Hey guys, I've been playing AoS for about two months now. It's been a real change of pace foryself and a couple friends from the 40k that we are used to. I should preface this by saying that I've played 40k for about 12-13 years, sonpicking up AoS went faster than I expected. When I did get into 40k, I was super close to playing the old WFB with the lizardmen, because what 14 year old doesn't like dinosaurs? So collecting Seraphon now is almost like living a dream a decade later. The following are really just things I'd tell someone if they wanted to start a seraphon army. Now, on to the things I've learned about Seraphon in the last two months.... 1) Seraphon are INCREDIBLY flexible. There's a large model range, and I feel like that speaks for itself. 2) The statlline of a seraphon unit is often lacking compared to similar units of other forces, bit when properly supported, that can be a benefit. -- I've been rocking a firelance recently, and the first couple times, rolling 6's to wound caught my opponents off guard with additional mortal wounds. 3) Seraphon need to pick and choose their battles-- Plan your engagements carefully to ensure a desirable outcome. 4) Skinks are AMAZING-- It's been two months, I have 96 of the little buggers. It's gotten to the point where in one game I summoned 90 of them onto the table. 5) Summoning is an incredibly powerful ability, but like everything with Seraphon, requires support to be the most efficient. -- Lately I've been taking a Slann, Cogs, BWV, Astoloth bearer, skink starpriest and an EotG as the core of my army. 6) The top four things I summoned are Skinks, Ripperdactyls, Razordons and warriors. I've found those particular units to be cheap (celestial conjuration point-wise) and effective for either damage output, board control, or objective grabbing. 7) Play the game, not the player. It's really tempting to send a carnosaur, or firelance, or something into anpitched battle, but when playing again SCE or Ironjaws (My two main opponents) oftentimes delaying their attacks with wary fighters and teleporting behind their lines for objectives is the smarter call. 8) Lords of Space and Time in a summoning engine list is amazing, but with a couple unlicky rolls, you can leave key units exposed. One of my favorite tactics is to teleport and Astolith bearer behind my opponents line, and summon in a bunch of things all at once. I few times I've done it with just a unit of warriors, because there's maybe one model on the target objective. These are the big things that bounce around my head. I'm loving.playing the Seraphon. Tactically they are so flexible, and every game has been different. So far they haven't lost a game yet! But I've also been playing with friends who are also newer to AoS. Cheers Styg
Solid observations. @Stygimoloch how are you enjoying AoS 2.0 as an experienced 40k player? Which game system do you prefer so far? I have found AoS to be more dependent on table tactics and less about list building. Likely do to the limited amount of shooting and the design GW put into the Battleplans. Seraphon do what I love best. They create pressure. They also suffer less than other armies do if they are forced to go either first of second against their preference round one.
Those points are spot on, especially 7. It's too easy to forget how easily objectives can swing things in your favor if you jump out to an early lead or if you're able to capitalize on them in the late game during missions that give you points based on the game turn. I love that way of describing Seraphon! As primarily a 40k player as well, I enjoy AoS IMMENSELY more. In 40k units and whole armies can be obliterated in seconds, while in AoS everything seems to hang around a bit longer. That makes the objective game a lot more strategic... at least in my opinion In the popular 40k mission types (NOVA, ITC, etc..) i also feel like there are just too many secondaries to keep track of. I understand why they are there (and honestly, 40k needs them) but I like the way the missions are structured in AoS. It doesn't help 40k that my main army (space marines) is horrendous right now. I'm hoping the upcoming Chapter Approved will give them some love.
Good points! The flexibility thing is what I like most about Seraphon. I see it when playing against my buddy who plays Ironjawz, Bonesplitterz and SCE. When I play Deathrattle he basically has his tactic fixed by the time he sees my list. Not many options there. When I play Seraphon he is a lot more alert and careful, because anything could happen.
@LizardWizard My gut reaction is AoS. Three main reasons. 1) Less rerolls- my main opponent in 40k is a Guilliman gunline, so those get tiresome at the end of the day. 2) The game literally makes rules to have additional options (realms of battle, malign sprcery) and 3) I agree with you about the dependable army durability, but in a side note rolling over damage is really fun! My friends and I are loving AoS due to the setting. We are blessed with a couple game stores with great tables, and terrain. In our minds the Grim-dark aesthetic is somewhat worn-out, so we love the gaming tables for AoS. I'm specifically excited about painting my seraphon. I'm colorblind (not completely) and so painting has always been a struggle. I've never painted organic models before. It's always been fatigues or tanks, so I'm blazing a new frontier there as well. Thanks for the responses guys! Styg
Yeah, I like that AoS has more than one aesthetic. 40k is always some take on Grim-dark bleakness. AoS can be whimsical, gothic, steampunk, high or low fantasy. .
