ever starting a whole new army again.

In summary, I played WHFB in 3rd edition many years ago, but if 8th edition was still going or a new 9th edition had come out I doubt I would have got back into GW fantasy. AoS looked more open in how you could put your army together, and bit more casual - which was exactly what I was looking for. Saying that, I hope GW really throw their weight behind Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit again, because I'd take that over AoS any day!

[Major_Gilbear]

A final (probably) question; other than a free army and price drops, what would get you playing AoS?

Oof, hard question!

I don't know... I think GW will not want to put the genie back in the bottle with regard to the gigantic kits they've made, and that sort of makes including them in games that I'd be interested in difficult.  

I look at games like Warmachine, and ultra-competitive-trash-talking-nonsense aside, the rules are tight, the game is fun, and it's a World Of Warcraft-styled Steampunk Fantasy game already. A third edition of that game is about to launch, and themed forces (i.e., subfaction armies that can gain certain tiered benefits that accrue depending on how tightly you adhere to building a force within their imposed restrictions) are set to be a fully-developed feature. This is great, as it allows players to get into a game/faction based around the heroes they like best and build a limited themed force that should still play well in pickup games.

Here's the other thing about WM; the game is actually very simple to pick up. The rules (the actual full core rules) are very clear and very concise, and anybody who's ever played a wargame before will probably get 90% of the rules right on first read-through. Mechanisms like magical energy resource management, special abilities, special actions, special attacks, etc, are all fully integrated into the game.

For WM, you can buy a deck of cards that have all a model's special rules on them for a lot less than an army book (although there are army books for those that want more story and artwork too), and the core rules are free to download. New releases always give something to each faction too, so nobody gets left behind.

Then I look back at AoS and wonder if GW will ever "get" how to write a tight set of fun dynamic rules for a wargame. Because, really, what I want from any game is for it to be:

1) Fun* to play, including clear rules.

2) Fun background to dig into and learn about (with scope to make up my own).

3) Not too difficult to get into in terms of models or rules. This includes balance, because who really wants to repeatedly lose every game they play just because they chose these units instead of those units, or this army instead of that army?

4) Scalable from a dozen models to four dozen model per side.

5) Playable on a 4' x 4' table (because some of us don't have local game clubs or huge rooms in our houses).

6) Playable without vast amounts of terrain (again, see #5 for reasons). I think terrain is important, but the board shouldn't need to be crammed with it.



*I know "fun" is subjective, but:

I don't find "move 4", make one attack, hit on the roll of a 5+ on a dice, oops you missed - that's it" games much fun.

I like to have some modifiers that reward positioning, or additional chances to succeed in an action due to ganging up, and such. This, along with good terrain rules, give a meaningful reason to try flanking moves, to hold some troops back, or to fight either in a close formation or open ranks, or whatever.

I like grand heroes with cool abilities, but I also don't just want heroes (or conversely, a sea of mooks).

I like the idea of units, but I don't want too much rigidity in how I form them or use them.

I like having basic grunts useful as well as the big heroes/lords - just taking them as some sort of mandatory "tax" is sad.

I like games where there is some unit/army building choice (weapons, equipment, etc), but not so many army-specific special options that creating a force becomes a days-long process of refinement and memorisation. In other words, variety in what you can bring is fun, but too much variety is just tedious to deal (and keep up) with.

Without these things, even a cool scenario is little more than a board game played without a grid. Except that you also have to spend a lot more money, time, and effort than just playing a board game.

Where WHFB went really "wrong" IMO was in making the unit sizes too big, and the models too complex and expensive, and in having too many army books and supplements to keep up with (all at eye-watering prices). I personally didn't like most of the 6th Edition plastics, but at that time GW was trying to make plastic regiments for all armies to help them get the "army look" to their factions, and to give them everything they needed to do so in a more cost-effective way. As with so many things though, they also trimmed away a lot of the fun of the game, and attempts to bring this back later on were always ruined by trying to also wedge in more stuff at the same time. Also, at no point were the rules fully clear or the army lists properly balanced (or in some cases, released) during an edition's lifespan. Funnily enough, and despite it's huge popularity, I am beginning to see clear signs of this in the 40k playing community now as well.

