KoW Why isnt KOW more popular than 9th age, or AOS?

People like different things because they are different people. Getting all bent out of shape about it doesn't really accomplish anything. Why do some people like vanilla ice cream when chocolate is so clearly better, why do some people like Pepsi when coca cola is clearly better. People have different tastes in things and if you can't accept that you're going to have a very tough time growing up. I really enjoy the fluff based games as well as the ability to play with whatever models I'd like to without having to worry about points. Matched play is fun if I want to get a little more in depth but I feel like AOS' strong point is that it's simple and light. I find my games of KOW tend to be quieter, more serious, and in turn less fun for me. Whereas my games of AOS always end up being much lighter, and less serious. That said I do like KOW, I just enjoy AOS better

 

You should have seen the excitement around here when 8th edition was in full swing.

 

Right so i have never played any of these games but i have seen lots of games online and in stores when i had trouble deciding what to buy...im not an expert in any way. So IMHO AOS is buy far a better game now hear me out @NIGHTBRINGER in all the games i have seen WHF games the victor is decided by the end of the second turn. No mater the dice roll if the army is built to win that what will happen and I've only seen like 7 games in KOW but i am stating to see the same trend. I have not seen any games of 9th but with it being a extension of WHF i feel like it would be the same...with AOS is more up to chance and real time planning. now this is only ONLY of the game board has LOTS!!! of terrain features when i see games and they only have 5 things on the table its always a splash of models in the middle. Now when there is plenty of houses/rivers/trees/choke points..ect... make the game board be like a fight in a city not an open field the game opens up and becomes far more enjoyable to watch. When i see models getting good fights and the other players is trying to find a way to get his big baddie int eh fight but cant since it cant fit into the valley as her drones get killed its awesome to see the players trying to find ways around things like that.


Now im addmiting @NIGHTBRINGER maybe the group i played with that laughed at my amateur moves just put a sour note in my mouth for WHF and some day ill try it again and hay i might see what it was so many people liked about the game.

PS: i only use your name cuz you're the only one i know that hates AOS with a passion lol

 

I just asked a valid question, i didnt get bent out of shape. If you like a simpler system that requires less thought, more power to ya.

 

Hmm, I always played 8th with lots of terrain...
I'm probably an outlier though. - - - -

 

Agreed... chocolate is clearly better!

Same difference. Both are great.

Those were the days! Every other game is simply feeding off the scraps left behind by WFB!

That is interesting because my experience has been very different. However, I can definitely see the experience you describe happening... especially in the case where there exists a mismatch of skill between opponents. List building and deployment are major factors in WFB, so if a player is sufficiently weaker than his opponent, then in more cases than not the game could be essentially over by turn two exactly as you describe. WFB is much less forgiving than AoS, each mistake made is more difficult to recover from (due to the increased complexity and rigidity of the movement phase). This is neither a good nor a bad thing; it will come down to personal preference. Personally I love list building and tweaking (one of my favourite components of the hobby) and I also like a game that is very tactically demanding (as in unforgiving). As a result, 8th edition clearly fits my fancy, while AoS does not. In my experience, 8th edition games were decided at many various stages, up to and including turn 6. I've seen landslides, tightly fought battles and dramatic comebacks. I love the fact that such variation exists in my games because it keeps things fresh and interesting. Of course this is just anecdotal and thus each of our differing opinions are just as valid.

Poor, poor NIGHTBRINGER. HAHAHA. I've never been a tournament player, I've heard too many poor stories of people that would very quickly frustrate me (RAW rules lawyering, stalling, etc.). My games have always been contained between my close circle of friends. We definitely brought power lists to table, but that was the expectation in our group and how we liked it. I have heard of many instances exactly as you describe though. I can definitely see how that could turn someone off from the game.

