PDA

View Full Version : Your reaction to the Age of Sigmar (six months on)?



Avian
11-01-2016, 09:54
You all knew this was coming... ;)

Age of Sigmar has been out for six months, and I feel somewhat obliged to make the fourth in my series of polls. Please choose the option that you feel best fits your reaction.

As always, try to limit your reaction to what we have actually seen, and not focus on rumours for things that may or may not happen further out. Try to stick to what we know.

No, there is no 'neutral' option or 'I don't care' option. This has been explained in the previous threads - if you are interested in the reasons, go dig them up. :p


Personally I'm not voting this time, because quite frankly I have stopped caring. That's the 'I don't care' option for ya.

Spiney Norman
11-01-2016, 09:57
I suspect this is the last point this poll is going to have 100% positive response so I'm going to savour this moment.

The new models continue to be excellent, the rules could use a bit of work to accommodate the kind of detached competitive play that so many gamers seem to think is the only valid way to play a table top game, but I think they have time to sort that out as the game develops.

dalezzz
11-01-2016, 09:59
Mostly negative , some of the models are good and free rules is a good thing ( let's not get into the quality :p ) the rest is still rubbish I'm afraid .

hope you enjoyed the 100% positive while it lasted spiny :D

StealthKnightSteg
11-01-2016, 10:01
I'm a timmy

Spiney Norman
11-01-2016, 10:02
Mostly negative , some of the models are good and free rules is a good thing ( let's not get into the quality :p ) the rest is still rubbish I'm afraid .

hope you enjoyed the 100% positive while it lasted spiny :D

It was a beautiful two minutes ;)

Soundwave
11-01-2016, 10:07
Still overwhelmingly negative. I am enjoying reading all the negative comments though as I find them overwhelmingly therapeutic. Not being alone in my anguish is comforting.

Herzlos
11-01-2016, 10:25
I've pretty much given up on it now, after a pretty dull Dwarf release. Ironically I'm moving my remaining fantasy stuff to round bases, but that's for Frostgrave.

amboadine
11-01-2016, 10:32
Moved on to other better games now, honestly don't care about AoS. It has giving me a push into a completely new gaming circle for which I think I will always be grateful however.

Zywus
11-01-2016, 10:33
Overwhelmingly negative. I suspect this might be the point in time where we start to see a real drop in number of voters due to people just not caring anymore.

I really shouldn't care anymore but somehow I still feel compelled to watch the game and it's creators reach new lows.

Looking at the new dwarf (sorry duardin:rolleyes:) release, not even the models seem to appeal much to anyone except the most ardent supporters (and I'm pretty sure hatred and fanboism of 'AoS the game' bias influences in both waye here) and that was the last thing GW had going for them.

Allen
11-01-2016, 10:43
Mostly positive, but the pricing tags are actively (and quickly) eroding my conviction.
Don't get me wrong, AoS is still the same GW crap I played with WHFB and still play with WH40K...there are far better wargames out there. But it's not the complete disaster most people so emotively tried to argue in the past months. When I want to play a proper wargame I don't look at GW: it was true with WHFB and it's still true with WH40K and AoS. When I want to play easy and funny I look at GW, and in this sense AoS is a sucess.

Herzlos
11-01-2016, 11:22
I really shouldn't care anymore but somehow I still feel compelled to watch the game and it's creators reach new lows.

I have a lot more enthusiasm for watching what GW is doing than playing AoS.

Khaines Wrath
11-01-2016, 11:26
I really shouldn't care anymore but somehow I still feel compelled to watch the game and it's creators reach new lows.


Honestly since warhammers death its about the only thing worth talking about. Its a bit like watching a car crash, horrible but you cant look away.

75hastings69
11-01-2016, 11:34
Overwhelmingly Negative, for every reason posted a hundred times already.

The models beginning to look more and more like warcraft scaled stuff with each release and also the dreadful new monopose overpriced fyreslayers just show IMO that this whole AoS is headed down the pan. Even people who initially liked the fyreslayers have changed their minds having seen the official pictures. AoS remains the low point in GWs history, not only as a "game" but also in the way it has been handled and marketed....

Even after 6 months and the release of more battletomes or whatever the world is still no more convincing that that which could be written by a 6 year old during their break time.

I am still yet to work out who this product is even aimed at? Well apart from Spiney :D :D ;) (who I think may be the "mastermind" behind it given his defence of absolutely everything so far).


.....The new models continue to be excellent.....

...... again! :D

duffybear1988
11-01-2016, 11:43
Oh Gotrek what have they done to you? Why did they take your trousers away and make you wear a thong and silly helmet.

The boyz
11-01-2016, 11:44
Still overwhelmingly negative for me.

Soundwave
11-01-2016, 11:46
Yes the new models are looking more obscure with each glance. A table full of what has been presented so far would look awkward to say the least.

I guarantee some new kick ass looking dwarf clansmen or plastic slayers based on the old design would of out sold these new fyre sklewer doodan things.

ScruffMan
11-01-2016, 11:46
I'm a timmy

I'm Timmy!

Niall78
11-01-2016, 11:51
Still overwhelmingly negative.

On the positive side we are really enjoying Kings of war in my meta as our new go-to fantasy rule-set.

Folomo
11-01-2016, 11:59
I had hoped that these few months could show some glimmer of hope for AoS. While I don't see myself playing it (and every month make it seem less and less likely), there was always the small chance that GW could turn it around. But the dull releases, lack of any news about 70% of the armies and not any upgrade to the core rules made that hope fade away.
So, I am a bit more negative than a few months ago :(

Kahadras
11-01-2016, 12:04
Still negative. Despite reasurances that 'changes' were in the pipeline for AoS we're 6 months in and there's been nothing.

None of the factions interest me. The models are still way to expencive (and are, IMHO, not up to scratch). Nobody in my gaming group has gone anywhere near the game.

When GW bother to fix AoS then I might bother to take another look at it. Until then is Frostgrave, KoW, X-Wing and Star Wars Armarda.

malisteen
11-01-2016, 12:12
Six months on, I still think that the initial release was handled terribly, that there's way too little information on the new mortal realms for players to get invested in, and what little there is is mostly sequestered in expensive black library products. We still haven't seen a single female model in a new product release, which is pretty sad for a game that needed to reach new audiences, and, speaking of, the complete lack of marketing of this new product, when it was designed to deliberately alienate existing players, is a terrible move that betrays either a lack of business sense or a lack of faith in the product, probably both.

In terms of that deliberate alienation, I still think it's pretty insulting and displays a considerable degree of hubris that the response to flagging sales was not to blame their own policies, but rather to blame the customer base. GW has long recognized that most players played their game in points balanced, tournament stile, pitched battle pick up games, and while that may not have been their intended way for the game to be played, recognizing the preferred customer use and changing your design philosophy to support it would have been a dramatically more appropriate and more respectful move than releasing a game deliberately designed to be as hard as possible to play that way, like an immature child who shares their toys with others, but then insists the other children play their way or else they're taking all the toys home.

Even just a little bit of real, honest communication (or even a reasonable imitation there-of) would have gone a huge way towards alleviating this mess. Many of those who honestly tried Age of Sigmar couldn't even wrap their heads around how the game was supposed to be played, myself included at first. A series of interviews on their youtube channel interviewing the designers, letting them explain why they made the choices they did, and walking viewers through a few games or even a campaign would have helped immensely. Even more so, players today in the online, social media, information age expect to have a say, or at least the impression of a say, in the products and services they buy. Rather than building a wall between themselves and their customers, GW's design team should have cultivated at least the image of avenues of communication, letting players get emotionally invested in the process.

For example, look at WotC with D&D 5th edition. There was a year of open play tests and surveys that let players watch the evolution of that game and get super invested in it before it's release, and as a result the eventual release was a success well beyond expectations. Or look at Wyrd, where Malifaux stuff goes through public betas and the community debates and argues rules as they are developed, in the process becoming personally invested in the process and the product.

Imagine if Age of Sigmar had been exactly as it is now, only instead of being advertised as a finished product, it were instead advertised as a zero edition, a public beta, trial rules open to customer feedback, with a little mail-in feedback survey in every starter box, and online surveys at GW's website, along with maybe a development article once a month in White Dwarf with a designer briefly discussing some considered changes or things they think are going well. Even if surveys returned went straight into the trash, they'd still give an impression of avenues of communication, GW would still have an open excuse to change things if elements weren't well received, there'd be an excuse for all the setting info to not be fully fleshed out yet. People might not like it any more than they do now, but they'd have an avenue to express that dislike without completely divorcing themselves from the game or from GW as a whole, and would be far more forgiving of those issues that seem unfinished or untested.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

All that said, I don't hate the game. I was one of the more narrative players even under the old game, and I happen to like the idea of shifting rules depth from the core rules to individual unit rules, and the way most units seem to have been given something interesting and fluffy to make them play on the tabletop as you would expect them to from their fluff. I also like the streamlined stats, and flattened rolls, and mosnters that get weaker as they take damage, all of which brings the various units in the game much closer together in power scale. I like the focus on smaller scale and individual models more than huge units (even if, yes, I still run huge units myself), as that seems a much better fit for GW's high price / high detail product line. And I personally enjoy the over the top, mythic scale of the setting, more Silmarillion, less Lord of the Rings. For all I think the game and especially its release have been handled horribly, it's still a game that's more or less right up my ally, so I haven't quit, I still play, I'm still painting models, but yeah, I absolutely agree with people's anger about AoS, and unless things change pretty drastically, I don't see things getting better in time to save the game.

Khaines Wrath
11-01-2016, 12:28
It still baffles me why GW opts for this ridiculous policy of secrecy. I understand it to a point but most companies play coy a year or more before the product is coming out, not all the way up to a week or two before release.

- It doesn't allow customers to plan their purchases, I feel like it relies to much on people impulsively buying. But the flaw is for people with lower incomes it forces them to decide to purchase miniatures over say their more immediate concerns like rent, food, bills etc. A decision I doubt GW will win.

- It fails to generate hype. Hype is an all encompassing thing in a community, it generates excitement and it increases awareness of the product through discussion.

- It eliminates the option of a pre order service. Personally Im a big fan of pre ordering. Its basically an advanced lay bye service which for someone on a low income makes my expensive hobbies affordable. Say a new High Elf unit was announced that I fancied purchasing. Even if they come in boxes of 10 for the ridiculous price of $50 each I will feel a million times better making $10 payments over 10 weeks for 2 boxes than I ever would guiltily splurging $100 and being left with a near empty wallet.

csb
11-01-2016, 12:31
Overwhelmingly negative due to the fact that not we're expected to buy utter crap, but also because GW tries to push this crap in an aggresive and extremely stupid way and is still not willing to admit that they just made a big mistake.

Malagor
11-01-2016, 12:40
Still overwhelmingly negative and it's cementing itself with each release.
The new dwarfs is such a shame really.
I like the hats(I'm a sucker for silly hats like that) but why the 300 look ? And then for some stupid reason they are monopose.
Monopose models makes sense in a rank & file game since it makes sure that the models will stand neatly in formation but you got a "skirmish" game here GW.
It's even more funny when we had AoS defenders claiming that the move to round bases will allow for even more creative freedom GW in terms of models and yet here we are, monopose models and a horrible pose at that.
It really is mindblowing.
Thank the gods for 9th Age.

Spiney Norman
11-01-2016, 12:51
It still baffles me why GW opts for this ridiculous policy of secrecy. I understand it to a point but most companies play coy a year or more before the product is coming out, not all the way up to a week or two before release.

I'm sure they have explained the reasoning behind their secrecy policy before, it's because their sales data shows that they sell more if they don't advertise in advance. When you're releasing new product every week enabling consumer to plan their spending in advance inevitably means they buy less, rather than relying on a continuous round of 'ooooh I must have that'. It's incredibly annoying from a customer's perspective because it's designed to make us spend more money than we want to, but I'd also think it's an incredibly short-sighted and short-term solution because by now I think a lot of people have just given up on the merrygoround of weekly releases. I know I have, I've been meaning to pick up the multipart Khorne blood warriors ever since they came out, but I didn't actually buy them until Saturday.

I do plan my purchases, which means I generally don't buy any models until a few months after release.

LuckyE
11-01-2016, 12:52
As somebody mainly interested in models to paint I find it all very interesting. The starter box got me back into painting after a year or two out. I never made the jump into playing but may do at home with my kids in the near future.

Overall I don't understand the decision although from the article in Friday's Evening Standard they must think this is a viable business move for the long term. I'm glad the old models are still available, that the rules are now free and that there is less of a focus on specific armies (something I recall similar to when I was young with 2nd Ed 40k). I'm especially glad that the prices havent gone up for the old stuff as this is what I'll be purchasing.

The new Starting boxes are great but the seperate new releases are far too expensive for what you are getting. Ģ30+ for 5 models and Ģ20 for characters aren't going to tempt me unless the item is amazing. I dread to think how much the Salamander is going to cost. These two sets of pricing for recent releases are so contradictory.

Folomo
11-01-2016, 12:54
When GW bother to fix AoS then I might bother to take another look at it. Until then is Frostgrave, KoW, X-Wing and Star Wars Armarda.

Does frostgrave function similar to mordheim, with persistent characters who improve with time?
If it does, how well balanced are the factions?
I have a few friends who really liked mordheim, but the utter inbalance forced us to stop playing it (One of the warbards was able to take two at the same time and still win)

Tyranno1
11-01-2016, 12:57
Was garbage six months ago, is garbage now.

New lackluster Dwarf models has not helped change my mind.

GW will still never see the inside of my wallet again.

ScruffMan
11-01-2016, 13:01
Six months on, I still think that the initial release was handled terribly, that there's way too little information on the new mortal realms for players to get invested in, and what little there is is mostly sequestered in expensive black library products. We still haven't seen a single female model in a new product release, which is pretty sad for a game that needed to reach new audiences, and, speaking of, the complete lack of marketing of this new product, when it was designed to deliberately alienate existing players, is a terrible move that betrays either a lack of business sense or a lack of faith in the product, probably both.

In terms of that deliberate alienation, I still think it's pretty insulting and displays a considerable degree of hubris that the response to flagging sales was not to blame their own policies, but rather to blame the customer base. GW has long recognized that most players played their game in points balanced, tournament stile, pitched battle pick up games, and while that may not have been their intended way for the game to be played, recognizing the preferred customer use and changing your design philosophy to support it would have been a dramatically more appropriate and more respectful move than releasing a game deliberately designed to be as hard as possible to play that way, like an immature child who shares their toys with others, but then insists the other children play their way or else they're taking all the toys home.

Even just a little bit of real, honest communication (or even a reasonable imitation there-of) would have gone a huge way towards alleviating this mess. Many of those who honestly tried Age of Sigmar couldn't even wrap their heads around how the game was supposed to be played, myself included at first. A series of interviews on their youtube channel interviewing the designers, letting them explain why they made the choices they did, and walking viewers through a few games or even a campaign would have helped immensely. Even more so, players today in the online, social media, information age expect to have a say, or at least the impression of a say, in the products and services they buy. Rather than building a wall between themselves and their customers, GW's design team should have cultivated at least the image of avenues of communication, letting players get emotionally invested in the process.

For example, look at WotC with D&D 5th edition. There was a year of open play tests and surveys that let players watch the evolution of that game and get super invested in it before it's release, and as a result the eventual release was a success well beyond expectations. Or look at Wyrd, where Malifaux stuff goes through public betas and the community debates and argues rules as they are developed, in the process becoming personally invested in the process and the product.

