This thread is intended for people to make their arguments for and against AoS (age of sigmar) and to help me (and others) understand the arguments of fantasy battles players and vice versa. I'm not saying that one game is better (I do though play AoS) I am wanting to see both sides arguments. I do know that I'm not an admin or a moderator, but please try not be offensive to players of both games, and be reasonable with use of language. I have played a little bit of fantasy battles and a lot of AoS, and am not ashamed in saying that I prefer AoS, but that is my opinion. For those who say aos has a simple or lacking rules system, then looking at the warscrolls will reveal the true depth in it. Many of the special rules from fantasy are on the warsrolls of a model rather than in a big army book. So the rules sheet is lacking you may say... that is because movement is simplified. Not destroyed, ruined, but simplified. infantry move like in 40k, but no one complains about 40k movement. Now some factions you say are destroyed, but you can still use any old fantasy model using legacy points in the generals handbook. I hope that I have answerd some fantasy players questions, but I am willing to help with any other nuances encounterd by people who dislike AoS.
Now on to some real points. Here are some of the reasons why I (personally) dislike AoS (in no particular order): ridiculous new names for factions, locations, units (i.e. Seraphon = weird cartoon cat tickling fetish) fluff that feels over the top without having anything at stake, there are no "little guys" Space Marines in fantasy (I fled 40k to escape those accursed Space Marines) switching to rounds for no legitimate reason (and yes, I'm aware you can play with squares, but it fits in less and less as time goes by) the breaking up of actual armies into what feels like hundreds of strange sub-factions no more Tomb Kings (yes you can still play them, but try collecting the army) the loss of character customization via magic items destruction of the old world followed by the recycling the same characters (Nagash, Archaon), factions, etc. (either don't destroy it, or start fresh) the rules are spread out all over the place rather than neatly organized in the BRB + army book the new models (outside of a small few) are not to my taste simplistic magic phase 40k movement < Fantasy movement elimination of "to hit" and "to wound" charts points system is nowhere near as incremental/refined as 8th edition Lizardmen in space ships?? And outside of the Slann everything else is a dream/memory?!? no more ranks/flanks, with associated bonuses/penalties even more skulls! on average, the models are even more expensive I guess that is enough for now. What I like about AoS: well supported by GW (faq, community interaction, releases, tournaments, etc) monsters become less effective as they are wounded "start collecting!" bundles free rules Basically it can be boiled down to this...
I dissagre. If we do it in pictures: Old warhammer fantasy detailed wide scoped and a bit hard to get into Age of sigmar easy to grasp for beginers and with more depth than you first think atleast after the handbook. The problem with aos is that you wont realy get the feel of leading a enormus army to the field. Spoiler: P.s. P.s. Aos is not as great as monalisa these pices of art were the first that come to my mind.
That spoiler ruined my day... I had a whole series of rebuttals lined up. AoS just isn't a highly tactical game. That it not to say that it doesn't possess any tactics, just not to the level of its predecessor. If Warhammer Fantasy is the chess* of wargames, then AoS could at best be compared to something like checkers. *bear in mind that miniature wargaming of any variety is no where near as tactical as chess
Aos fluff is a differant style and context to old warhammer fluff. It is in a differant world, so it must be differant. Characters still can be customised, with artifacts from the generals handbook. Also differant weapon options are on the warscrolls. As for the name seraphon, isnt that what malekiths dragon is called? i have said before that instead of all the rules in the rulebook, then they are on the warscrolls themselves. This means you do not nead to by any books at all, but the battletomes are extremwly usefull. For example shields are more varied with differant bonuses depending on the unit. The new models in my oppinion are almost all awsome! An entire army of slayers, some riding huge fire lizards is awsome. The stormcasts may look similar to spess murheens, but marines have a more roman feel, and to me the stormacasts are more greek (look at the javelin prosecutors ). In AoS i think that no units are underpowerd, just not used right. In fantasy many units or even armys were weaker than many others. Also mixing and matching units from differant armys makes flexibility previously unachievable in in fantasy. This makes the games far more varied. Changed movement makes the game far more fluid, but you still have to think tacticly about it. Many people complain about unloved armies, but GW have not had enough time to flesh them out properly, and everyone gets fluff in the grand alliance books. One of my favourite peices of fluff in the order book is the stonebreaker battalions, and this would also fit with how you use that theme of army on the tabletop. At least we can all agree on the awsomness of start collecting boxes.