 

I am very surprised that you're seeing the same trend with KoW - one of the better elements of the game is that more often than not it is decided in the last turn or two. Hardcore list building doesn't really feature (sorry @NIGHTBRINGER ) due to the toned down customisation, so although there are obviously better and worse lists, these don't create such radical differences in lists as were seen time and time again in every edition of WFB. On top of this, KoW having an objective-based system rather than always having the same old 'kill as much of the opponent as possible' game means you can often pull games out of the bag even if you're being absolutely butchered. I think the only times I've seen games 'over' in turn 2 is when one player has completely ballsed up their deployment, but players quickly learn the dos and don'ts of that.

 

KoW is designed to be a tournament game and functions brilliantly as one. The only thing i find that i miss is the flavor between armies that WHFB had. That is not to say that the armies are all the same in KoW, but I really liked how unique each army was in WHFB. All things considered i think KoW is a superior game to T9A and WHFB. I still enjoy(ed) playing all three games tho.

 

Like this???...



Kidding of course. But seeing as it incorporates Star Wars and an AoS critique how could I resist?

Very true!

 

@NIGHTBRINGER @BAE no i did not mean the game would be over in turn 2. Just based off the predictable moves and tactics that could still be made the rest of the game is just a waste of time i have seen 40 or so games online and after the second turn i thought to my self well player one will win and nothing player two can do will change this. So i jump to the end and i was right then i watch the whole game and you can see player 2 tiring very hard but his options a locked and even both players can see the game is decided. Barring some horrible dice rolls player 1 will win now again i have to say maybe this type of game play is locked to those HARD line list builders that take X to win because it will every time. Now if what @Itepixcauh is saying is true that the tide can change no matter the first two moves then i will have to get the KOW rules a good read.

What im trying to say is i see all war games as a fancier form of chest and the problem with chest is if you play it a lot you begin to see 20-40 moves in advance that's why in most games after the 7th pawn has moved the winner can be seen. Again barring a bad move, thats why i find it fun to watch AOS games when the battle field is set of with plenty of pit falls. the winner can change at any moment (if and really only if its an objective based game not a kill more than the other dude) Now i could be missing some other part of the game, I dont know much of the old word started this hobby after is end but im just talking from a spectators stand point. I'll download the rules for KOW and see if its locked in a set pattern like chest or more of a game that needs the dice gods favor and skill to back it up.

I play a massive amount of chest thats why i use it as a starting point when i thought about playing wargames as for now im manly a painter and will play AOS when i and if i ever diced to play but for now watching a well set up game is fun to watch while i work on my models and play chest with friends ^_^

 

I've seen and experienced this type of behaviour with KoW as well. I had a large hiatus from WFB (well, miniature wargaming entirely!), and when people asked about it I always admitted that I missed the game but unfortunately didn't miss the people - the only thing that put me off picking it back up were the unfortunately large group of 'undesirables' I would inevitably have to associate and play with. I was rather cautious when getting back into wargaming as I just don't have time for the rude/low self-esteem/aggressive etc. but have found very, very few individuals like that in the KoW community so far. I'm not suggesting for a second that everyone was like that (I had brilliant fun and met many genuinely great people!), and for all I know this change in the player base has happened across all games (9th, AoS and KoW), but I often find myself comparing what I experienced before in WFB to what I experience now in KoW when attending tournaments and feeling rather happy about the difference.

I would admit that it hits a few selling points though:

1. The game is very 'pretty'. While the mechanics might not be that robust they do provide a rather unique aesthetic, and this could create the experience of being a general commanding their forces a little better than some of the more 'technical' games where rules can sometimes lead to counter-intuitive movement/actions etc.. I can understand that for some people it is this, rather than the brain-taxing, emotional rollercoaster of an extremely tight battle of strategic and tactical minds that motivates them. Chess is on the one side, AoS the other, KoW somewhere between.
2. It requires considerably less investment to play. KoW only really gets into its stride at >1500pts due to its tactical depth being generated from the collaboration and synergy of units. While the rules obviously work for 500pts, the game would be rather boring. As such, casual gamers wanting to dip their toe in the water can do so with AoS in a way they couldn't with KoW. This also applies to hobbyists more interested in painting than playing, but who might occasionally want some lighthearted games over beers.
3. It is far more fluff-based, sitting somewhere between a competition tabletop game and RPG. In KoW (and I am assuming 9th Age), fluff remains purely background to provide some flavour to the main event (the playing of the tabletop game). From what I have experienced of AoS, it integrates fluff more directly, encouraging players to create stories as part of the playing of the tabletop game. For example, most scenarios are little more than suggestions and it is elements like this that allow players far wider control over their gaming experience.