Imagine if Age of Sigmar had been exactly as it is now, only instead of being advertised as a finished product, it were instead advertised as a zero edition, a public beta, trial rules open to customer feedback, with a little mail-in feedback survey in every starter box, and online surveys at GW's website, along with maybe a development article once a month in White Dwarf with a designer briefly discussing some considered changes or things they think are going well. Even if surveys returned went straight into the trash, they'd still give an impression of avenues of communication, GW would still have an open excuse to change things if elements weren't well received, there'd be an excuse for all the setting info to not be fully fleshed out yet. People might not like it any more than they do now, but they'd have an avenue to express that dislike without completely divorcing themselves from the game or from GW as a whole, and would be far more forgiving of those issues that seem unfinished or untested.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

All that said, I don't hate the game. I was one of the more narrative players even under the old game, and I happen to like the idea of shifting rules depth from the core rules to individual unit rules, and the way most units seem to have been given something interesting and fluffy to make them play on the tabletop as you would expect them to from their fluff. I also like the streamlined stats, and flattened rolls, and mosnters that get weaker as they take damage, all of which brings the various units in the game much closer together in power scale. I like the focus on smaller scale and individual models more than huge units (even if, yes, I still run huge units myself), as that seems a much better fit for GW's high price / high detail product line. And I personally enjoy the over the top, mythic scale of the setting, more Silmarillion, less Lord of the Rings. For all I think the game and especially its release have been handled horribly, it's still a game that's more or less right up my ally, so I haven't quit, I still play, I'm still painting models, but yeah, I absolutely agree with people's anger about AoS, and unless things change pretty drastically, I don't see things getting better in time to save the game.

Can't disagree with any of that.

Holier Than Thou
11-01-2016, 13:03
Mostly positive, but the pricing tags are actively (and quickly) eroding my conviction.
Don't get me wrong, AoS is still the same GW crap I played with WHFB and still play with WH40K...there are far better wargames out there. But it's not the complete disaster most people so emotively tried to argue in the past months. When I want to play a proper wargame I don't look at GW: it was true with WHFB and it's still true with WH40K and AoS. When I want to play easy and funny I look at GW, and in this sense AoS is a sucess.

You've voted mostly positive for something you describe as crap and admit is nowhere near as good as most of the other games available??? What would it take for you to vote negative?

75hastings69
11-01-2016, 13:08
Does frostgrave function similar to mordheim, with persistent characters who improve with time?
If it does, how well balanced are the factions?
I have a few friends who really liked mordheim, but the utter inbalance forced us to stop playing it (One of the warbards was able to take two at the same time and still win)

Yes it does, it awards XP and gold for certain actions which you use to upgrade your party. The "factions" aren't really there, you pick a wizard then hire the remaining numbers to make up his warband from a list of troop types restricted by the amount of gold you have to spend and the fact your party cannot number more than 10. Currently one of the things I like is that it is not race specific so you can use whatever you like, i.e. your treasure hunter could be a dwarf, a human, an orc etc. so you can play really with whatever suitable models you can find, and there are some wonderful models out there that fit frostgrave nicely. As for balance, like any game where points (or in this case the cost in gold) are used there are some areas of slight imbalance, but not in a gamebreaking manner. Nice cheap troops seem to work well certainly early on, some of the more gold heavy hires are not really needed and you are often better taking more numbers.

That being said there is rumour of some expansion on races and how they might differ, and there are two expansions due out this year (one of which - into the breeding pits - will introduce dungeon crawling to frostgrave) as well as the recent (and very good) Thaw of the Lich Lord expansion which has a 10 scenario campaign, new troop types, new items, new bestiary entries etc. all for a fraction of what GW would charge for a battletome or whatever.

Very good system that for 10 GBP you can pick up the rules on Amazon then use whatever models you like got to be worth a try for that alone.

Herzlos
11-01-2016, 13:09
Does frostgrave function similar to mordheim, with persistent characters who improve with time?
If it does, how well balanced are the factions?
I have a few friends who really liked mordheim, but the utter inbalance forced us to stop playing it (One of the warbards was able to take two at the same time and still win)

Yes, though it's really more like Wizard + retinue rather than warbands; your wizard + apprentice will gain stat improvements over time, and you get more money to hire a better crew and buy better add-ons and spells.

The wizards come from a pre-selected school of magic (Necromancy, Conjuring, etc), though you get access to spells from other schools at a minor disadvantage, but essentially everyone has access to the same stuff (specialisation excepted).

For what it costs to get into (Ģ20 for the rules, Ģ6 for a wizard pack, Ģ20 for a pack of 20 plastic multi-part henchmen (you're capped at 10 figures so you can split the box)) it's well worth trying. There's no set base size or requirement to use official figures, so the chances are you have enough to get started with already if you've got any fantasy minis (a wizard or 2, and some soldiers/archers and you're good).

75hastings69
11-01-2016, 13:09
You've voted mostly positive for something you describe as crap and admit is nowhere near as good as most of the other games available??? What would it take for you to vote negative?

The removal of the GW logo perhaps?

Spiney Norman
11-01-2016, 13:13
Does frostgrave function similar to mordheim, with persistent characters who improve with time?
If it does, how well balanced are the factions?
I have a few friends who really liked mordheim, but the utter inbalance forced us to stop playing it (One of the warbards was able to take two at the same time and still win)

It's virtually identical to Mordheim, we had a Mordheim campaign running last year with around 12 players, but it was a nightmare to organise that many people to be there play games and the campaign dragged. There just isn't the will at our club to do something similar at the moment, and even if there was we'd probably just use the Mordheim rules again because they are functional, well-known and everyone has plenty of WFB models to use for their warband. That I have seen frostgrave has nothing really to commend itself over Mordheim in terms of its rules, other than perhaps for people who don't want to be seen to play a GW game.

smaxx
11-01-2016, 13:15
Personally I'm not voting this time, because quite frankly I have stopped caring. That's the 'I don't care' option for ya.
Almost there :) Only interest is if GW produces any minis usable for 9th Age, Kings of War or Frostgrave, or if they try to bring the Old World back one day.

Though if they do, I'm not so sure it would work anymore.

theunwantedbeing
11-01-2016, 13:16
Slightly negative.

The models are still cool.
The fluff is okay and is only going to improve as it gets more fleshed out.
The rules are still rubbish and I have no desire to play because of it.

ik0ner
11-01-2016, 13:18
I've gone from being overwhelmingly negative to being more like neutral, voted slightly negative though. The value/price ratio has gone down significantly, especially with the dlc-like scenario (books) releases that from what people say are essential to enjoy the game.

AoS has made me aware in retrospect that I didn't like the way things were going with WHFB anyway, but I was probably too much of a "fanboi" to notice.

I'd like if they introduced something that wasn't superduperawesome and a bit toned down soon. And some real livable places in some of the mortal realms, as they read now they're basically all of them chaos wastes, and the chaos wastes works as a magical exception to the norm, but not as all there is. And I wonder how they're gonna get the Empire and Bretonnia minis inside their world and still make sense. (Maybe there are these places and I've not read about them yet, but that just changes my point to that those places should maybe be a bit more prominent in the setting?)

As it is I'll play it occasionally with my nephew and with figures I already own. And continue with 5th ed for nostalgiahammer (much more fun than I remembered :))

I like warscrolls, miss Magic Items and would like a more imaginative way to handle magic. (cards, hint hint :))
I don't hate the rules, though I dislike the lack of facing (in 40k as well), and don't care about the lack of points. (Much :cool:)

Some minor thoughts as well:

I agree that the secrecy thing is hurting them a lot. And it seems almost comically paranoid. I don't disagree that AoS works best for smaller encounters/narrative encounters, (which makes the cost of the books really weird, if your primary goal is to move miniatures wouldn't you be best served to make it easy (cost and timewise) for people to enjoy the game part of your product?), but I definitely don't think that is GW's intention, more an odd side effect. I bought some minis for my nephew during the holidays and and got some sort of gift guide with my order, and a lot of the bundles contains a huge amount of minis, and often repetitive choices. That to me seems at odds with any intention of keeping the game small scale.

Kahadras
11-01-2016, 13:22
Does frostgrave function similar to mordheim, with persistent characters who improve with time?

Kind of. Basicaly you have your wizard who is the leader of your warband and who improve over time (learning new spells). You then have your warband who are a variety of thugs, thieves, barbarians, rangers, soldiers and knights who follow you into the city. The difference between the Wizard (and his apprentice) and a warband member is it's much easier for a warband member to die.


If it does, how well balanced are the factions?

The factions really comes down to your wizard type. Each school of magic has it's own advantages and disadvantages. You all get access to the same warband members to hire.

Spiney Norman
11-01-2016, 13:27
Kind of. Basicaly you have your wizard who is the leader of your warband and who improve over time (learning new spells). You then have your warband who are a variety of thugs, thieves, barbarians, rangers, soldiers and knights who follow you into the city. The difference between the Wizard (and his apprentice) and a warband member is it's much easier for a warband member to die.

It's similar to how Mordheim used to differentiate between henchmen and characters in a warband, only Mordheim bands used to have moe heroes, usually 4 or 5 if memory serves.

75hastings69
11-01-2016, 13:31
That I have seen frostgrave has nothing really to commend itself over Mordheim in terms of its rules, other than perhaps for people who don't want to be seen to play a GW game.

Again Spiney, what is it with you???? How about the fact that GW no longer sell or support Mordheim, did you think that might be perhaps a factor why people might be playing Frostgrave over it??????? Your constant defence of everything GW related has become almost ridiculous to the point where even some of your well reasoned arguments for GW now seem disingenuous baiting.

ScruffMan
11-01-2016, 13:32
What I'd like to see soon in AoS as a fan.

Campaign rules or at least guidance - for a game that many are into for "narrative" reasons it sucks a bit that you're just going from scenario to scenario. The Triumph tables are a start but this should be fleshed out a fair amount more.

A French resistance type faction - this should probably be mostly human but can include other 'order' races. In a setting where chaos had all but won but where the tide may just seem to be changing this is an obvious step, would be really cool and would hopefully include fluff for your regular Joe's. We've seen a small amount of this in Black Library but we need more!

Better scenarios - they're alright but too often the actual point of the scenario becomes an afterthought and it just becomes a wipe out the opposition army game. Some better guidance as to how big each force should be relative to each other when neccesary.

Elves.

Some help with how to make your own scenarios, most of us can do this well enough but it would be very handy for new players.

75hastings69
11-01-2016, 13:37
So in 3.5 hours the results so far are over 70% Negative, so I'm going to assume as this is the way the last polls went, that very little has changed with regard to the reception of AoS.

doyouevenrealisebro?
11-01-2016, 13:38
Negative.
For me, to make it playable I have to use fan made comp and my experience playing it is then only ok. The double turn just frustrates me so much because it generally decides the battle.
There is just not the same intricacies I desire from a game.
If a supported game needs this much comp to make it playable it appears to me to be essentially a fan made game created from an exterior basework. And why would I play it when I can play ninth age, which is also a fan made game created from an exterior base work? However the latter keeps all the elements and intricacies I enjoy in a game.

Teurastaja
11-01-2016, 14:01
Overwhelmingly negative for me.
Six months of GW releases and I only liked Gaunt Summoner. And that's because I'm planning Tzeentch-themed warband for Frostgrave.
I still hate AoS and my group still doesn't care about it. We started playing 9th Age and we enjoy it A LOT. I'm even excited about new fluff and art they created.
To be honest, we even stopped playing 40k. Infinity is our main s-f game and people are getting interested in Gates of Antares.
Right now I'm just enjoying the show. Resurrection of Specialist Games is interesting, GW must really be panicking right now. I'm curious what comes next.

75hastings69
11-01-2016, 14:16
I've picked up a Combined starter for Infinity and only played a few demo games but so far it seems pretty good. What is Gates of Antares like? I think I recall seeing the KS but thinking the models were poor (unless I'm getting mixed up with something else!)

Herzlos
11-01-2016, 14:23
The models have an 80's feel to them. I think it plays quite like a sci-fi Bolt Action, i.e. what 40K should have evolved into.

Tokamak
11-01-2016, 14:23
After six months the benefit of doubt expires and the whole move feels more and more like unbridled corporate arrogance.

MLP
11-01-2016, 14:29
Unfortunately even if Warseer was an accurate representation of the Warhammer community before AoS, which it likely isn't, the chances of anything but a token amount of positive votes are low due to the sheer amount of negativity that's been on this forum the past year or so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Darth Alec
11-01-2016, 14:29
Though AoS has some major flaws, I am still positive to it. I've had a lot of fun playing it, and a lot of fun working on GW models. I've enjoyed the fluff and loved being part of an ongoing narrative.

The largest flaw for AoS so far has been the community reaction. It's been downright poisonous to anyone who might enjoy AoS for what it is.

duffybear1988
11-01-2016, 14:33
It's virtually identical to Mordheim, we had a Mordheim campaign running last year with around 12 players, but it was a nightmare to organise that many people to be there play games and the campaign dragged. There just isn't the will at our club to do something similar at the moment, and even if there was we'd probably just use the Mordheim rules again because they are functional, well-known and everyone has plenty of WFB models to use for their warband. That I have seen frostgrave has nothing really to commend itself over Mordheim in terms of its rules, other than perhaps for people who don't want to be seen to play a GW game.

Yeah... Spiney you haven't really seen Frostgrave have you?

Teurastaja
11-01-2016, 14:40
That I have seen frostgrave has nothing really to commend itself over Mordheim in terms of its rules, other than perhaps for people who don't want to be seen to play a GW game.

Have you actually tried it? There's a good magic system with many spells, rich bestiary for random encounters and fun, original scenarios.
This year will also bring at least one big expansion (Into the Breeding Pits) and two smaller, in digital format, with more magic artefacts and mercenary captains that can actually gain experience and new skills.
Mordheim is very nice but if you do some more research on Frostgrave you'll see that two games are not that similar. It's also nice to play something supported.

StealthKnightSteg
11-01-2016, 14:52
I'm a timmy

I'm Timmy!

For all the (partly) johnny's if you haven't seen/heard it yet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iemNBE97tl4

Zywus
11-01-2016, 14:54
Unfortunately even if Warseer was an accurate representation of the Warhammer community before AoS, which it likely isn't, the chances of anything but a token amount of positive votes are low due to the sheer amount of negativity that's been on this forum the past year or so.Yep. That silent majority is out there ready to spend 5$ per monopose dwarf and will swoop in with bursting wallets to save AoS any day now.

Teurastaja
11-01-2016, 15:01
I've picked up a Combined starter for Infinity and only played a few demo games but so far it seems pretty good. What is Gates of Antares like? I think I recall seeing the KS but thinking the models were poor (unless I'm getting mixed up with something else!)

It uses order dice system from Bolt Action, rolls are made with d10 and game seems to scale up and down pretty nicely. This link sums basic mechanics pretty well: http://litanyofincoherence.com/?p=7 I only bought two player starter set at the moment because I'm waiting for Isorians (creepy biotechnological army). As for miniatures - for me they are pretty solid. Not on GW or Corvus Belli level but still nice. 40k is a mess right now and I could only enjoy it while being drunk so I had to find something else :)

Edit: I forgot about Dropzone Commander! It's also a great game that my group enjoys.

MLP
11-01-2016, 15:19
Yep. That silent majority is out there ready to spend 5$ per monopose dwarf and will swoop in with bursting wallets to save AoS any day now.