If you're interested, Tuomas Pirinen who was the WHFB 6E author, has written up his thoughts on that game here and here. He also commented on AoS when it was launched last year here. They make for interesting reading, and when compared to Rick Priestly's various thoughts on games design, give us some modest insight into how different authors have approached GW games design over the years.

[Jockjay]

Guys from my gaming group found out I'm intending to play AoS.

Just retrieved lots of whatsapps saying 'sellout' and 'game-traitor' along with 'i'm dissapointed in you...'

[Jockjay]

TBH this was the battle rep that sold me:



I disliked the 'lava geysers' immensely though. But anyone who says that rank and file has gone can perhaps see formation may still have a place here. Look at the blood reavers on this one, that massive frontage allowed them to be charged by three units they couldn't really handle at once. Were they formed up in column, perhaps there would not have been room for the big guy? Then again with the 'pile' in system, who knows. But I liked the narrative, the Khorne army that gets bonus charge distance and charge effects has to defend, taking some advantages away, forcing the Khorne player into unfamiliar territory. Maybe it is just these guys make good vids . I also liked that the game could have went either way at any point despite the chaos taking more blows than Hugh Grant. These guys so far have not included may of the big beasts in their games ( I seen one with the big sanguinius dude vs bloodthirster) and that seems to be the way to go. Giant stuff can do one.

[Vermis]

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 agree with a lot of what you say about 8th ed, but 'buffs and abilities' is another thing that turned me off it. Helped turn me off Warhammer in 6th ed, to be honest. I don't question that a few special rules create a little more interest, with heroes or whatever, but in GW's two core games it seemed like they were more and more about the special rules. (I couldn't believe it when even skavenslaves had to get a special rule) And to me, it seemed all these special rules had less and less to do with narrative and fluff. Almost as if some units and characters were just given random rules to make them more effective in-game, and a little line of fluff was tacked on each one afterwards to 'justify' it in the setting.

(If it's not too melodramatic, I think this is a hidden trap of GW games. Gamers get hooked by the 'rules = fluff' thing and then recoil from good but more streamlined rules as 'bland' and 'unfluffy'. Not to say natural preferences don't have a hand in it, but I don't think they're helped.)

When I saw the incredibly basic, bare-bones, four pages of rules, what some unit profiles looked like, and the lack of points, it looked like GW had dropped all pretence and put all of the game into unit special rules. It's not for me. Especially not after taking a look at e.g. high elf warscrolls, where IIRC there are three units equipped with spears, and each of them has a different rule for those spears. Or when it turned out certain terrain pieces (official GW terrain kits, of course!) gave special rules and buffs.

And no harm meant to Rich, but at this point 'synergy' in wargames is, to me, all but synonymous with 'buy the right special model to get the right special rules to pull off this special combo or special trick'.

That's not too cynical, is it?

I downloaded and read through the AOS rules when they came out. My immediate thought was "this is a poor man's Lion Rampant"

Yes, and...

What I couldn't see was any reason to prefer it to LR.

... oh yes. My thoughts precisely. (Well, with respect to DR, anyway) I see it almost as the game AoS could have been.

I don't think there's much that would get me playing AoS, Scot, because here, already, is a smallish fantasy game that lets me take whatever models I like (I even bought some Stormcast for it) with mechanics and... attitudes, that suit my gaming preferences better.

I can have a unit of White Lion knights. They're not shoehorned into Silver Helm or Dragon Prince rules [WFB or AoS]. They're elite riders. What special rules do they have to make them different to other elite riders? Nothing - they ride fast and hit hard, that's enough. Well what makes them White Lion knights, then? The fact I stuck White Lion minis on horseback and called them White Lion knights...

[Vermis]

A third edition of that game is about to launch, and themed forces (i.e., subfaction armies that can gain certain tiered benefits that accrue depending on how tightly you adhere to building a force within their imposed restrictions)

Buy the right special model to get the right special rules...

That said, I agree with the rest of your post. Nicely said.

Guys from my gaming group found out I'm intending to play AoS.

Just retrieved lots of whatsapps saying 'sellout' and 'game-traitor' along with 'i'm dissapointed in you...'

I really hope that's gentle ribbing...

[Jockjay]

I really hope that's gentle ribbing...

me too.....