I'll admit that the above points are all rather low down on my personal priority list, but that doesn't mean I think AoS is a bad product per se, it is just not for me. I can also see your point that the game would probably not have been as successful without a behemoth company behind it, but then neither would Chrome OS in its first few renditions, only in the last few years getting into its stride.

I can understand a place for AoS and I can (obviously!) understand a place for KoW. What I don't understand is the enduring popularity of 9th Age. When I used to play WFB I did have incredible fun creating the 'perfect' list, but the gameplay itself often tarnished the overall experience because that list was either definitely better or definitely worse than my opponent. As such, games were invariably determined before the play had started, leading either to 2-4 hours of knowing I was going to win, or 2-4 hours of knowing I was going to lose: the game itself was objectively quite pointless. I did have fun in the hobby as a whole, but now there is a game like KoW that is overwhelmingly determined only by the tabletop strategic and tactical skill of a player I couldn't imagine going back.

 

@Bracnos : I see tabletop wargames in much the same light (Chess with aesthetic embellishment), which is why I feel the excessive list building in WFB detracted from the tabletop experience and am so supportive of KoW. As I mentioned before, in KoW deployment can often trip players up, and in the games that this happens you can see a player disadvantaged from the start so I can see why you might have come away with this impression. However, I strongly urge you to take another look at the game if this is your overriding experience.

Firstly, the vast majority of games are completely in the balance before the models are placed on the table, which is something that WFB never seemed able to accommodate. Think of it like chess but without all the pieces laid out in a standard format - the choosing of where to put your knights, rooks, pawns etc. becomes part of the overall strategic competition with your opponent. If you 'win' that element you will clearly be advantaged (to a greater or lesser extent) for the rest of the game.

Secondly, even though deployment does influence the outcome of the game, I have rarely (more so at the very start when I was repeatedly outclassed in deployment, far less so now) found myself to be in a position completely unable to salvage the situation. In my first ever tournament battle I got absolutely brutalised, with me, my opponent, and the four spectators watching the game, all knowing I had absolutely lost. However, in turn 6 I noticed that I could forget the objectives on which I was losing a protracted grind and sprint some of my faster units to the other edge of the board as there were 2 open and 1 loosely defended objectives that side. I completely changed tack, I was lucky on the roll so we have a 7th turn, and won the game. I think I lost 850pts more units than my opponent (so my tournament score for the game was less than it could have been ), but I was still able to pull it out of the bag. Yes I've seen walk-overs, and I've seen grinds where neither army gets the objectives they need to pull decisively ahead. But a good 3/4 of all the games I have played have been absolutely tight, with luck occasionally poking one or other player in the eye and forcing them to respond, or giving them a boost with the opportunity to capitalise.

I don't play KoW out of any dislike for GW - indeed I maintain a sincere affection for the company for all the fun times it gave me when I was younger and buy models, tools, equipment etc. from them regularly. I play KoW because it is by far the most strategically challenging game I have played, always providing chances to come back if I am losing or offering the same to my opponent. I can't recommend it highly enough.

We may be using different definitions:



I am using the latter of the two nouns (even if I am personally only interested in the former!) and AoS definitely falls within that.

 

@BAE thanks for that we'll put explanation I'll have to watch more Kow games and give the rules a good read

 

Absolutely! Chess clocks are pretty much mandatory at all competitions, and these days I can hardly play the game without them even in friendlier environments! The time pressure creates a completely different dynamic and makes the game yet more compelling - players that might be strategic geniuses (like one of my KoW-playing friends) are suddenly forced to make decisions before they have had chance to think through the myriad possibilities and probabilities, levelling the playing field compared to players who are more instinctive than logical but are able to make 'good enough' decisions quicker.