Well I barely post here and I've bought one of all the new Fyreslayer sets. And a Malignants Starter set last week.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Antigone1977
11-01-2016, 15:24
Mostly positive. I started overwhelmingly positive because I loved the new models, now it's one of several games I play. How I play the game has changed a lot in 6 months (from 'run everything into the middle and spend 20 minutes per combat trying to work out what's going on,' to 'the game's not about combat it's about target priority and strong turn one pressure,') so I do believe there's some depth to it (but by the same token I'm not trying to convert anyone, I couldn't care less who plays it or doesn't) and I'll continue to work it out more over time.

TL:DR positive and likely to remain so for quite a long time.

CountUlrich
11-01-2016, 15:39
Still a steaming pile of dog poo. The rules are crap, the fluff is beyond crap - my 2 year old grandaughter could write better - and frankly the models are crap. Chaos and dwarves are/were my heart, my two biggest and most beloved armies, and there hasn't been anything released that I think isn't a steaming pile of souless, overwrought crap.

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

MohRokTah
11-01-2016, 15:40
Even though I like the new dwarf models, I still have an overwhelmingly negative view of the game, AoS.

The only good thing I can think of to say about AoS is it forced me to examine a ton of other games that are far superior to AoS.

Andnore
11-01-2016, 16:25
First time poster, but I have to say, I've not been impressed so far. My experience has been mostly negative; there's just not enough interesting fluff for me to be interested, the costs are still prohibitive, and the rules just feel like someone just wrote down with "rules" his kids came up with while playing with those green plastic army men in their sandbox.

Altsain
11-01-2016, 16:25
my 2 year old grandaughter could write better

Prove it. I would like to see that.

75hastings69
11-01-2016, 16:28
The only good thing I can think of to say about AoS is it forced me to examine a ton of other games that are far superior to AoS.

I think this has been a good thing for the hobby in general. Lots of people are doing the same which will hopefully lead to even more diversity.

Asmodios
11-01-2016, 16:48
I think this has been a good thing for the hobby in general. Lots of people are doing the same which will hopefully lead to even more diversity.
I would agree. Even though i voted overwhelmingly negative i should have just done mostly negative. I really should thank AOS for the release of 9th age. My gaming group is loving 9th age and having a great time with it. Even though i haven't gone fully into KOW i like the rules and the models and am glad thats taken off in my area as well.

Vladyhell
11-01-2016, 16:59
Still overwhelmingly positive,it just gets better the more I collect,paint and play :)

Tyranno1
11-01-2016, 17:14
Unfortunately even if Warseer was an accurate representation of the Warhammer community before AoS, which it likely isn't, the chances of anything but a token amount of positive votes are low due to the sheer amount of negativity that's been on this forum the past year or so.

Pray tell then, if Warseer (the most active GW forum on the internet) is not an accurate representation of the Warhammer community, what is?

And maybe the reason people are negative is because the game is a crap replacement?

TBH most the people here seem to be having a blast ripping into this shoddy game, no negativity here, well almost none ;).

Buddy Bear
11-01-2016, 17:19
Yeah, the only fun I've gotten out of AOS is ripping into it, with an almost MST3K like gusto which would make Tom Servo and Crow T. Robot proud.

And while AOS has resulted in gamers trying out new games they may not have tried otherwise, myself included, I'm not prepared to credit that as a positive of AOS, as it's not something GW intended. :P

smaxx
11-01-2016, 19:09
I guess people are really answering to "What is your reaction to the end of Warhammer Fantasy?" At least I did...

Because why would anyone really have negative or strong feelings towards AoS ? It's a simple game, some like it, some don't.

Ayin
11-01-2016, 19:16
I think this has been a good thing for the hobby in general. Lots of people are doing the same which will hopefully lead to even more diversity.

I'm pretty excited for The 9th Age, as are about 50% of the people I used to know who are still into Fantasy. Most of them (and everyone else I knew who played Wargames or GW games) are also very enjoyably a part of Warmachine/Warmahordes as well as X-Wing.

I'd like to say AoS opened up the gaming community to a lot more game options, but in truth most of the people I have any experience with were already branching out into different systems and games or had replaced GW games wtih some other producer as their preferred or main system. AoS either just helped the last ones make the jump or went by more or less un-noticed.

After going to my old gaming area this last weekend I was surprised at how many people just met any discussion about AoS (or worse, Games Workshop) with a shrug. As any promoter will tell you, it's GREAT to have what you're representing cheered, that's money, but it's also fine to have to it boo'd, because if people are booing, they're still caring. The only thing you don't want your product to be met with is silence. Silence means no interest.

Ayin
11-01-2016, 19:32
Because why would anyone really have negative or strong feelings towards AoS ? It's a simple game, some like it, some don't.

I can imagine that a fair number of the people who had initially expressed positive reactions to AoS but who had maintained that there was "more" to the game that was going to be released sometime in the future would be the a good group to hear about post-launch negative feelings/reactions from.

Those who made the entirety of their judgements immediately on viewing the (full) product (in regards to the game itself) would likely not experience any MORE negative feeling as the line continued on. Those who are commenting on the ACTUAL product and not it's vehichle (ie models and not game) have the potential for positive or negative feelings much after the games release. For example, Dwarf players who had positive/negative feelings towards the model styling of only released factions at the launch of the game may have negative/positive feelings towards the Duardin Fyreslayers that are different than or in-line with their previous ones.

Another good example is likely going to be Elf players when the release of the Aelfs finally comes around. For obvious reasons anyone who is making a judgement on their enjoyment of the product based on that faction/line has been waiting and will keep waiting a while yet. When it drops, with Elves nearly always being a popular concept well represented by the fans in fantasy communities and with three Elf army lines making up a not-small percentage of Warhammer Fantasy fans, the reaction (or lack thereof) is going to be very telling.

Mr. Ultra
11-01-2016, 19:47
I wanted AoS to be great. I wanted that SO badly.

And yet, six months later, I am fully convinced that the game will be dead in 4-5 years. It will slowly fade into obscurity, and nobody will talk about it anymore.

And I'm also convinced that the very few people that loves this game nowadays, does that juts because they have the "oooh shiny brand new" syndrome, and because all the hate it's receiving. In a few years all those Facebook AoS pages will be defunct and Darth Alec would ask himself what the hell was he thinking and how could he possibly sell all those dusty battletomes now that ebay is saturated with AoS crap a pence a ton.

Lars Porsenna
11-01-2016, 20:09
And yet, six months later, I am fully convinced that the game will be dead in 4-5 years. It will slowly fade into obscurity, and nobody will talk about it anymore.

Less than that. I'm calling it in 2-3 years, unless you count "rules still on the website, no active releases though..." as still having life.

Still overwhelmingly negative, for all the reasons...

Damon.

Morathi's Darkest Sin
11-01-2016, 20:33
Mostly negative, I was putting a lot of hope on the revisited races, the fire slayers do not inspire confidence. Aelf releases will either be the nail in the coffin for me, or light at the end of the tunnel. I'm also docking it several points just for the skulls sticking into Archeon's dragon/demon/horsie.. the Korrgawhasit from the starter it looked slightly silly, on that monster it looks awful.

ScruffMan
11-01-2016, 20:34
I can imagine that a fair number of the people who had initially expressed positive reactions to AoS but who had maintained that there was "more" to the game that was going to be released sometime in the future would be the a good group to hear about post-launch negative feelings/reactions from.

Those who made the entirety of their judgements immediately on viewing the (full) product (in regards to the game itself) would likely not experience any MORE negative feeling as the line continued on. Those who are commenting on the ACTUAL product and not it's vehichle (ie models and not game) have the potential for positive or negative feelings much after the games release. For example, Dwarf players who had positive/negative feelings towards the model styling of only released factions at the launch of the game may have negative/positive feelings towards the Duardin Fyreslayers that are different than or in-line with their previous ones.

Another good example is likely going to be Elf players when the release of the Aelfs finally comes around. For obvious reasons anyone who is making a judgement on their enjoyment of the product based on that faction/line has been waiting and will keep waiting a while yet. When it drops, with Elves nearly always being a popular concept well represented by the fans in fantasy communities and with three Elf army lines making up a not-small percentage of Warhammer Fantasy fans, the reaction (or lack thereof) is going to be very telling.

Interestingly as a fan/apologist (delete based on opinon) of the game I think the Elf release will influence my opinion massively. If they screw that up it'll probably turn me off the game but as it stands I am hopeful they'll do a good job.

Ayin
11-01-2016, 20:36
The Elves will be interesting no doubt. The Dwarf contingent had a not small number waiting on the release of Slayers and a Slayer faction, even in a world where they are Duardin. The Elves have a lot more to lose, there (to my memory) isn't an Elven faction that has been waiting a decade or more for a new model which also happens to be a fan-favourite concept.

Teurastaja
11-01-2016, 21:18
I know it's not on topic but I'm still waiting for Spiney to tell us why Frostgrave sucks.

More on topic, I just hope that new elves will look nice. If they treat them like poor naked dwarfs I may hurt someone.
Where do Dark Elves currently live? Was that Realm of Shadow, with all the fog and creepiness?

Ayin
11-01-2016, 21:29
I know it's not on topic but I'm still waiting for Spiney to tell us why Frostgrave sucks.

More on topic, I just hope that new elves will look nice. If they treat them like poor naked dwarfs I may hurt someone.
Where do Dark Elves currently live? Was that Realm of Shadow, with all the fog and creepiness?

Where do the Elves live? What is their society like? Do they have one society, or does their species have many (perhaps 3)? Are they aware of their Warhammer Fantasy origins, or do they entirely exist in AoS? Are they aware that their Gods (the previous Incarnates of Elven descent) were Elves like them? Or was all of this one way initially in the re-creation of their race by Sigmar(I assume Sigmar created them along with everything else?) and now is a different way as the AoS current universe is post-apocalypse in itself?


These are both interesting questions for AoS hold-ons who want to see how "their" faction continues on or is re-imagined, and likely one of the key problems of retention or new investment for so many who were loyal to a specific product line that, currently, does not exist. Just today someone I know who was interested in Elves contacted me about when the Elven 'Get Started' set was coming out... There's a sale that's not happening.

Darth Alec
11-01-2016, 21:29
More on topic, I just hope that new elves will look nice. If they treat them like poor naked dwarfs I may hurt someone.
Where do Dark Elves currently live? Was that Realm of Shadow, with all the fog and creepiness?

This are no "Dark Elves". Part of enjoying AoS is dropping some of the pretext from WHFB. Just like the Fyreslayers aren't the old slayers. As far as elves go, there are some in the realm of Azyr, but the vast majority of them are in an unknown location. Tyrion and Malerion are looking for them, and we'll probably get a campaign book about that eventually.

Spiney Norman
11-01-2016, 21:33
I know it's not on topic but I'm still waiting for Spiney to tell us why Frostgrave sucks.

More on topic, I just hope that new elves will look nice. If they treat them like poor naked dwarfs I may hurt someone.
Where do Dark Elves currently live? Was that Realm of Shadow, with all the fog and creepiness?

Obviously it doesn't because it's copy-paste Mordheim and Mordheim is awesome.

There is of course the question of why I would invest in a completely new, almost identical game when I have all the rules and models to play Mordheim, which is also set in a world I am already heavily into.

And yes, as a long time fan of WFB (wood) elves I really hope they get them right in AoS.

Ayin
11-01-2016, 21:35
This are no "Dark Elves". Part of enjoying AoS is dropping some of the pretext from WHFB. Just like the Fyreslayers aren't the old slayers.

I'd argue that example is hardly "dropping the pretext" and simply expanding on an already created concept/aesthetic.

NoobLord
11-01-2016, 21:38
Obviously it doesn't because it's copy-paste Mordheim and Mordheim is awesome.


So you have not read the book then let alone played it? It is most assuredly not a copy-paste of Mordheim.

As to the 'why', well, if you have models and terrain as you say, then for Ģ15 you can play a game that blows most of GW's offerings past and present out of the water.

Teurastaja
11-01-2016, 21:41
This are no "Dark Elves". Part of enjoying AoS is dropping some of the pretext from WHFB. Just like the Fyreslayers aren't the old slayers. As far as elves go, there are some in the realm of Azyr, but the vast majority of them are in an unknown location. Tyrion and Malerion are looking for them, and we'll probably get a campaign book about that eventually.

I just want to stay civil and get some information, you're not making it easy for me ;) I don't enjoy AoS, I hate it and I would love nothing more than getting Old World back. Every elf that's not wearing anything shiny or isn't covered in leafs will be a Dark Elf for me. Although, I would still be open to idea of creepy, shadowy elves. Shadow realm should fit for Malekith/Malerion, right? I mean, Azyr is where Sigmar has his space station, Fyredwarfs live in a realm of fire, Nagash is pretty obviously in a realm of death, I don't remember where Archaon stays, but I see a theme here ;)

Teurastaja
11-01-2016, 21:51
Obviously it doesn't because it's copy-paste Mordheim and Mordheim is awesome.
There is of course the question of why I would invest in a completely new, almost identical game when I have all the rules and models to play Mordheim, which is also set in a world I am already heavily into.
And yes, as a long time fan of WFB (wood) elves I really hope they get them right in AoS.

It's not really that similar. Sure, general theme is about warbands fighting in a deserted city, but it uses d20, focuses heavily on sorcerers and magic (there are 10 schools of it with 8 spells each), I also don't recall Mordheim having random encounter system (I may be wrong here) where playes are forced to fight against game itself on regular basis. It's not a copy of Mordheim just as Infinity isn't a copy of Necromunda.

Melkanador
11-01-2016, 21:56
My reaction towards AoS has been improved to mostly negative.

The reason is that for people who like to play scenarios with a GM itīs almost the perfect game. Even when this was possible with the former Warhammer game.

What I still donīt understand why people who say they love AoS only want to play it with a point system or restrictions. Itīs to me as if a person says he likes chess but only with pawns and a king. Yes, one plays chess but it has almost nothing to do with the original chess.

Spiney Norman
11-01-2016, 21:57
Have you played it? It's not really that similar. Sure, general theme is about warbands fighting in a deserted city, but it uses d20, focuses heavily on sorcerers and magic (there are 10 schools of it with 8 spells each), I also don't recall Mordheim having random encounter system (I may be wrong here) where playes are forced to fight against game itself on regular basis. It's not a copy of Mordheim just as Infinity isn't a copy of Necromunda.

The wizard focus probably makes me less into it to be honest and I really like my six-sided dice. One of the things I liked about Mordheim was that magic wasn't a big part of it (why would a really powerful wizard be slumming it around an abandoned city with half a dozen low life's following him around?)

It's kind of like x-wing and Star Trek attack wing, I know they're both technically different games, but they're similar enough that sinking money into both doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you're spending power is limited.

Altsain
11-01-2016, 21:59
And I'm also convinced that the very few people that loves this game nowadays, does that juts because they have the "oooh shiny brand new" syndrome, and because all the hate it's receiving.

Do you really think so little of other people who engage in the same hobby as you?



What I still donīt understand why people who say they love AoS only want to play it with a point system or restrictions.

I don't get it either - but then, I don't need to. If that is the way they enjoy AoS, more power to them. They are obviously getting something from the game they feel they don't get elsewhere.

Mr. Ultra
11-01-2016, 22:02
Do you really think so little of other people who engage in the same hobby as you?

I... I don't get this sentence... Can you rephrase it into something more understandable?

Spiney Norman
11-01-2016, 22:10
What I still donīt understand why people who say they love AoS only want to play it with a point system or restrictions. Itīs to me as if a person says he likes chess but only with pawns and a king. Yes, one plays chess but it has almost nothing to do with the original chess.