Not gonna lie, and a lot of people of this forum might disagree but this is just my opinion, but AoS, with 2.0, is the best wargame GW ever put out. 40k or fantasy do not even come close to it. Great years ahead!
As a rule set I have to agree. And their setting is soooooooooo much better than it use to be. Gone are the days of there-is-no-REAL-world-only-a-few-non-descript-locations-and-events-which-is-actually-a-good-thing-cause-you-can-make-your-own-head-cannon. I do feel it still falls short of WHF story. However, AoS only has 3 1/2 years worth of lore. WHF had two decades of writing.
It's hard for me to ever pick a game over WHFB, just because I have so many good memories of it. The nostalgia is strong I will say that AoS 2.0 comes closer than I ever thought a tabletop game could get. Give it a few more months and I can see 2.0 fighting its way to the top. Just out of curiosity, how many people played WHFB pre 8th edition?
Nostalgia factor is quite understandable! Exactly. Mechanically, WHFB was and still is a mess. AoS 2.0 sets everything straight and it is greatly appreciated. Setting-wise I also much prefer this since I love my high fantasy stuff. And as you nicely pointed out, AoS is still very young compared to it's predessessor. Stories will unfold, and if the Malign Portents stuff is any indication of the quality to come, I say bring it! The one thing haters will keep bringing up is how WHFB was ''killed'' to be replaced by AoS. I can understand the gutting feeling, especially since the early days of AoS were far from gracious, but no one can contradict the fact that it is redeeming itself magnificently.
Malign Sorcery actually made me care about the Realms. As fun as the philosophical implications of realms convalescing from the shattered remains of the Old World has been, I do prefer the more recent concrete representation of the realms. The unbinding of the Maelstrom and the divinity is extolled on the soon to be gods of the next world is solid mythos though. I think AoS needed more time in development before its release. Both for game and lore sake. GW certainly lost many in its fandom due their handling of the transition. Hopefully the continuing improvement of AoS will bring them back.
I started Warhammer Fantasy in 7th Edition with my Dwarfs and played games against my schoolmates who also had Fantasy stuff (one Lizardmen player, one Bretonnia/Empire Alliance player, one Tomb Kings player and one Wood Elf player), and I have to say that I enjoyed 7th Edition for the most part. When 8th came round, I initially had mixed feelings - on the one side my Dwarfs got to charge up to a whopping 15” as opposed to 6”, on the other there was a much greater emphasis on using big horde units (which had no special bonus in 7th so were seen as unwieldy and inflexible) and magic became a lot more game-breaking (although that didn’t affect me beyond dispelling as I played Dwarfs). I think both editions had their ups and downs. I wouldn’t go that far. The only main things wrong with Fantasy I can think of are the extra beaurocracy on some of the parts of the rules, the over-reliance on tactically-inflexible hordes that came in 8th Edition (which looks fine with chaff troops like Goblins but doesn’t look good with elite troops because elite troops would be in smaller units, as well as being OP with elite troops) and the powercreep that came with GW’s original release schedule - some armies are ridiculously strong (Warriors of Chaos, I’m looking at you) and some are too weak (Tomb Kings and Beastmen come to mind here - Bretonnia is also a weaker army but only because they were the only force still trapped in 6th Edition. Beastmen just had a particularly weak 7th book compared to Skaven and TK have been powercreeped by the horrid Vampire Counts). Agreed. Malign Portents and Second Edition brought the Grimdark back into AoS that was lost in the transfer - the Sigmarine on the cover of the most recent Sigmarines book, for example, has lost his helmet and his shield is heavily damaged, hinting that they are no longer the flawless super-knights that they appeared to be on their previous books. Also Age of Sigmar has the General’s Handbook which helps reduce the powercreep on armies released earlier (my favourite army Fyreslayers are a prime example here - they were one of the first new armies released when AoS dawned yet they are still strong due to their Ward Saves). I agree here too. The game is becoming more tactical and the lore is becoming more interesting - I’d say that the only thing they really need to add is the choice of having units being in a tight formation like in Fantasy (models being formed up next to each other) or a ‘loose’ formation (models are organised in any formation so long as they are all within 1” of at least one other model in the unit) with bonuses and drawbacks for each (say -1 penalty to hit when shooting at a unit in loose formation and units in tight formation inflict extra battleshock damage due to support from friends or something similar) and I think the rules would have a perfect balance of tactics and streamlining. I’m certainly interested in the idea of the Mortal Realms being different planets with different climates and properties in a single Star System, linked by realmgates that specifically teleport armies from one planet to the next - that would help ground the lore in reality as Fantasy was yet still have a hugely fantastical atmosphere.