Honestly, the biggest and foremost reason why I dislike AoS is simply the way they went about it. Now, granted, there was a single person responsible (mostly) and he has since been removed supposedly, but it left a long lasting bad taste that probably will never go away. The release of End Times was, at first, very cool, and was thought by my local group to be a neat supplement to last until a true 9th edition would be released. Instead, GW pushed expensive books and models, and within a few short months decided to send a nuke right into the crotches of everyone playing fantasy by dropping AoS out of nowhere. So, you had a host of people who bought hundreds of dollars worth of models and books that were literally rendered useless less than a year after release. Sure, some of those models are usable again, but still. Second biggest reason - The new aesthetic of models is... not fantasy. That's the simplest way I can think to put it. Space marines don't belong, lizardmen shouldn't be stars, constellations, and memories (..seriously wtf is that!?), and don't get me started on the ridiculous look of the stardrake, and dwarves riding "dragons". *ahem* Third - With the release of the general's handbook I understand the game has gotten better, but to me the game is far too simplistic still, and no movement trays is just...gross. It just feels wrong. (to be fair, i have seen a couple sites starting to sell movement trays for AoS). It doesn't feel like fantasy anymore (yes, I've given it a shot and it was not a pleasant experience). As for the upsides - 1. The getting started kits are great value 2. Game is easier to get into (great for the hobby in general) 3. Rules are free - despite this though, them being free means they are all over the place. Having to download 800 different documents is rather bleh. 4. Monster's getting less effective as they are wounded - this is a neat idea. 5. Some of the new models are absolutely brilliant (allariel, or however you say her name, on that giant beetle is pretty swell) This all being said - If GW decided to release a 9th edition alongside AoS (I know, i know it'll never happen), then I'd probably hop right back into GW's lap like a happy puppy. I personally went over to 9th Age, as did everyone in my local area, and it has been absolutely amazing.
The aesthetic of the models is not meant to be like old fantasy. It is a differant genre of fantasy, slipping out of grimdark oldworld, and into a sort of mythical style. That is where i think that the style of the models is coming from, and many of the end times models are similar. Also the statdrake os awsome, but may not be for old fantasy players. The movement i have said before is much like 40k movement. It is far more flexible and in many respects realistic than fantasy, as battle as chaotic and formations will not be kept once in combat. I understand that people played and enjoyed fantasy, and have lost a game they liked, however as AoS gets more and more fleshed out, me and many others are finding that it is turning out to be a more balanced and new player friendly game than fantasy ever was.
Yeah I don't disagree on the fact that AoS is shaping up to be an excellent game for new players. And from the business standpoint, GW is doing a great job. It's just too much like 40k for me, and I despise 40k (as do much of the other local players around here). The combat and movement could be debated for awhile probably, but I think the biggest difference is that AoS is played from the "upclose battle" perspective, where 8th was played from a "birds eye general" view, if that makes sense. It just doesn't feel the same at all. Again, I know plenty of 8th ed players that have gone full blow into AoS and they love it. Heck, if GW had released AoS in a more considerate fashion instead of slapping everyone in the face with it, I'd probably be playing it, as would many others I'm sure. The aesthetic of the new models, I feel, was largely implemented to try and pull 40k players into AoS so GW generates revenue from both games instead of just one side having it all (thus why the sigmarines were introduced and the general aesthetic of the "fantasy" world is now more 40k-ish - I mean come on... the new orcs may as well be Orks lol). I am just waiting to see if they give the empire and normal dwarves laser rifles and plasma cannons . Anywho, I'm not saying that AoS is bad in any way, it's just not what a lot of traditional fantasy players are looking for and a lot of us got burned so badly by GW that the bridge went down too.