I kind of think it's like people who play 40k but say things like 'no unbound armies' or 'no superheavies' or 'no allies' or 'one combined arms detachment only', sometimes those kind of limitations are necessary to get the game experience you want if the opponents you have around you don't share the same outlook on the game. I've played AoS with comp and without it and frankly it makes no difference really whether the game is enjoyable is largely a product of my attitude and my opponents and how they work together (or don't).

At our club tomorrow night we're starting a narrative campaign for AoS, the size of our armies won't be based on any kind of comp, they'll be based on the resources that we can generate in the campaign and the armies that we manage to build using those resources, it should be interesting.

Altsain
11-01-2016, 22:14
I... I don't get this sentence... Can you rephrase it into something more understandable?

You said you were convinced that the people who liked AoS did so because it was new/shiny and because it was getting hatred. It just seemed a very... bleak view.

Mr. Ultra
11-01-2016, 22:18
You said you were convinced that the people who liked AoS did so because it was new/shiny and because it was getting hatred. It just seemed a very... bleak view.

Sadly, English isn't my first language, so I still don't get what are you trying to say, aside from repeating the things I said.

Spiney Norman
11-01-2016, 22:42
Sadly, English isn't my first language, so I still don't get what are you trying to say, aside from repeating the things I said.

I think he was upset that you appeared to be saying that people only say they like AoS for reasons which have nothing to do with the merits of the game such as wanting to argue with other people.

Which is understandably offensive.

Melkanador
11-01-2016, 22:43
I know quite a lot of people who play AoS to whom 2. and 3. fit.

Edit:

This is anecdotical.

Anyone can like any game they want for whatever reasons.

Altsain
11-01-2016, 22:51
Sadly, English isn't my first language, so I still don't get what are you trying to say, aside from repeating the things I said.

No worries, we are probably talking at cross purposes

Mr. Ultra
11-01-2016, 22:57
I think he was upset that you appeared to be saying that people only say they like AoS for one of the following reasons

1. They are mentally ill
2. They are just pretending to like AoS so they can argue with other people
3. They have some kind of twisted brand loyalty to GW and won't try other games

Which is understandably offensive.

Wow, Spiney, talking about mental illness and such, I think that's really offensive, and since I never talked about that at all, youĄre putting those words in my mouth and I demand an apology. YouĄre dping your cause no favours with that attitude.

Spiney Norman
11-01-2016, 23:00
Wow, Spiney, talking about mental illness and such, I think that's really offensive, and since I never talked about that at all, youĄre putting those words in my mouth and I demand an apology. YouĄre dping your cause no favours with that attitude.

Duly retracted, that wasn't you, I apologise

EDIT: no actually it was you, the word 'syndrome' which you used indicates a medical disorder or illness, in the context you used it you were presumably referring to a hypothetical psychological disorder, at the very least you implied that AoS fans only liked the game because they couldn't think straight.

The point still stands that any sentence that begins 'people only say they like AoS because...' Is ultimately destined to cause offence.

zoggin-eck
12-01-2016, 00:03
More negative than before. Six months ago I was more bemused than negative.

I don't like the models, background or art. Rules are terribly uninspiring. I don't even mind the lack of points, it's just the mechanics themselves are so dull. Not a single "hook", a clever mechanic or cool activation or combat rule.

The "grab what you want and play a scenario" approach could even appeal to me if the release was handled better. Or, if they actually communicated and initially explained how the game could be played, as others have suggested. I'd love to try fun scenarios with no though as to whether it was a fair fight if the actual rules interested me. That, and if I cared for a moment about the setting or people (who are we saving by fighting Chaos?).

As it is, there are already dosens of games I want to get playing, with as many rulebooks sitting half-read at home or on the pc. AoS hasn't done anything to move up the list :)


Does frostgrave function similar to mordheim, with persistent characters who improve with time?
If it does, how well balanced are the factions?

Gotta be one of the most talked-about games from last year. I'd have a look at a dedicated forum or read a few blogs rather than ask randomly here.

http://www.lead-adventure.de/index.php?board=92.0

As said, for the price you may as well give it a go.


It's virtually identical to Mordheim, we had a Mordheim campaign running last year with around 12 players, but it was a nightmare to organise that many people to be there play games and the campaign dragged. There just isn't the will at our club to do something similar at the moment, and even if there was we'd probably just use the Mordheim rules again because they are functional, well-known and everyone has plenty of WFB models to use for their warband. That I have seen frostgrave has nothing really to commend itself over Mordheim in terms of its rules, other than perhaps for people who don't want to be seen to play a GW game.

Huh? What does your group's inability to organise games have to do with the rules? (Perhaps 12 players is too big anyway) Of course the Frostgrave rules are different (for better or worse, depending on what people like), along with the focus on magic. As for not wanting to be seen playing a GW game, most blogs I've read are from people still quite fond of GW, just happy to play other games out there, or are either a fan of Osprey or followed the games progress from the start, before they knew who would publish it.

They really are different games. Different activation, opposed d20 rolls instead of charts and re-rolls, generic pool of henchmen that are less character-like than Mordheim. Similar theme and look, different to play.



And continue with 5th ed for nostalgiahammer (much more fun than I remembered :))

Same for me. I spend too much time on oldhammer blogs/forums and started to believe that 4th/5th were the devil. Luckily I played it again for myself. :)



A French resistance type faction - this should probably be mostly human but can include other 'order' races. In a setting where chaos had all but won but where the tide may just seem to be changing this is an obvious step, would be really cool and would hopefully include fluff for your regular Joe's. We've seen a small amount of this in Black Library but we need more!

Good idea. They should have gone with this from the start. I'm sick of everyone waiting around for Sigmar's robots and space lizards to save the day. Some regular people fighting and looking to the skies would mean so much more.


So in 3.5 hours the results so far are over 70% Negative, so I'm going to assume as this is the way the last polls went, that very little has changed with regard to the reception of AoS.

I don't see why it would anyway. Six months on, we've really just seen more of the same.

GrandmasterWang
12-01-2016, 01:08
Ive not voted in this poll just like i haven't in the others. My position remains neutral.

The new Archaon and Dwarf (salamander) models are a positive however the outrageous prices and 'ur-gold' drop these releases back to neutral lol.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Geep
12-01-2016, 01:09
Still overwhelmingly negative.

They had a chance to bump me to mostly negative- some of the bits of various models I really like (though almost no complete models)- but those price tags! What a joke.

Darkspear
12-01-2016, 03:05
I vote slightly negative, because there are some good releases in the latest chaos, and dwarf wave. I like the Varanguard, and all the fyreslayers. The Gaunt summoned is of gd quality although not my cup of tea. A negative abt the miniatures is GW shooting themselves at the foot by pricing the minis beyond the range of many customers pockets.

Ruleswise there's no change so AoS still score low points for me there. I am a bit relieve that the old Warhammer units can still hold their ground against the new AoS units though. My initial fear is that the new stuff will be so overpowered that the old stuff had no chance. It turn out to be untrue....for now. To be fair, my grp's house rules for army composition could be the reason for this.

I am still upset that AoS is such a dramatic break from 8th ed fantasy, with the killing of the old world and pushing of round bases by GW. I am of the view that AoS should exists as a companion (skirmish version) to Warhammer as AoS feels too chunky for a mass battle (60+ miniatures ).

Ayin
12-01-2016, 03:09
I like the Varanguard, and all the fyreslayers.



A negative abt the miniatures is GW shooting themselves at the foot by pricing the minis beyond the range of many customers pockets.

I was going to ask you about the second part when I read the first, but you touch on it as well. Do you think you'd like the Varaguard if one of them had of been released as a $40 chaos Hero choice?



I am a bit relieve that the old Warhammer units can still hold their ground against the new AoS units though. My initial fear is that the new stuff will be so overpowered that the old stuff had no chance. It turn out to be untrue....for now.


Honestly, I can't imagine how this could possibly be an issue. Even if one Varanguard was as good as 20 Chaos Knights...there are no points, and no army composition. That disrupts the game just as much as one High Elf Swordmaster being better than one Goblin.

Dosiere
12-01-2016, 03:35
Duly retracted, that wasn't you, I apologise

EDIT: no actually it was you, the word 'syndrome' which you used indicates a medical disorder or illness, in the context you used it you were presumably referring to a hypothetical psychological disorder, at the very least you implied that AoS fans only liked the game because they couldn't think straight.

The point still stands that any sentence that begins 'people only say they like AoS because...' Is ultimately destined to cause offence.

Just because something is offensive doesn't make it untrue. You certainly have no issues making sweeping statements about people who don't like AoS. You certainly believe you know why people don't like AoS better than they do, maybe he is right as well.

malisteen
12-01-2016, 04:15
I personally would have purchased a single varanguard as a $35 hero choice, to use as a chaos lord in my 40k army. A box of two for 60 I wouldn't have purchased, but wouldn't have railed over, either. I bought morghasts at that price without complaint, and Varanguard are similar in size, detail, and narrative role within their faction.

So it's not so much the price per varanguard that bothers me, its the fact that GW is insisting you purchase them in boxes of three. As a player who buys models in US currency, there's something about hitting that third digit in price that makes a hobby product just extremely off putting, outside of massive centerpiece models like Archaon or Nagash.

Ayin
12-01-2016, 04:19
So it's not so much the price per varanguard that bothers me, its the fact that GW is insisting you purchase them in boxes of three. As a player who buys models in US currency, there's something about hitting that third digit in price that makes a hobby product just extremely off putting, outside of massive centerpiece models like Archaon or Nagash.

I can certainly understand this (there's a reason price points are set at .99 and it's backed up by science), but for a company that sells a set that is 3 boxes of Varaguard (and Archaon) for $560, I don't think they're concerned about putting the minimal purchase at 3 for over $100.

Lexington
12-01-2016, 07:35
Terrible gaming product, but it's done wonders for my local Infinity scene. :)

Spiney Norman
12-01-2016, 07:57
I personally would have purchased a single varanguard as a $35 hero choice, to use as a chaos lord in my 40k army. A box of two for 60 I wouldn't have purchased, but wouldn't have railed over, either. I bought morghasts at that price without complaint, and Varanguard are similar in size, detail, and narrative role within their faction.

So it's not so much the price per varanguard that bothers me, its the fact that GW is insisting you purchase them in boxes of three. As a player who buys models in US currency, there's something about hitting that third digit in price that makes a hobby product just extremely off putting, outside of massive centerpiece models like Archaon or Nagash.

That's actually not the worst thing about the Varanguard, it's that not only do they cost Ģ60 for three but the rules are written in such a way that most of their abilities only work if you also shell out Ģ100 for Archaon.

m1acca1551
12-01-2016, 08:41
AOS is still rubbish, total utter rubbish...

Complete destruction of WFB universe, poorly written rules, prices are still extreme and miniatures while some are good some are beginning to look weaker and weaker.

My gaming money has gone elsewhere.

2DSick
12-01-2016, 08:54
I knew this would've back around....

My feelings remain that it's a crap game rolled in glitter and over priced tripe. That is all.

Allen
12-01-2016, 11:11
You've voted mostly positive for something you describe as crap and admit is nowhere near as good as most of the other games available??? What would it take for you to vote negative?

Yeah, I voted mostly positive. GW always producted crappy wargames: even the supposedly beloved WHFB was a sub-par game compared to other rulesets. Their products, even if they are overpriced/badly developed/barely playtested are (more often than not) funny to play. It's like looking at a 80s action movie: it's not Oscar material, but it's nonethless entertaining to watch if you don't expect too much from it.

As I said, if I want to play a proper wargame GW wasn't and still isn't my first choice. If I want to play a funny game, their stuff is mostly good - including AoS, with all its limits. I understand that a lot of people literally hate AoS, but it's not my case - even if I'm able to see all its faults and issues. It's a very easy to play (and more or less entertaining) skirmish game. Nothing more, nothing less.

Ruront
12-01-2016, 13:41
Overwhelmingly Negative

It is the end of a mass battle game and replaced by a skirmisch game. The skirmisch game is nice as a skirmisch game, but not as a replacement of 8th

HelloKitty
12-01-2016, 13:51
It was the most fun i had with fantasy gaming in many years. For whatever that was worth. The need for every game to be serious business definitely gave me pause to consider other hobbies.

Spiney Norman
12-01-2016, 14:10
It was the most fun i had with fantasy gaming in many years.

I think this is the key thing for me too, a lot of folks continuously rant about the short-comings of AoS, and when you take all the hyperbole and hatred in many cases they have a point, the current background we have isn't exactly stellar and the rules a very stripped back and simplified, but despite those things, playing the game is still extremely fun, even when you don't win, which I'm sure will infuriate all those who decided they didn't like the game without trying it.

Okuto
12-01-2016, 14:51
Can't vote indifferent? ;)

I can't get angry at AoS anymore, it makes me tired and the more I play frostgrave the more I feel at peace. However I voted slightly negative, I feel like I've missed out on alot while I was under the Warhammer fantasy umbrella and its good for my sanity to just step off the train and look at AoS from a distance.

It's liberating to be free of GW for my fantasy themed gaming.

Buddy Bear
12-01-2016, 14:52
Wow, 80% negative. That's higher than the last couple of polls, I think.

75hastings69
12-01-2016, 14:56
Wow, 80% negative. That's higher than the last couple of polls, I think.

Yes but that doesn't mean anything, it's just the wrong people voting, the game is awesome :D

Drakkar du Chaos
12-01-2016, 15:04
Reaction 6 months on ? I'm less angry than before but i still think AoS is utterly crap.
Also i'm just bored with Pro-AoS non-sense, most of them are just delusional so i don't care anymore about what they have to say.

Pojko
12-01-2016, 15:05
Yes but that doesn't mean anything, it's just the wrong people voting, the game is awesome :D

Yup. All of the positive players are too busy playing AoS and having fun to be voting on a silly Warseer poll.

Still overwhelmingly negative for me. The background, rules, prices and nearly all of the models are bad in my opinion. The only cool things are the Blood Warriors who could make awesome Khorne Chosen, and the idea that there's a dude who can literally smack the Chaos out of someone with Ghal Maraz. But 1% good doesn't erase the 99% bad.

By the way, why is the background forum so dead in a game that's all about the narrative?

Buddy Bear
12-01-2016, 15:23
By the way, why is the background forum so dead in a game that's all about the narrative?

As surprised as I was to learn this, the supposedly narrative players who would gravitate to AOS don't actually care about the narrative of AOS. I guess much in the same way that they don't care about the rules of AOS, given how many of them just write their own rules.

Comrade Penguin
12-01-2016, 15:27
Overwhelmingly negative: For reasons discussed ad nauseam.

But I have a new one to reinvigorate my dislike, the death of a local gaming community. I visit several stores in my area, and one of those stores had a very healthy Warhammer fantasy group. This group was the largest group at this store, and their Warhammer nights and tournaments were well attended.

Now this group is dead. There was some talk of switching over to KOW but that has been a slow movement at best. For the most part players have just drifted away.

This same thing happened to my 40k group around the beginning of 7th edition. We used to get a packed house with multiple 40k games going on at once. Now it is a ghost town unless you want to play magic or xwing.

So I am more bitter at GW for putting out crap games and ruining communities.

malisteen
12-01-2016, 15:31
That's actually not the worst thing about the Varanguard, it's that not only do they cost Ģ60 for three but the rules are written in such a way that most of their abilities only work if you also shell out Ģ100 for Archaon.

This doesn't bother me as much. I would not have been bitter if the morghasts got specific bonuses when fielded alongside Nagash, for instance. That actually might have been pretty cool. Hey, GW, if you're listening (haha), pls give me a "Nagash + Archai + Harbingers" formation.

Drakkar du Chaos
12-01-2016, 15:34
Yup. All of the positive players are too busy playing AoS and having fun to be voting on a silly Warseer poll.

Still overwhelmingly negative for me. The background, rules, prices and nearly all of the models are bad in my opinion. The only cool things are the Blood Warriors who could make awesome Khorne Chosen, and the idea that there's a dude who can literally smack the Chaos out of someone with Ghal Maraz. But 1% good doesn't erase the 99% bad.

By the way, why is the background forum so dead in a game that's all about the narrative?

Exactly ! I've done it :

http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2015/44/1446393205-kao.jpg

It looks nice but it's an horror to rank them, i need to magnetize them and put a number on the base.

Kahadras
12-01-2016, 16:35
By the way, why is the background forum so dead in a game that's all about the narrative?

Because people too busy trying to forge their own narrative? I mean GW has put almost zero effort into the AoS background so there's nothing really to talk about. It's why the tactics forum is pretty much dead as well. People whine about 'AoS hate' but I'm pretty sure if they asked for pro AoS posts only (like the AoS friendly thread in Warhammer general discussion) I'm sure most of the people who weren't fans of AoS would respect that.

CrystalSphere
12-01-2016, 16:39
I voted overwhelming positive, now the main reason is...

because i misread and clicked too fast.
I meant negative :P

Skargit Crookfang
12-01-2016, 17:17
For those who have read the lore of AoS, some questions:
-What are the realm's economies looking like?
-Are there classes, trades, common folk? - and if so, what does their day to day look like in these realms?
-Are there any integrated political systems and/or governmental hierarchies defined within any of the societies?
-Apart from the space lizard imaginatoriums and refried...I mean...reforged SCE's, what does the demographics and population proliferation look like?
-What are the goals of the societies, in question, within each of these realms?

I'm not trying to troll, I really don't know. Haven't taken the time to read too much of the lore as it all seemed a little bit...FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT within no reprise.

I hope there's more... I mean, how can a fantastical hero and his/her loyal followers stand out in a setting when everyone is level 99?

ScruffMan
12-01-2016, 17:22
For those who have read the lore of AoS, some questions:
-What are the realm's economies looking like?
-Are there classes, trades, common folk? - and if so, what does their day to day look like in these realms?
-Are there any integrated political systems and/or governmental hierarchies defined within any of the societies?
-Apart from the space lizard imaginatoriums and refried...I mean...reforged SCE's, what does the demographics and population proliferation look like?
-What are the goals of the societies, in question, within each of these realms?

I'm not trying to troll, I really don't know. Haven't taken the time to read too much of the lore as it all seemed a little bit...FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT within no reprise.

I hope there's more... I mean, how can a fantastical hero and his/her loyal followers stand out in a setting when everyone is level 99?

From the areas we have read about the economies are largely brutal feudal at best, usually slaved based. The forces of Chaos are not kind. Of course this can differ. There is the odd city or area mentioned that is still holding out against Chaos but they have not really been visited, just mentioned in passing.

I suppose the goal of the societies would depend on the whim of the Chaos Overlords, things are pretty brutal in the areas we have visited.

So far the fluff has been pretty much solely a background for the models and the battles, any thing else we get is largely personal and character based, usually from a Chaos or Stormcast pov.

I don't think it's as bad as FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT, though I do see where you're coming from.

Edit - just to say I haven't listened to the realm of death audio dramas, they may add more.

Skargit Crookfang
12-01-2016, 17:25
From the areas we have read about the economies are largely brutal feudal at best, usually slaved based. The forces of Chaos are not kind. Of course this can differ. There is the odd city or area mentioned that is still holding out against Chaos but they have not really been visited, just mentioned in passing.

I suppose the goal of the societies would depend on the whim of the Chaos Overlords, things are pretty brutal in the areas we have visited.

So far the fluff has been pretty much solely a background for the models and the battles, any thing else we get is largely personal and character based, usually from a Chaos or Stormcast pov.

I don't think it's as bad as FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT, though I do see where you're coming from.

Edit - just to say I haven't listened to the realm of death audio dramas, they may add more.


So, similar agriculture and industrialization to the old world?

I really do hope they flesh out the societies, if that is the case, as I wouldn't mind reading a book or two if they juxtapose the fantastic with the mundane.

ScruffMan
12-01-2016, 17:30
So, similar agriculture and industrialization to the old world?

I really do hope they flesh out the societies, if that is the case, as I wouldn't mind reading a book or two if they juxtapose the fantastic with the mundane.

Well these societies would not hold up in real life, a ruling caste who goes out every day and commits mass genocide amongst its populace would run into trouble sooner or later. So probably more backward, yet due to Chaos and magic (go to justification) technology is in some ways further ahead.

I'd hold off on purchasing if you are waiting for a real mix of fantastic and mundane though, it may be coming but probably only when a regular human faction is released. Whenever that may be.

Coldhatred
12-01-2016, 19:06
Overwhelmingly negative on background, overall aesthetic, and prices.

Smooth Boy
12-01-2016, 19:08
I've mellowed a bit but it's still overwhelmingly negative, I guess that shows how much I hated it when it first came out. I'll never play it but I'm still happy to play 40K while the getting is good before it gets an AoSing. I think bringing back specialists and handing over SBG to FW has improved my opinion overall but what a disaster all this has been.

Avian
12-01-2016, 19:25
Wow, 80% negative. That's higher than the last couple of polls, I think.
It's currently at 79% negative, which is the exact same as last time.

2DSick
12-01-2016, 20:41
Because it hasn't got any better XD

Comrade Penguin
12-01-2016, 21:05
I think a good take away from these polls is that there are still many vets that are very displeased with this release, and AOS has pulled in relatively few new players to this forum (and every other forum).

HelloKitty
12-01-2016, 21:23
Not that i know that it matters but on every pro aos group im on, this site is listed as one to avoid like nurgles rot if you are a fan seeking positive discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

MagicAngle
12-01-2016, 21:33
Makes sense. Too many gotcha questions like, "can you give me the faintest idea about the background to AoS"?

HelloKitty
12-01-2016, 22:13
Thats not really a gotcha question to anybody that has read any of the books or audio dramas they put out.

In fact there was a lively and active thread on that very subject over the weekend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ScruffMan
12-01-2016, 22:17
Thats not really a gotcha question to anybody that has read any of the books or audio dramas they put out.

In fact there was a lively and active thread on that very subject over the weekend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the decision they made for us to take the journey with the Stormcasts to discover the realms over time was a controversial one. I quite like it but its a massive shakeup from the approaches they have previously used.

Morathi's Darkest Sin
12-01-2016, 22:21
Although as a counter point, taking facebook as an example, you'd be hard pressed to find a GW themed group that doesn't seem to look down upon forums such as Seer and Dakka, not that it bothers me, but the attitude is pretty common. So they generally tell folks to avoid the forums anyway.

HelloKitty
12-01-2016, 22:28
I think the decision they made for us to take the journey with the Stormcasts to discover the realms over time was a controversial one. I quite like it but its a massive shakeup from the approaches they have previously used.

Theres a slayer book coming next week :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Samsonov
12-01-2016, 22:29
Mostly negative. Positives are some of okay models, a few excellent ones, free rules and the starter set is reasonable value. Negatives have been listed so many times. Compared to WFB, and especially compared to what other manufacturers offer, it compares very badly.

HelloKitty
12-01-2016, 22:29
Although as a counter point, taking facebook as an example, you'd be hard pressed to find a GW themed group that doesn't seem to look down upon forums such as Seer and Dakka, not that it bothers me, but the attitude is pretty common. So they generally tell folks to avoid the forums anyway.

Sure. But that was in response to no new positive posters landing here to vote differently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lexington
12-01-2016, 22:32
For those who have read the lore of AoS, some questions:
To be fair to AoS (never thought I'd use that phrase...), these aren't really the right questions to ask - they make some pretty big assumptions about what does and does not make a quality setting. You can have low-civ or post-apocalyptic settings that couldn't answer these questions very well, or it could be like the original Star Wars, where the POV is intentionally left very narrow, and much of the setting is merely hinted at. There's lots of ways to build a good fictional world.

AoS' setting isn't awful because it doesn't fit a particular mold, it's awful because it's soulless. It's dumb drek punched together by corporate drones with nothing to it besides a naked desire to move product. That's enough to condemn it by.

Khaines Wrath
12-01-2016, 22:48
Not that i know that it matters but on every pro aos group im on, this site is listed as one to avoid like nurgles rot if you are a fan seeking positive discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Personally I find the atmosphere of Warseer far friendlier than Facebook community pages. Every group I've belonged to whether it be a Simpsons fan page, a Pokemon fan page or a Monster Hunter community page it all turns to poison.

But I could understand to a degree why AoS fans would want to go elsewhere for discussion. I still retain the fact though that for people who want non debate on the subject the AoS fans only page is still to this day unmarked by the terrible Warseerite hordes.

For me it would just be a matter of traffic which is why I go to FFG to discuss X Wing.

HelloKitty
12-01-2016, 22:56
Oh theres plenty of debate on the aos groups. Plenty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Spiney Norman
12-01-2016, 23:31
Personally I find the atmosphere of Warseer far friendlier than Facebook community pages. Every group I've belonged to whether it be a Simpsons fan page, a Pokemon fan page or a Monster Hunter community page it all turns to poison.

But I could understand to a degree why AoS fans would want to go elsewhere for discussion. I still retain the fact though that for people who want non debate on the subject the AoS fans only page is still to this day unmarked by the terrible Warseerite hordes.

For me it would just be a matter of traffic which is why I go to FFG to discuss X Wing.

I think the AoS Facebook pages have developed a more positive and cohesive feel than other fb groups primarily because AoS fans are not welcome on forums like Warseer. Persecution brings its own sense of unity and solidarity.

Herzlos
12-01-2016, 23:44
Oh theres plenty of debate on the aos groups. Plenty.

Can you share any links?

Herzlos
12-01-2016, 23:47
I think the AoS Facebook pages have developed a more positive and cohesive feel than other fb groups primarily because AoS fans are not welcome on forums like Warseer. Persecution brings its own sense of unity and solidarity.

AoS fans are welcome on Warseer, no-one has any personal problem with them. It's just most people don't on Warseer don't like the actual game.

Zywus
13-01-2016, 00:00
I think the AoS Facebook pages have developed a more positive and cohesive feel than other fb groups primarily because AoS fans are not welcome on forums like Warseer. Persecution brings its own sense of unity and solidarity.
Oh, come on:rolleyes:
You have passed into parody mode at this point.

Katastrophe
13-01-2016, 00:52
I think the AoS Facebook pages have developed a more positive and cohesive feel than other fb groups primarily because AoS fans are not welcome on forums like Warseer. Persecution brings its own sense of unity and solidarity.

Persecution, really. Wow.

Firstly, no one has threatened to harm anyone that likes AoS. Mostly, aside from snarky comments and some sarcastically snide remarks, most people disagree with your and others reasons as to why you claim AoS is a good game.

No one has claimed that AoS can't be fun. I pointed out long ago that I COULD have fun playing a game of AoS like I do Monopoly, Uno and Candyland with my kid and spouse. Nonetheless, that has little to do with the merits of those games.

What people argue about on here are blanket statements like AoS is great and innovative and the best game GW has ever produced. It leads to intellectually dishonest "conversation" and hyperbole. Most people would like to have an honest conversation about the merits of AoS KoW 9th and whatever else but the devolution of conversation quickly occurs when there are statements like "persecution" or whining about false comparisons or giant straw men (I won't say either side is innocent but from my view AoS fans resort to it very quickly). Also, stick to real information. I can't count the number of times people have just made stuff up or totally misrepresented information to "make their argument" (i.e. WFB was not profitable or that it lost money - an assertion for which there is zero support and that's been consistently debunked by people that have been very reliable)

These discussions unfortunately remind me of TV and Talk Radio politics where both sides are like Fox and MSNBC talking heads that dare not concede any point (regardless of things called facts) which is a real shame since the actual discussions tend to quickly fall apart.

I don't think AoS is a good game at all. That's my opinion and I can give reasons that I feel that it's not a good game. If you disagree I don't take that as a personal attack against me (to each his own - someone thinks tic-tac-toe is intellectually challenging).

More importantly, AoS is not a game I want to play because it's not a game of ranks and files with tactical movement that represents two predetermined but relatively "equal" forces facing off in neutrally balanced conditions (if I want to play small force skirmish I can play 40K which is a far better game, and that's saying something as it's not very good either) and never will be without being a different game altogether.

However, I can admit and have admitted that there were some good ideas in the game but horribly implemented in the context of all the bad that went into developing the game.

If people want honest discussion, give honest discussion. Makes it easier for everyone.

HelloKitty
13-01-2016, 01:01
Can you share any links?

If you're on facebook simply type in Age of Sigmar. You'll get a lot of hits, and a couple have over 2k people in it. Those would be the ones.

Khaines Wrath
13-01-2016, 02:28
I think the AoS Facebook pages have developed a more positive and cohesive feel than other fb groups primarily because AoS fans are not welcome on forums like Warseer. Persecution brings its own sense of unity and solidarity.

There's that p word again.

Don't worry I'm sure you will find your promised land. Maybe try roaming a desert for 40 years:rolleyes:

75hastings69
13-01-2016, 05:06
.....By the way, why is the background forum so dead in a game that's all about the narrative?

Indeed, a good question.

Scribe of Khorne
13-01-2016, 05:12
Overwhelmingly Negative.

Its actually WORSE than that. 6 months on, my whole local scene dried up, nothing is moving in the local shop, nothing is being sold, everyone has moved on to MTG or even DnD, nobody even plays 40K, even Heresy gaming is dead and gone.

Comically, amazingly, horrible impact on our community, and its all thanks to AoS DISGUSTING the local players.

Khaines Wrath
13-01-2016, 05:23
I've heard nothing but bad reports from friends. A friend in the city reports that around the time AoS dropped they annually had 45-50 players at their games days. 3 months in...11. Last week...4 people...primarily the tournament organisers.

Voss
13-01-2016, 06:11
Still trash rules, still trash models, still trash background. Heck, sometimes (a third of the time!) GW can't even be bothered to do models to support this 'amazing' new 'game'.

Sharkbelly
13-01-2016, 06:47
Very simple and accessible rules, excellent models (although not to everyone's taste, obviously) and a very interesting but not-yet-developed world.

ElOrso
13-01-2016, 07:32
Overwhelmingly negative, the rules are unplayable for my group & me as we like to butcher each other and outsmart the others when building a list. Impossible with AOS (for us) and the general consensus for our group, AOS = kids game.

I never cared about the models that much, for me the game/rules are what's important. I don't see how a nice sculpt makes AOS a better game... .

We have all moved away from GW and mostly play Frostgrave now.

mdauben
13-01-2016, 07:46
Very simple and accessible rules,
Overall I don't care for them but I'll admit they do have some good points. They seem to handle low model count games well. They do allows more flexibility for the players (which can be a two-edged sword, depending on the players).


excellent models (although not to everyone's taste, obviously)
We have a somewhat limited range of examples of true AoS models so far, but my thoughts:

Stormcast - despite the obvious heavy influence of 40K SMs I actually liked the figures in the starter box. I was a bit let down in the lack of visual variety in succeeding releases resulting in a rather monotonous army.