Thumbs down AoSkirmish: They wiped out Bretonnia. They obliterated Lustria: rivers, jungles, cities and all. The whole environment is gone and with it the possibility of new interesting species and units. Thumbs up AoSkirmish: Building armies out of troops that could never otherwise be fielded together has a certain appeal.
I've had about the same exposure to both AoS and WHFB (not a lot really, but I still avidly follow the hobby) and I've got to say I like them both. As for pros and cons of AoS this would be my list: Pros: I like the aesthetic and I like the Mortal Realms. I really feel like they could take any design approach they felt like and it still would fit within the setting. I know the Old World had vast unexplored regions but I felt like there wasn't a lot of room to expand into them without shoehorning factions into places they wouldn't really be. I love the models. The only AoS model that I haven't wanted to buy so far is the Ironjawz riding giant boars. I like the rules design philosophy. The game has a very basic and easy to grasp set of core rules and I love the fact that individual units have their own self-contained set of rules rules within their own warscroll. I mainly play 40k and I have to sift through the core rulebook, my army's codex, one or two supplements and up to three standalone dataslates (essentially DLC) for all the rules for the army I field and I'm sick of it! I also believe there is a degree of tactical acumen required to be really good at the game, although due to the nature of it there's going to be less one sided matchups (or so I think anyway). Free rules. No brainer here. Everything is viable! Goblins have the potential to kill dragons, no more unkillable Daemon Princes or Pegasus Dreadlords Mix and match armies. Some people don't like this, I think it's brilliant! My wife wanted an army of Elves but wanted mostly female models, so at the time that meant Dark Elves Wyches and that's about it. Now I can use anything with a suitable model! Narrative games really appeal to me. I'm somewhat tired of the quite repetitive format of 40k missions, particularly in a competitive environment. I like to have objectives I care about in a setting that has a tale to tell. Cons: THEY BLEW IT UP! I liked the old world and the loss of all that history is pretty devastating. The Mortal Realms is slowly being fleshed out but it will be a long long time before we get the same degree of depth that the old world had, particularly on individual characters. I'm not a fan of how every single weapon option for every model has a super special fancy name. Really how different is a Celestite Club from a Suntooth Maul or a Moonstone Club? I think having the same names for weapons but having different profiles on different models would be fine. A Saurus Warrior having a better hit or wound roll for a Stone Club than a Skink with a Stone Club would just indicate the difference between the wielder's strength and skill. The weapon itself doesn't need to be different to have a different effect! Also why do Saurus Knights have Celestite Blades yet Saurus Warriors have Celestite Clubs and they're literally the same weapons model wise? Don't like model-to-model measuring. Loss of the old Magic lores and magic items. I understand some of this is being reintroduced in newer books to a degree but it does feel more bland without it. The Seraphon background still confuses me. I have a love-hate relationship with our battletome and today it's leaning towards hate! I really want to unconditionally love my army like the old Lizardmen or my Chaos Space Marines. The loss of Bretonnians and Tomb Kings sucked.
You dont have to use model to model measuring. Most stores i know use base to base. As for brettonia, i think GW's idea was that they did not fit with the aos idea, as with the tomb kings. Ancient Egyptian skelingtons and medieval french knights following the fuedal system do not seem to fit into the fluff to. Im not certain on this but i think that the tomb kings even used to oppose nagash. Would that mean that they are a death faction at all. Also, horse cabalry seems to me as if ot does not fot in. There are dragon princes and black knighys ect, but as with rieksguard and empire knights, the brettonian models were not very nice. So GW got rid of them. Magic just needs time to be re-istablished. Give it a year and hopefuly many more lores of magic will ne re-introduced, expanding on the lores from sylvaneth and bonesplitters. To me the differant weapon names are unapealing and over the top.
Saurus knights are definately fantasy creatures, however brettonian ones are not. This is just GW trying to change the feel of the game and its fluff from the more relistic sense of the old world, to that of AoS. Not saying the old world is realistic though, just has a differant approach to the lore than AoS.
I have no problem that the style is different, my opposition stems from the fact that it really isn't very good. It feels child-like in concept, as if the ideas had been generated by grade school children. For example: Sigmar floats aimlessly through space until he meets up with Puff the magic space dragon proceeds to create the AoS world Sigmarines can't die, and if "slain" in battle they just reform (same as the Seraphon I suppose)... what is at stake? Seraphon have space ships... makes hand to hand close combat pretty irrelevant (orbital bombardment anyone) I think the problem with the battletomes is that they will become outdated quite quickly. I personally feel that the AoS rules are too scattered. You need to reference too many things to get full understanding of your army (let alone the army of your opponent) No units in the game were underpowered before the release of the points system because no points = no balance = no under/over powered units. Now that the points have been released (and will probably become the dominant type of play) I 100% guarantee that some units are underpowered. There is absolutely no doubt about that. It is possible that these over/under-powered dynamics may not be exploited as much as in Fantasy because AoS is not as strategic of a game as Fantasy. As a result, AoS will not be as attractive to the types of players that are as proficient at finding and making use of every advantage. AoS movement does require tactics, but much less so than with Fantasy. In Fantasy, poor movement penalized you to a greater extent, was harder to recover from and had a greater bearing on the outcome of the game. Consequently, Fantasy movement is far more tactical and requires a greater level of forethought. Great points!
I politely invite you to go through the aos rules and find some examples of underpowerd units. I can assure you, they are not underpowerd, just misused. Even snotlings have a use. In aos moving into a poor position means you pay as much as any game. Poor movement results in the loss of a unit. And if fantasy has bigger consequences, it is a differant game. Getting flanked and rear charged gives moral penalities, as troops are in tight formations facing only one way. In aos it seems that units have a better sense of spacial awareness, and are in free formation. Like in 40k infantry models have no facings, and are assumed to be aware of what is happening all around them. 40k sold much better than fantasy was selling, so it seems that the movement system was more popular. Seraphon do not have spaceships. At no point in the aos fluff are they reffered to as "space ships"? Never. Taking what ever they do use out of contex and calling them space ships is not a fluff or design flaw. Realy when people critisize aos fluff they are using differant terms for the descriptions, sich as " puff the magic space dragon" . I think the idea of the slann calling back a race long extinct from beyond azyr to fight for them in the war against chaos is awsome. Also people are nitpicking the weaker areas of AoS fluff, but if that were done to fantasy i could say the same about that. Im not saying fantasy was a bad game, i personaly realy like some its fluff,but AoS is in my oppinion a stronger game even in its early stages than 8th ed. Also, saying AoS is simpliatic just means you have not looked into detail at it, and have not read the generals hanbook.