Bloodbound - I admit that (with a couple of exceptions) I've never been a big fan of the GW chaos aesthetic and theses are no different.

Archaeon - despite the criticism of this figure, I actually like it. A very impressive model. It's just too bad it costs so much.

Fyreslayers - disappointing to say the least. I was actually excited by the hints of "fire dwarfs" in the early fluff but these Slayer retreads were a missed opportunity, IMO. At least the big lizard is kind of cool.


a very interesting but not-yet-developed world.
Leaving aside personal preference for a reality based fantasy world (like WFB) or an OTT fantasy world (like AoS), I think AoS has the *potential* to be an exciting setting, but to date much of the writing has failed that potential.


From a Galaxy far, far away...

ElOrso
13-01-2016, 09:49
@Spiney Norman: We switched to Frostgrave and not Mordheim because i wouldn't know where to buy Mordheim. I assume GW killed it like WHFB somewhere in the past, i cannot find anything on their website?
On top of this we just needed to buy a 15€ rulebook as we could use our existing model collections, i doubt the entry cost for Mordheim would be this low.

For me another strength of Frostgrave is the fact that updates/expansions come regularly and are priced nicely. Thaw of the Lich Lord was about 10€ with some great content. We will see a new expansion 'Sellsword' next week (20jan) containing a new captain character that will also level to some extend, the price of this will be even less from what i understand. I heared 2 more are planned later this year.
On the lead-adventure forum you are also able to discuss with the developer directly, which is great when you have rule questions or even ideas on how to improve. You can ask about the intent of the open game setting, where the game is going to go, how he sees the game, ... . A relief when you compare that to the brick wall that represents GW's customer communication.

The game is not perfect, there are some balance issue's (e.g offensive mages vs other mages in terms of XP / ranged soldiers are too cheap / ... ) but in general every campaign we play we have a lot of fun and are able to satisfy our competitive nature. :skull:

Spiney Norman
13-01-2016, 09:57
@Spiney Norman: We switched to Frostgrave and not Mordheim because i wouldn't know where to buy Mordheim. I assume GW killed it like WHFB somewhere in the past, i cannot find anything on their website?
On top of this we just needed to buy a 15€ rulebook as we could use our existing model collections, i doubt the entry cost for Mordheim would be this low.

For me another strength of Frostgrave is the fact that updates/expansions come regularly and are priced nicely. Thaw of the Lich Lord was about 10€ with some great content. We will see a new expansion 'Sellsword' next week (20jan) containing a new captain character that will also level to some extend, the price of this will be even less from what i understand. I heared 2 more are planned later this year.
On the lead-adventure forum you are also able to discuss with the developer directly, which is great when you have rule questions or even ideas on how to improve. You can ask about the intent of the open game setting, where the game is going to go, how he sees the game, ... . A relief when you compare that to the brick wall that represents GW's customer communication.

The game is not perfect, there are some balance issue's (e.g offensive mages vs other mages in terms of XP / ranged soldiers are too cheap / ... ) but in general every campaign we play we have a lot of fun and are able to satisfy our competitive nature. :skull:

Seems fair, Mordheim rules are a free pdf download and likewise you can use you're existing model collections to build your warbands, many of the original WFB races had a warband written for them at some stage. I think it's interesting that the continuous rolling campaign with evolving warbands format is coming back around again, most of what we play are stand alone games still.

ElOrso
13-01-2016, 10:11
Seems fair, Mordheim rules are a free pdf download and likewise you can use you're existing model collections to build your warbands, many of the original WFB races had a warband written for them at some stage. I think it's interesting that the continuous rolling campaign with evolving warbands format is coming back around again, most of what we play are stand alone games still.

Cool, do you have a link by any chance?

We used to play stand alone games , but games go quite fast in Frostgrave , so we can usually play 2-3 games in the same time it took us to do one 2000vs2000pts WHFB game. So it's easy to simply connect the games in the open campaign system in Frostgrave.
Stand alone games don't really work for Frostgrave i think, what's the point of opening a few treasures if you can't use the contents in the next game. :-)

I would suggest to give it a go if you liked Mordheim. It's fairly new & young, but has potential in my eyes.

Spiney Norman
13-01-2016, 10:14
Cool, do you have a link by any chance?

We used to play stand alone games , but games go quite fast in Frostgrave , so we can usually play 2-3 games in the same time it took us to do one 2000vs2000pts WHFB game. So it's easy to simply connect the games in the open campaign system in Frostgrave.
Stand alone games don't really work for Frostgrave i think, what's the point of opening a few treasures if you can't use the contents in the next game. :-)

I would suggest to give it a go if you liked Mordheim. It's fairly new & young, but has potential in my eyes.

Here are a couple you could look at

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?339889-Mordheim-PDFs

http://www.mordheimer.com/downloads/downloads.htm

Tzen
13-01-2016, 11:10
It's a real shame it turned out the way it did. I have been wanting a Skirmish-based WHFB (i.e. 40k but in a fantasy setting) game for so long, that I was hoping this would be it. AoS isn't it, but it could have been.

I know they say they are a miniatures company first, and most people don't play the games. And I consider myself to be a painter first, and a gamer second. However I buy models and paint them based on the game. I want a good background, a good rules setting and a relatively solid system of army composition. It's only then do I look at the cool models and then decide to buy and paint them. Even if I play once a year, I still wont buy a model if the system surrounding it doesn't support my purchase.

I really believe that I am not the only person who thinks this way, especially as a painter.

The whole game strikes me as sterile. As if it had been designed quite literally by an accountant because that's what they think is what sells.

I have really tried so hard to get into the game, but I have no idea what is going on either with the rules or in the background. What exactly are we meant to be fighting for? There is no jeopardy to anything. There's no farmers or villagers to defend. Anything that dies seems to have some magic way to come back to life and fight more. And for what? Everyone in the game's "world" is an idiot. I don't know where Sigmar is recruiting the storm cast eternals from. We have heard nothing about the low level people of the game, and by all accounts there aren't any. Chaos killed em all ages ago.

Allen
13-01-2016, 11:28
It's a real shame it turned out the way it did. I have been wanting a Skirmish-based WHFB (i.e. 40k but in a fantasy setting) game for so long, that I was hoping this would be it. AoS isn't it, but it could have been

Using Frostgrave in the old Warhammer setting shouldn't be so difficult. It's just a matter of houseruling very few bits...I don't understand why rules and settings seems to be so interlocked for a lot of gamers. Even extremely different rulesets-settings could be conciled with very little effort: you could use Ambush Alley's Tomorrow War rulebook to play WH40K games, for example.

Tzen
13-01-2016, 12:17
Obviously I would play with any rule set, but the difficulty is consensus for people.

Locally that's fine, use the rules you have all agreed to use. But it makes pick up games more difficult. Also if you are investing a fair bit of money into a miniature, you expect to be able to use it. The point is really more the product as a whole. You aren't just selling a miniature to a random collector, you are selling all of your game as a whole.

NoobLord
13-01-2016, 12:18
Cool, do you have a link by any chance?


Yaktribe is a great community for Necromunda and to a lesser extent Mordheim:

https://yaktribe.org/community/

Herzlos
14-01-2016, 09:27
If you're on facebook simply type in Age of Sigmar. You'll get a lot of hits, and a couple have over 2k people in it. Those would be the ones.

I'll have a look. I'm only on a local one (i.e. Age Of Sigmar Scotland) and it's had 2 posts since November; 1 trying to arrange a game (no response) and 1 trying to sell some WHFB stuff (no response). Maybe others are more lively.

aprilmanha
14-01-2016, 09:42
We had a couple of people try to generate interest in AOS here at the local Club, but it died out quickly and everyone went back to other games.
Dropzone commander seems to have picked up hugely over christmas though which surprised me!

DarkChaplain
15-01-2016, 22:25
I have yet to read a story put out by Black Library that can convince me that the Age of Sigmar setting has merit. The best stories so far are those almost entirely disconnected from Age of Sigmar, so that they could have almost been set in the Old World. There is nothing for me to take real interest in at this point, nor anything to connect with.

What a terrible job those designers did...

Ayin
15-01-2016, 23:41
There is nothing for me to take real interest in at this point, nor anything to connect with.


Unfortunately the setting is EXTREMELY limited right now as little of it has any real description and the various races, forces and factions operating within that area are almost wholly unknown. Unless they're willing to publish books about groups and races that don't have models or a purchaseable background book yet (which they aren't, because their entire release strategy is built on "Surprise!"), that means they're EXTREMELY limited on content.

Of course, it does mean that almost all of the content released early on (arguably when it's most important to release content and do world-building) will focus around the brand new faction which the entire game is built around and which the company has seemingly bet the entire product line on being a success, so, assuming it would be, their decision makes a lot of sense.

Spiney Norman
16-01-2016, 00:15
Unfortunately the setting is EXTREMELY limited right now as little of it has any real description and the various races, forces and factions operating within that area are almost wholly unknown. Unless they're willing to publish books about groups and races that don't have models or a purchaseable background book yet (which they aren't, because their entire release strategy is built on "Surprise!"), that means they're EXTREMELY limited on content.

Of course, it does mean that almost all of the content released early on (arguably when it's most important to release content and do world-building) will focus around the brand new faction which the entire game is built around and which the company has seemingly bet the entire product line on being a success, so, assuming it would be, their decision makes a lot of sense.

To be clear, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, I understand why they are doing it because of their current thinking and sales policy, but only insofar as their current thinking and sales policies make absolutely no sense.

Ayin
16-01-2016, 03:27
It makes total sense.

The sum total of all things in their previous product line (Fantasy) saw a return which was less than what they thought they could achieve with a newly designed product (Age of Sigmar), the significant difference between the two being the introduction of a new product line/faction. So, if the new faction is supposed to bring the new line above the old, then everything early on is going to be focused on them. After all, if stories about human cities, Elves, Dwarves and Orcs fighting Chaos and Vampires, along with books containing information about them and their societies, sold what GW felt they should, then they wouldn't have gone through all the trouble of creating a new product to replace it all.

Or course, that only works out for them if in the short term the launch of the new faction is more profitable than the launch of any of the previous factions, and if the launch of the new game inspires consumer confidence to ALSO invest in old products in a greater quantity than they would have had the game they were designed for remained in production.

As to whether that hope is turning into reality...There's absolutely no reason to think that the launch has worked out the way GW wanted considering any and all available evidence from any source, but I suppose the answer is always going to be "We can't be sure".

DarkChaplain
16-01-2016, 19:06
Didn't sales drop around 15% this half-year, which was about the amount that WHFB contributed to their overall sales? Oops.

Asmodios
16-01-2016, 20:15
Didn't sales drop around 15% this half-year, which was about the amount that WHFB contributed to their overall sales? Oops.
Yeah but they made up for it by licensing out the IP of the old world and were just able to break even. Its a good thing the old world is around for this next fiscal year so game developers can continue to expand on its rich lore. It would be a shame if something were to happen to the old world ;)

Dosiere
16-01-2016, 20:23
Total War Warhammer better be awesome.

Asmodios
16-01-2016, 20:59
Total War Warhammer better be awesome.
I was really looking forward to it and might still pick it up. Something about the world its in not existing anymore really bugs me though. GW really should have just done multiple universes like many other companies have. One universe where The end times blew up the wold and another where chaos was defeated and while the map changed due to the war everything vets of the game really loved was still there. I think it was Buddy Bear that suggested in one thread that Chaos could be pushed back and pursued into the chaos realm allowing a word like AOS and WHFB to exist at the same time. Any of these would have been a far better move then ending the world.

GrandmasterWang
16-01-2016, 22:02
I was really looking forward to it and might still pick it up. Something about the world its in not existing anymore really bugs me though. GW really should have just done multiple universes like many other companies have. One universe where The end times blew up the wold and another where chaos was defeated and while the map changed due to the war everything vets of the game really loved was still there. I think it was Buddy Bear that suggested in one thread that Chaos could be pushed back and pursued into the chaos realm allowing a word like AOS and WHFB to exist at the same time. Any of these would have been a far better move then ending the world.
They might still do something like this. Gw does like their Retcons after all.

It will be interesting to see if GW matches the release of Total War Warhammer with some kind of release of their own. It would be smart of them to release a tie-in when the game drops which is why they might not do it :)

As far as licensed games Total War is huge. Gw have just released a custom Imperial Knight to tie in with the much lower budget Imperial Knight game which got released. We shall see if they release anything when the 'big' game comes.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Kahadras
16-01-2016, 23:01
It will be interesting to see if GW matches the release of Total War Warhammer with some kind of release of their own. It would be smart of them to release a tie-in when the game drops which is why they might not do it

Shame they didn't do the same for Bloodbowl and Mordheim.

Holier Than Thou
16-01-2016, 23:14
Just over 80% negative. Oh dear.

stortotta
16-01-2016, 23:21
I have yet to see ONE good thing (in my opinion, ofc...) related to AoS. Overwhelmingly negative.

Ayin
17-01-2016, 00:17
Yeah but they made up for it by licensing out the IP of the old world and were just able to break even. Its a good thing the old world is around for this next fiscal year so game developers can continue to expand on its rich lore. It would be a shame if something were to happen to the old world ;)

This is hilariously accurate.


Total War Warhammer better be awesome.

I'm really hoping it's on the better side of the Total War releases. I'm so psyched for it that it's likely to be the first PC game I've bought in YEARS.


I have yet to see ONE good thing (in my opinion, ofc...) related to AoS. Overwhelmingly negative.

Depends on how you measure it and what matters to you. If you're a 40k fan, despite all the fear in that community that 40k is going to get an AoS treatment, the apparent significant failure of that line to in any way improve sales despite the investment into it (and the reasonable conclusion that it is in fact doing worse than the product it replaced) means that 40k is likely much safer from getting that treatment than it would have been had AoS had positive results for the company.

Tupinamba
17-01-2016, 00:43
I still hate it.

For destroying Warhammer Fantasy. But also because itīs a terrible wargame. With a terrible background and IMO quite mediocre to bad miniatures. Donīt like the stormcast marines. Despise the "not-dwarves" and even the Khorne guys look strange to me (with exceptions). Itīs actually a CAD thing that started before AoS, but I canīt say I find most of the new miniature appealing. Plus the ever increasing prices.

AoS has put me off as GW customer and I was a pretty loyal one with regular hobby expenses. Even with 9th age appearing to give fantasy mass battle gaming more drive again, Iīm definitely not buying any GW miniatures anymore. There are more than enough high quality, better priced alternatives for most stuff and for the things I didnīt get and canīt get a replacement now, alas. I have diversified my gaming a lot and donīt need to have all the options in existence for my fantasy armies.

JoV
17-01-2016, 07:16
My opinion hasn't changed. AoS releases are stupidly expensive in Australia, and whilst I wouldn't mind picking up the odd release here or there to paint, whilst they remain stupidly expensive, my opinion will continue to be overwhelmingly negative, and I will go on spending my money elsewhere.

Herzlos
17-01-2016, 08:16
Using Frostgrave in the old Warhammer setting shouldn't be so difficult. It's just a matter of houseruling very few bits...I don't understand why rules and settings seems to be so interlocked for a lot of gamers. Even extremely different rulesets-settings could be conciled with very little effort: you could use Ambush Alley's Tomorrow War rulebook to play WH40K games, for example.

I don't know if you'd have to house rule anything to set in in the Warhammer World; everything boils down to a character class anyway, and I've seen warbands from most Warhammer factions (I'm using the Hobbit starter set as the basis of a Dwarf warband too). Sure, there's no rules for mounts, warmachines and things like dragons (there are demons though), but they don't really fit into the scale of the game anyway.