I've taken a look through the general's handbook, and I've played 3-4 games of AoS. There is only one thing to call it compared to 8th ed or 9th ed, and it is echoed by everyone I've met that plays AoS. It's simpler, in every way. That is the driving force behind everyone getting into it. Now don't get me wrong...that IS NOT a bad thing...but it IS what is keeping some old fantasy players from coming back - some of us just want a more involved, more intense game, where it feels like we are an actual admiral directing a battle rather than a field commander directing a handful of troops. Personally, AoS doesn't provide that for me. My local GW store is packed with people playing AoS that were/are all 40k players. I asked them why they suddenly decided to play AoS - their response was unanimous - It's easier, it's simpler, it's cheaper to get into. Again - not a bad thing, and like I've said before, if I wasn't already neck deep in 8th ed/9th age, and had no prior army. I'd pick AoS as the game to get into. Personal opinions about one game or the other aside, the fact is that GW took what "worked" for 40k, and applied it to fantasy. I certainly can't fault them for doing so. If you look at the average age of a player in 40k vs the average age of players in fantasy (8th ed), it is fairly clear that there are more young folk in the 40k grouping for two reasons; Less models, easier/simpler rules. If you can bring in the younger crowd, you have longer term customers (or that's the hope anyway). It was a good business decision from their standpoint, and the general's handbook is helping to shore up some of the damage from whomever the turd was that wrecked the fantasy community. And you are right, the two games are different, as are the fluff universes for each. But, coming from the 8th ed universe (which was absolutely rich with lore) straight into AoS, it just seems lazy and an excuse for them to discontinue models/armies that weren't making them enough money or were becoming too expensive to continue production (Rest in Peace Brettonia, may the lady bless you.) However - GW has all the room in the world to expand the AoS universe too, so they have that going for them, and, for all we know, TK and Brettonia may come back somehow. If GW gets drunk one night, we may end up with End Times 2 and the Age of Rebrith I guess my best way to put it would be something like this: You go to the same taco place for years; same cook, same order - heck, maybe you switch it up every now and again. Then, suddenly one day, you order your usual and something doesn't quite taste right. It's disappointing. You come back one or two more times, hoping that maybe it was a fluke, but alas, they've either changed the recipe for your favorite dish, or the quality of the food has slipped. You try other dishes too, but that lingering taste is still there. You didn't get any warning, it just changed, and now your favorite taco place is suddenly a fond memory as you look for other places to eat. That being said, I'll reiterate - AoS is not a bad game. It's quite brilliant if it fits what you are looking for in a war game. It's just a different flavor that some people can't or don't want to settle for. Some people are still insanely pissed at GW for how they went about the release of AoS, and will never buy GW products again, no matter how good they are, out of spite. To each their own.
Actually, I ritualistically watch a YouTube show called Warhammer Weekly and they discuss topics of strong and weak units all the time. Keep in mind, that these guys are HIGHLY in favour of AoS; they love the game. For example you can take a look at this week's episode where they go over the AoS greenskins (sorry I don't have a time stamp, and I'm lazy to go through the whole thing again)... Further to this, it is nearly impossible to fully balance a wargame... especially for GW. Even the 9th Age guys have not fully balanced out all armies/units (though they continue to refine it) and they are far more dedicated to the task than GW. I've played 40k; I actually got into the hobby through 40k. I then switched over to fantasy for the more robust and tactically demanding movement phase that it offered (and to be free of Space Marines). Without meaning any offense, if you can't differentiate the tactical demands between the two movement systems, then Fantasy (at least at high level) is beyond the skill level of the group you are playing with. I honestly don't mean that as a personal insult, people have different levels of gaming skill (which is fine), but it takes a certain level of it to make such distinctions. In fantasy, movement is far more involved: giving up flanks and rears is game changing you can't recover your position as easily you have to always consider facing, angles, etc poor deployment can outright lose you the game (not so in 40k) Ultimately a wargame's required level of strategy comes down almost exclusively to movement. Movement dictates what you can shoot at (and what your opponent can't shoot at), magical support and close combat. They might not refer to them as "Space Ships", but where do Slann reside then? Also, I don't think "puff the magic space dragon" is not too far off the mark. I can't really debate fluff with you because it is subjective. For me, the AoS fluff is far too basic and poorly thought out. To each their own. We'll see if AoS lasts 30 years. It depends on what aspect the simplicity is referring to. Clearly AoS requires a ton of memorization and a thorough understanding of synergistic combinations. It is not simple in those terms. When making comparisons to fantasy though, AoS is tactically simplistic. I would argue that most of the competitive warhammer players either stayed with 8th edition (or an older edition) or they moved on to 9th Age or KoW. Any of those games are more tactically complex than AoS.