Avian
17-01-2016, 10:02
While this poll looks like it might just squeak its way past half the number of votes as the last one, it has some bright spots. If you are an AoS lover, you can maybe find some pleasure in the fact that around half the voters lost since last time comes from the "overwhelmingly negative" category. ;)

ScruffMan
17-01-2016, 13:34
While this poll looks like it might just squeak its way past half the number of votes as the last one, it has some bright spots. If you are an AoS lover, you can maybe find some pleasure in the fact that around half the voters lost since last time comes from the "overwhelmingly negative" category. ;)

What comfort can I take from that avian, what does it all mean? ;)

malisteen
17-01-2016, 15:18
The comfort you can take is that it might mean that some of the people who hate Age of Sigmar are starting to move on with their lives and just play other games that they actually like more, rather than dedicate their time to searching out every single Age of Sigmar related thread they can find to express their dislike of the game. Eventually, one might even be able to discuss the game without having to have an argument about it.

Probably around the time the game is cancelled outright, but w/e.

ScruffMan
17-01-2016, 15:19
Haha, not a great deal of comfort really then. :P

2DSick
17-01-2016, 15:53
The comfort you can take is that it might mean that some of the people who hate Age of Sigmar are starting to move on with their lives and just play other games that they actually like more, rather than dedicate their time to searching out every single Age of Sigmar related thread they can find to express their dislike of the game. Eventually, one might even be able to discuss the game without having to have an argument about it.

Probably around the time the game is cancelled outright, but w/e.

Making that kind of call in an opinion thread is a bit... Well... Out of place.

Personally I have moved on to other games. 9th age is just one of those and there is 9the age discussion on this forum. I leave the AoS threads alone but this is an open opinion poll so don't be surprised when folk like us throw our 2p in. I'll reiterate that the most agressive are certain supporters who then play the victim after retorts.

This isn't the "positive reactions to AoS Only" thread, is it?

Avian
17-01-2016, 16:33
The comfort you can take is that it might mean that some of the people who hate Age of Sigmar are starting to move on with their lives and just play other games that they actually like more, rather than dedicate their time to searching out every single Age of Sigmar related thread they can find to express their dislike of the game. Eventually, one might even be able to discuss the game without having to have an argument about it.
My comment was actually a joke. The reason why so many of the 'Overwhelmingly negative' voters have left is simply because that's the biggest group of voters. In fact, that group of voters went down by a smaller percentage than all other groups except one.

In reality, the positive and negative groups have both lost about half of the voters, and for both groups there is a slight shift towards the 'Overwhelmingly positive / negative' view and away from the more neutral ones. We're trending towards two extremely positive people arguing with about twenty extremely negative people (and if you read the threads on this topic, you might get the impression that we're there already ;) ).

malisteen
17-01-2016, 16:47
I was responding to a particular comment asking why a falling rate of negative responses, even with no increasing rate of positive responses, might be some comfort to AoS fans. And also why it might not be.

akai
17-01-2016, 16:49
While this poll looks like it might just squeak its way past half the number of votes as the last one, it has some bright spots. If you are an AoS lover, you can maybe find some pleasure in the fact that around half the voters lost since last time comes from the "overwhelmingly negative" category. ;)

The chart does not track change of opinion, which I assume majority of people's opinions are pretty set on AoS? I think the chart shows also a lost of half the voters that voted positive previously too (since the last time you made a post)! So I guess that is a bright spot for some of the AoS haters ;).


In reality, the positive and negative groups have both lost about half of the voters, and for both groups there is a slight shift towards the 'Overwhelmingly positive / negative' view and away from the more neutral ones. We're trending towards two extremely positive people arguing with about twenty extremely negative people (and if you read the threads on this topic, you might get the impression that we're there already ;) ).

I think the more sensible people (usually those with less intense hatred or love for the game) will just find greener pastures that is more to their liking than the Warhammer Fantasy general forum.

Avian
17-01-2016, 18:30
I would guess that most people's opinions haven't changed since four months ago, no.

Amusingly, the number of 'Overwhelmingly positive / negative' votes are almost exactly the same on this poll (#4) as on the first one - it's 21 vs 17 and 136 vs 139. So from the first to the last poll, the two most extreme groups have essentially remained as-is, and 280(!) people have disappeared from the four more moderate groups.

224739

Captain Cortez
17-01-2016, 19:40
AOS is and will always be a terrible game. My local store had more Fantasy players (20) than 40kers which is rare and now most 80% are either being on stand by for a new release or went to other games. We are having fun playing Mordheim for the time being.

Ayin
18-01-2016, 01:45
Amusingly, the number of 'Overwhelmingly positive / negative' votes are almost exactly the same on this poll (#4) as on the first one - it's 21 vs 17 and 136 vs 139. So from the first to the last poll, the two most extreme groups have essentially remained as-is, and 280(!) people have disappeared from the four more moderate groups.


To me, this says that people who were really invested in the game being good are still around and sticking to that, and people really invested in not liking it are still willing to put in the energy to let that be known, and everyone else who isn't REALLY invested in the game just walked and is doing other things, which about matches what I see in real life.

Herzlos
18-01-2016, 08:52
Yeah, it means the vast majority of voters don't care and have moved on, which is technically worse. If they are active and hating the game, a change might bring them back. If they've moved on it's far less likely they'll come back, even if they noticed you've changed.

Apathy towards AoS is more likely to sink it than hate is, because once it loses mindshare it's essentially gone.

Soundwave
18-01-2016, 09:08
Yeah, it means the vast majority of voters don't care and have moved on, which is technically worse. If they are active and hating the game, a change might bring them back. If they've moved on it's far less likely they'll come back, even if they noticed you've changed.

Apathy towards AoS is more likely to sink it than hate is, because once it loses mindshare it's essentially gone.
Yes this is what I was thinking as well. The situation is made worse by what is not being said. People just giving up and not caring or even hating. It is better to be talked about then not talked about at all.

williamsond
18-01-2016, 09:38
It sucks still, for the same reasons it did in the first place.

Ayin
18-01-2016, 14:27
Yes this is what I was thinking as well. The situation is made worse by what is not being said. People just giving up and not caring or even hating. It is better to be talked about then not talked about at all.

Yep. Silence is the absolute worst reaction. If people strongly dislike something, they'll often pay it a lot of attention, and interested dislike can turn to enjoyment because the interested are still invested. People just shrugging if off after a week or two and going back to playing other games and supporting other products is the real issue. Those are the kinds of people you MIGHT be able to get back sometime in the future, but that's a market that's going to open up in a few years, the old "I haven't played since 6th, but I've seen some stuff about 8th and decided to give it a shot".

Handmaiden
19-01-2016, 07:50
I’ve got bad news for disenchanted gamers complaining on the Internet. The company’s attitude towards customers is as clinical as its attitude towards staff. If you don’t like what it’s selling. You’re not a customer. The company believes only a fraction of the population are potential hobbyists, and it’s not interested in the others.

http://www.iii.co.uk/news-opinion/richard-beddard/games-workshop-agm%3A-relentless-profit-machine

GW are themselves telling you if you don't like it, move along.

Allen
19-01-2016, 08:16
I’ve got bad news for disenchanted gamers complaining on the Internet. The company’s attitude towards customers is as clinical as its attitude towards staff. If you don’t like what it’s selling. You’re not a customer. The company believes only a fraction of the population are potential hobbyists, and it’s not interested in the others.

http://www.iii.co.uk/news-opinion/richard-beddard/games-workshop-agm%3A-relentless-profit-machine

GW are themselves telling you if you don't like it, move along.

That's GW standard operating procedure for you...hardly something new. You don't like the price of our goldswords greatswords? Move along and make space for a potential customers. You don't like how 40K rule revisions are forcing you to buy expensive vehicle and infantry kits? Move along, the next in line is already waving his money at us.

It's funny AND disconcerting at once viewing so many people opening their eyes now, in 2016, on GW brutal and nonsensical corporate behaviour. And not because they took their time to honestly evaluate where they were spending their money: but only because their favourite fix, WHFB, was taken away from them.

Glorfindel
19-01-2016, 10:28
These new Fyreslayers ... They're ready for Brazil carnival 2016. Their hairdo is about right and they can go to the parade riding on strange beasties ... Seriously what ***** thought, ok dragonlike things are cool and slayers are cool, we got an army? Slayers seek out big beast to kill em dummy, they don't sit on them like they are on a parade! THEY ARE CALLED SLAYERS FOR A REASON. God this thing is getting more of a joke with every release. Even with these highly detailed figures, at first they look cool but after a better look, oh wow look a dwarf with two weapons equally raised above his head, look a monster standing on all fours except for a feeble attempt at a clawing gesture ... Compared to the Mortachs they are static as hell. So after fantasy versions of space marines they come up with this?

In my opinion rules can change and there will always be this shift of balance, however one thing is essential and that is immersion. I'm not feeling it. At all.

Somehow I think this a big conspiracy to get us all on our knees begging to have WFB back, promising we will buy plenty miniatures if they do. I voted Mostly negative, because I thought some of the miniatures looked at least a bit cool, but reading my own comment I realise just how disgusted I am.

Kahadras
19-01-2016, 14:05
That's GW standard operating procedure for you...hardly something new. You don't like the price of our goldswords greatswords? Move along and make space for a potential customers. You don't like how 40K rule revisions are forcing you to buy expensive vehicle and infantry kits? Move along, the next in line is already waving his money at us.

The joke being, of course, that there's less and less people in that line. There are few 'new' potential customers, just an dwindling bunch of 'hardcore' fans who are still happy to pay what GW are asking.

Avian
25-01-2016, 11:40
So this one ended with a whimper... Percentage wise not much has changed since last time, with roughly 20% positive and 80% negative. Both 'overwhelmingly' categories went up a little compared to the more neutral ones, but not a lot. More worrisome is the fact that about 50% of the voters from the previous threads have disappeared, suggesting that interest overall has fallen quite a bit. The charte below shows the percentage change in the number of votes for each category, compared to the previous poll. As mentioned, we see that the 'overwhelmingly' categories are the ones least reduced, but everyone has gone down.

225044

225043


There might be a 1 year poll, I haven't decided yet.

veterannoob
26-01-2016, 23:38
Growing on me with more fluff available and the fyreslayers

Sharkbelly
27-01-2016, 01:05
I concur. I'm not sure why we weren't presented with a more fleshed-out world to begin with. That might've drawn more people in.

Ayin
27-01-2016, 01:15
I concur. I'm not sure why we weren't presented with a more fleshed-out world to begin with. That might've drawn more people in.

A well presented world, even comparable to the old faction overview, history and current world description that was part of the 6th through 8th ed Fantasy rulebooks, would likely have done a LOT to prevent customer loss of interest. Hopefully for GW it's not too late and the percentage of people who haven't picked up the game but who are keeping an eye on it waiting for their factions release is high.

Okuto
27-01-2016, 01:21
*whoops wrong topic*

Kyriakin
20-02-2016, 16:51
Encouraged for the first time after CHAOS book. However, I was not sure why FW chaos dwarfs couldn't have been added, while having skaven in DESTRUCTION to make room.

And then the anaemic, squatting crapfest that is the DEATH book happened and I went back to researching the 9th Age.

TK were a great range for AoS that just required removal of the low-wound former core skellie stuff. Could have been a lovely ornate faction with a unique flavour, but nope.

Malagor
20-02-2016, 17:07
Yes, the squatting of TK and the upcoming squat of Bretonnia is a sad one.
Bretonnia was already squatted and to be honest, I'm glad that they are so they died with dignity unlike the slayers.
But TK had a lovely range, some even "new" ones and even scary that people won't even be allowed to play their Brets/TK armies in GW stores. Shame shame.

MLP
20-02-2016, 18:35
But TK had a lovely range, some even "new" ones and even scary that people won't even be allowed to play their Brets/TK armies in GW stores. Shame shame.

It has never been said that you can't play brets/TK in GW stores and I doubt it will ever be that way. If anything it's the complete opposite as GW have publicly said were welcome to play older games and armies in their stores.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Malagor
20-02-2016, 18:42
It has never been said that you can't play brets/TK in GW stores and I doubt it will ever be that way. If anything it's the complete opposite as GW have publicly said were welcome to play older games and armies in their stores.

And has been said several times here that some GW games ban people from playing any GW game that isn't AoS or 40k(And LOTR but that doubt that happens) since they only want to promote their products and models that they sell and games like Mordheim, BG, BB and so on are not GW products anymore(as of yet) and same thing with armies that are no longer supported whos ranks TK and soon Bretonnia will be joining.
Not all stores are like that since it seems some store managers doesn't care about that and allow people to play whatever GW game they want but that doesn't change the fact that there are also stores that doesn't allow it and heard from several Chaos Dwarf players who weren't allowed to play their army in GW stores until FW produced rules for them.
And there are worse GW then that. The one closest to me I know for a fact not only do they only allow supported games, only new customers are allowed to play in their store.

Kyriakin
20-02-2016, 19:48
I love the idea of lots of smaller themed factions, but ye gods have they done it strangely:

- The Chaos Gargants "faction" has one warscroll. Pointless.

- Chaos alliance gets 21 factions, while the Death "alliance" gets 8.

- Forgeworld chaos dwarfs absent from chaos, when skaven could easily have been destruction.

- No attempt to include the various Forgeworld monsters in the Monster of Chaos faction.

- Beastmen somehow split into two and a half factions, while skaven become six.

- Removal of generic historical units of the TK, and soon Brets/Empire, but keeping even more generic Hammer Horror ghosts, ghouls, zombies, etc.

- A generic Chaos Daemons faction, when there are already four flavourful daemonic mono-god factions.

- The Necrosphinx does not make the cut, but some really old stuff lives on.

- Monsters of Chaos have almost no unifying theme (i.e. Warhounds and Vortex Beasts) and feels like a "none of the above" faction.

In short, some factions are mish-mashes (MoC, DoC, etc.) or stretches (various skaven, beastmen) to make up the numbers, while some obvious options are completely ignored despite new-ish miniature ranges being available (TK, CD, etc).

God only knows knows what the Order and Destruction alliances will be like.

Rogue Star
20-02-2016, 20:39
Agreed. The Tomb Kings removal is really strange, especially as the Necrosphinx/Warsphinx is a relatively new model compared to a lot of stuff which is staying. I suppose GW wants to really put it's foot down on the route the Undead are taking, but really... you made a setting ideal to include numerous small factions, in fact an entire "realm" of the Dead... so presumably fantastical landscapes like zombie-haunted marshes, artic tundra engulfed dead cities and yes, even pyramids, mummies and sun-bleached skeletons... so why narrow them down? :eyebrows:

Voss
21-02-2016, 06:33
I concur. I'm not sure why we weren't presented with a more fleshed-out world to begin with. That might've drawn more people in.

At this point, I'm pretty convinced it didn't happen because it wasn't done. For whatever reason, they were in a hurry to shove something, anything, out the door before the product was properly finished. So the 'finished' product is essentially napkin doodles scanned into pdf files and rocketed off to the a printing house.

And for much the same reason, we're only hearing about the DOA armies now, rather than from the start. I guess they figured they've lost all the established customers already, and the new folks won't miss what they never knew.

GreyhawkGuardian
21-02-2016, 08:00
What consistently amazes me about Age of Sigmar is how badly it uses what it has.