Hey, Seraphon is not a bad name. But NOW, don't make me Start with Khorne Bloodskully McGorebounds... So, I started the hobby thanks to Dawn of War, thanks to those games I HAD to play the tabletop version, leading me to study both systems, and this year I finally ordered some miniatures, and while I definitively fit as a collectionist, I'm still on good mood for games. Now, I'm the only guy who played something related to any Warhammer-related product in MY WHOLE STATE. The nearest gaming area I have is at 5 hours. There is no way I will feel comfortable travelling that far at expense of my miniatures. Fortunately I've showed both AoS and 40K to some buddies from the University, and they liked AoS the most, to the point they might actually consider start playing with AoS. So, what are my pro and cons, points? Remember, althought I started with AoS, I still managed to study the 8th Edition, maybe I didn't experienced it at first hand, but I'm not completely clueless: PROS: Simplier system: They lead to faster battles, and while I do enjoy long games, sometimes they can extend to much, and that leads to make the game more viable for newcommers. The models: Believe it or not, I do like the Sigmarines aesthetics. And don't get me wrong, I really dislike the Ultraberries on 40K (except for Captain Titus, but of course he is from another timeline), yet I find the Sigmarines armor quite impressive. The Greco-Roman look is just great, and I do like their drakes alot. I really, REALLY like the Ironjaws models, even the Gore-gruntas are quite good when you can see them closer. The Sylvaneth looks amazing and, of course Archaon and Alarielle are just simply beautiful. The setting: I do like the high fantasy setting. I'm an enthusiast of every kind of fantasy, yet show fight with even bigger and spectacular armies is a sight to behold. Seraphon are far more notable than before: Lizardmen used to be barely mentioned on the Old World, now the Seraphon are a consistent force. Not only that, fluff-wise we are still on a quite reasonable point, unlike *other* factions. A new breath of life for all (kinda for some, still...): As I told you, I've studied the 8th Edition, and I can't see why anyone would consider guys like Trgolodons as a reliable addition to your army. Now everyone is viable on certain points ant at certain numbers; Chaos Marauder are crap alone, yet on high number they are quite menacing. I could argue about how the new bundles are great valued and how much support is GW giving to the game, yet that's GW as a whole since Rountree took the lead. In Kevin I trust. CONS: The ambition was too high: They didn't needed to reinvent the wheel, but they throwed the new system right to the face, and while I didn't minded too much about the first rules, you can't just replace the system with other, which leads me to: The General's Handbook arrived too late: They HAD to give it since day 1. Everything could've been easier if they didn't just left every veteran floating. Ok, open play is fun, yet you can't take away all the complexity of your stablished player base so you can bring a few new guys at expense of many other players. And this leads me to yet another point: Every pre-Sylvaneth Battletomes are outdated without even lasting one whole year (except Chaos Dreadhold): The Sylvaneth battle tome was a gift for everyone wanting lores and artifacts. Too bad they already launched another EIGHT Battletomes with nothing similar to this. Some rules and units can get quite stupid: Do you like how a Sigmarine Protector can possibly kill a Glottkin mano-a-mano? Then you have to see how a single Dracoth Fulminatorcan potentially murder Archon on his own. C'mon, even Ripperdactyls can technically inflict INFINITE DAMAGE. If the dice are on your side, things can get nasty. Squat Brets and Tomb Kings from production was unnecesary IMO, yeah, the Old World died, but they could just add Bret units to the free people, I mean, They've already reassigned LOTS of different units to other armies, like the Sisters of Avelorn, that are now for Wanderer-Wood Elf armies, or actually lots of aelves. The Tomb Kings could just been readded or something, I mean, Nagash look a lot like them, I don't see how to stay with many of their units could be bad for the bussiness, I don't think those moulds are actually that expensive. I'm having lots of fun with AoS, and I want to play some matches with the Fantasy ruleset, but I'm aware that they launched the game pretty abruptely and that left the older players out of place: they wanted updates for their armies and fixes for some bad rules, but instead from one day to another they got a new system. Is just like when you travel to another country or distant state nad you have troubles adjusting your sleeptime; you can't just change the hours you spend sleeping in one day, you have to prepare yourself with some days in advance. It was a rocky first year, but I know that Kevin can repair the mess that Kirby left behind.