Okay, the setting will probably never be for me, because it's way to over the top and high fantasy for me to be able to emotionally invest in it. But even putting that aside, for what it is, it seems to consistently squander what few points actually are in its favor. Looking at The Quest for Ghal Maraz, for example. That book desperately needed some sections of prose it had expanded, to give the characters in it more meat. The birds eye view, clinical "this is what happened" style of writing that the book has, does have its uses, but it lacked enough prose to give those sections an emotional punch. The moment that particularly stood out for me was right at the end.

We have gotten Ghal Maraz back. A legendary weapon, forged by a culture and a people that doesn't exist anymore and that was carried by a line of men who tried to stand against the darkness and who, all to sadly, failed. Sigmar watched the world that was his home be destroyed before him. He knows the stakes of the current conflict perhaps better than anyone else (save for the other gods created from the Warhammer universe). This is a big moment story wise and a time to reiterate your triumph and set up what the next step will be. This would be a perfect time to take a few pages and maybe write Sigmar having a conversation with Vandus. Maybe even having the pair walking through the halls of Azyrhiem, with Sigmar carrying the Ghal Maraz, explaining his plans on the way to give the Celestant Prime the weapon and perhaps lamenting not only his world, but all the ones that came before it, that don't even have gods to mourn their passing anymore. You could show Vandus struggling with his loss of memory. Struggling with understanding what about that World that Was.

What we get is three paragraphs and a sentence that reiterate what we've already finished reading over the last hundred some pages in the most boring, perfunctory way possible, next to a two page spread that features Sigmar who looks...bored? Contemplative. ...Imma go with bored. Then page 190 to 231 are nothing but Warscrolls. The things that you can get off an app, and that have been re-printed in other books already! Imagine what kind of story stuff they could have told using even some of those pages!

So, it's just being badly portrayed even if you do like that over the top style fantasy.

eron12
21-02-2016, 08:22
Unfortunately they have seven months to draw new players into those armies they are now ditching, so another round of ticking off and driving away players is in order, although on a much smaller scale.

Karak Norn Clansman
21-02-2016, 08:52
Slightly positive, when seen in and of itself as a game, setting and miniatures range. Not much to my own tastes, which are closer to Tolkien and history, though. When viewed as a replacement for Warhammer Fantasy, mostly negative.

Whirlwind
21-02-2016, 09:43
The loss of TK is not surprising, the culling of the whole range is. I personally view this as an indication that AoS is not selling as well as GW hoped by some margin. The undead book is likely I believe to be he first book designed after the AoS release. Hence the older models in the chaos and lizard men books have remained barring those fixed to square bases are effectively duplicates or warmachines. If this is correct then I would expect that there will be significant culling of future ranges as GW concentrate their resources. In principle this then forces players to buy more of fewer models effectively bumping up profits on the remaining individual kits. I hence expect that we should be prepared for further brutal culls. Brets are obvious but empire, high elves, generic dwarfs much of the wood elves and eventually beastmen (which were protected by the early design release partly) I can imagine will be culled significantly unless AoS sales pick up

Kahadras
21-02-2016, 11:16
Brets are obvious but empire, high elves, generic dwarfs much of the wood elves and eventually beastmen (which were protected by the early design release partly) I can imagine will be culled significantly unless AoS sales pick up

I honestly think GW's known what armies were to be in the firing line since day one. One of the main reasons for GW creating AoS, I believe, was to cut down on the amount of armies that they have to cater for. It gave them the chance to ditch entire lines that weren't selling that well.

Malagor
21-02-2016, 13:38
Well I think Bretonnia was kinda a given. Their whole concept, their soul is gone so them being squatted is a mercy really.
But I thought TK would survive or atleast some of their models would but guess not.
H&H even mentioned that there was unreleased TK models(same with Bretonnia) but guess those will never see the light of day now.

Taliesin
21-02-2016, 14:22
What consistently amazes me about Age of Sigmar is how badly it uses what it has.

Okay, the setting will probably never be for me, because it's way to over the top and high fantasy for me to be able to emotionally invest in it. But even putting that aside, for what it is, it seems to consistently squander what few points actually are in its favor. Looking at The Quest for Ghal Maraz, for example. That book desperately needed some sections of prose it had expanded, to give the characters in it more meat. The birds eye view, clinical "this is what happened" style of writing that the book has, does have its uses, but it lacked enough prose to give those sections an emotional punch. The moment that particularly stood out for me was right at the end.

We have gotten Ghal Maraz back. A legendary weapon, forged by a culture and a people that doesn't exist anymore and that was carried by a line of men who tried to stand against the darkness and who, all to sadly, failed. Sigmar watched the world that was his home be destroyed before him. He knows the stakes of the current conflict perhaps better than anyone else (save for the other gods created from the Warhammer universe). This is a big moment story wise and a time to reiterate your triumph and set up what the next step will be. This would be a perfect time to take a few pages and maybe write Sigmar having a conversation with Vandus. Maybe even having the pair walking through the halls of Azyrhiem, with Sigmar carrying the Ghal Maraz, explaining his plans on the way to give the Celestant Prime the weapon and perhaps lamenting not only his world, but all the ones that came before it, that don't even have gods to mourn their passing anymore. You could show Vandus struggling with his loss of memory. Struggling with understanding what about that World that Was.

What we get is three paragraphs and a sentence that reiterate what we've already finished reading over the last hundred some pages in the most boring, perfunctory way possible, next to a two page spread that features Sigmar who looks...bored? Contemplative. ...Imma go with bored. Then page 190 to 231 are nothing but Warscrolls. The things that you can get off an app, and that have been re-printed in other books already! Imagine what kind of story stuff they could have told using even some of those pages!

So, it's just being badly portrayed even if you do like that over the top style fantasy.

I agree with this completely. Just wanted to say that.

That said, the new Balance of Power campaign book is out now, and it looks gorgeous. At 304 pages I also hopes it has significantly more developed story.

The campaign books are my favorite part of the Age of Sigmar setting.

Chimera
21-02-2016, 19:14
Shame there was no the "Overwhelmingly Negative. Never touching GW again" option.

GreyhawkGuardian
21-02-2016, 21:05
I agree with this completely. Just wanted to say that.

That said, the new Balance of Power campaign book is out now, and it looks gorgeous. At 304 pages I also hopes it has significantly more developed story.

The campaign books are my favorite part of the Age of Sigmar setting.

I just got done reading Balance of Power and I'm not sure that you're going to find what you're looking for in it. The most interesting development came right at the end, where some intriguing implications about Sigmar and the capabilities of his reforging process to make Stormcast are revealed. The rest of the book really felt like it was marking time though. The situation in the Realm of Life hasn't evolved much, as the Stormcast there and the surviving Sylvanith spend most of the book running from Nurgle. Some Fyreslayers kill some Skaven. Skarabrand gonna Skarabrand. Archaon's characterization hasn't changed at all from his Warhammer Fantasy days and he remains the most overrated character in both that and Age of Sigmar.

Maybe the format is part of the problem? Both the current campaign books follow a pretty set pattern of story bit, battle plan, story bit, battle plan, story bit, warscrolls, reprinting of the free rules and then some adds for the rest of the line. The narrative structure just ends up feeling very wonky and its just not helped by the detached nature of how the story is told. I flipped through one of Warmachine's books at the gaming store today, and I think that all of the prose sections in one of the AoS books adds up to a single page of Warmachine's prose.

At the bare minimum, I think it needs more of that.

Niall78
23-02-2016, 06:29
Unfortunately they have seven months to draw new players into those armies they are now ditching, so another round of ticking off and driving away players is in order, although on a much smaller scale.

It'll be very hard for new AoS players that have invested heavily in the now 'squated' factions for sure.

Buddy Bear
23-02-2016, 06:47
Unfortunately they have seven months to draw new players into those armies they are now ditching, so another round of ticking off and driving away players is in order, although on a much smaller scale.

They should've seen it coming, really. They can't say it's a total surprise, given that GW already ditched a 30-year-old setting in favor of AOS. What made them think that GW would value them as customers any more than they valued their older customers?

And moreover, I can't believe that this was ever a surprise to people. Of course some armies were going to get squatted. Some of these armies literally haven't existed in the setting for thousands of years. What made people think that GW would indefinitely support armies which no longer exist in the setting? They certainly were never going to be updated again. The total elimination of Tomb Kings is a surprise, but not the total elimination of Bretonnia, and I'm sure that most if not the entire Empire range will be joining them as well.

It is pretty interesting, though, to see what the reaction will be for AOS adopters who collected these armies and now found that their armies have been eliminated. Imagine the poor AOS player who defended the game to his friends, started collecting Tomb Kings, and went to the local GW to play as his army grew, and then POOF! The entire line vanishes into thin air and his only recourse for growing his army is to buy from eBay sellers jacking up the prices now that the Tomb Kings miniature line has become a super rare collectible. You were warned by us "Haters", but you didn't listen, and now look what's happened.

It's also interesting that GW put out a softcover version of the Tomb Kings army book not too long ago. Is it possible that they did so when they already knew they were planning on squatting the Tomb Kings army? Hmm. Who else got a softcover army book before AOS?

Niall78
23-02-2016, 07:05
They should've seen it coming, really. They can't say it's a total surprise, given that GW already ditched a 30-year-old setting in favor of AOS. What made them think that GW would value them as customers any more than they valued their older customers?

And moreover, I can't believe that this was ever a surprise to people. Of course some armies were going to get squatted. Some of these armies literally haven't existed in the setting for thousands of years. What made people think that GW would indefinitely support armies which no longer exist in the setting? They certainly were never going to be updated again. The total elimination of Tomb Kings is a surprise, but not the total elimination of Bretonnia, and I'm sure that most if not the entire Empire range will be joining them as well.

It is pretty interesting, though, to see what the reaction will be for AOS adopters who collected these armies and now found that their armies have been eliminated. Imagine the poor AOS player who defended the game to his friends, started collecting Tomb Kings, and went to the local GW to play as his army grew, and then POOF! The entire line vanishes into thin air and his only recourse for growing his army is to buy from eBay sellers jacking up the prices now that the Tomb Kings miniature line has become a super rare collectible. You were warned by us "Haters", but you didn't listen, and now look what's happened.

It's also interesting that GW put out a softcover version of the Tomb Kings army book not too long ago. Is it possible that they did so when they already knew they were planning on squatting the Tomb Kings army? Hmm. Who else got a softcover army book before AOS?

Anyone paying out big money for new armies in AoS would be well advised to stick to the new armies released for AoS. Buying legacy WFB armies will only end badly for them.

Anyone buying Brets or TK has now been left high and dry. The same will probably happen for Empire, classic Dwarfs, Wood and Dark Elves and possibly others.

It's actually quite disgusting the way GW treats customers that are investing large sums of money in their products. They've effectively let many new customers buy into lines the had to know they were eventually killing when they were planning AoS.

Kahadras
23-02-2016, 11:18
It's actually quite disgusting the way GW treats customers that are investing large sums of money in their products. They've effectively let many new customers buy into lines the had to know they were eventually killing when they were planning AoS.

To be fair it's been pretty obvious for a while now that GW doesn't really care about players once they've bought their army. The whole philosophy of the company has been to get people to spend hundreds of pounds on an army and then ditch them for the next person who walks through the door. There's no FaQ's anymore. There's no support for tournaments. It's just churn and burn. So what if Tomb King players are annoyed? GW already has their money.

rakkzul
23-02-2016, 11:21
I didn't played a single AoS game yet, its really THAT bad? Not asking for tournament settings, but for casual playing with friends, pizza and beer

Herzlos
23-02-2016, 11:25
It might sound strange, but the rules approach is too casual to really enjoy with pizza and beer - there's too much prep work involved (preparing the mini's, and balancing/comping the game itself). AoS is more of a framework to let you get some table time with your existing mini's collection, rather than as a casual pick-up game.

For pizza & beer gaming, Grab something like X-Wing, Imperial Assault or Super Dungeon Explore. Up and running in minutes, and great game :)

Yowzo
23-02-2016, 11:35
I didn't played a single AoS game yet, its really THAT bad?

It's not that bad. It's actually a decent fast skirmish game if you don't use too many models (movement is a chore if you bring out the kind of units that max unit bonus). Not the deepest game out there but then again I did not get to play that many games. In any case decent does not cut it anymore when there are so many options out there.

Lack of army composition rules and the general way GW handled release is what killed it almost everywhere but the UK and a few pockets of activity around GW shops in the rest of the world.

I can play beer and pizza games with 9th age, too. And feel much better afterwards. If I have an urge to use round bases there's better games like Bolt Action, Saga and Infinity, too.

eron12
23-02-2016, 14:39
GW games have always been a vehicle for showing off miniatures, but there was a time when that was not all they were.

Kyriakin
23-02-2016, 14:45
I didn't played a single AoS game yet, its really THAT bad? Not asking for tournament settings, but for casual playing with friends, pizza and beer
Some things are good:

- Individual warscrolls for units makes them feel fluffy and unique.

- Models looks far better - from an individual POV at least, if not the army as a whole - on round bases.

- Buy-in costs are far lower - despite a per-model price increase - than before. This applies to both time and money.

- Splitting into many flavoursome factions is a great idea, if slightly mishandled.

- You can use any models you want and unify them yourself by theme.

Nearly everything else is bad, IMHO.

veterannoob
23-02-2016, 15:32
I didn't played a single AoS game yet, its really THAT bad? Not asking for tournament settings, but for casual playing with friends, pizza and beer

It's jarring from previous Warhammer and "on paper" can look quite bad, but no, I don't think it is that bad. It's grown on me for sure, not because of fluff, but because of great games with great players who approach the game with a fun attitude ranging between narrative epic last stand to beer & pretzels. I've found with much less rules (like, 2.5 of the 4 pages) it removes a lot of compounding rules debates, odd as that might sound, and since WFB players we are conditioned to the older versions of the game.

But I would recommend playing your first games with someone who enjoys AoS if you can because you can get soured quite quickly if you try battle line or some obscene army lists, like 8 bloodthirsters vs. 900 cave squigs or whatever. Absolutely!!! use a scenario, take one off a AoS website or packet and give it a whirl. There are plenty of AoS groups on Facebook or other forums which can provide content and advice. Perhaps hold off on purchases until you try it a few times. Good luck and happy gaming! :)

Kahadras
23-02-2016, 17:52
It's jarring from previous Warhammer and "on paper" can look quite bad, but no, I don't think it is that bad. It's grown on me for sure, not because of fluff, but because of great games with great players who approach the game with a fun attitude ranging between narrative epic last stand to beer & pretzels.

So at the end of the day its not really what you play but who you play with.

IMHO AoS is towards the bottom of the barrel when it comes to fantasy skirmish games. If any other gaming company had tried to put out something like Age of Sigmar I honestly believe that it would have tanked. At least GW has the advantage of fans in the community who are prepared to work with AoS. The most telling thing for me was after the first time my group played AoS the discussion was how to fix things. I can't recall another system where this has happened.

Rogue Star
24-02-2016, 20:00
I didn't played a single AoS game yet, its really THAT bad? Not asking for tournament settings, but for casual playing with friends, pizza and beer

The best answer is to try it. Really, the rules are free, all you need is the models...

Captain Marius
24-02-2016, 20:45
I enjoy the flexibility with changing core rules to suit how you want to play. My group has integrated the battle rounds so its hero phase hero phase move phase move phase etc, something ive wanted in 40k for ages! We have pretty heavy comp to try and get 'balanced games' but have no problem changing the objectives or whatever half way through a game, then trying to decide something more balanced afterwards. For example, just played a game against a pure tzeentch daemon army and they annihilated my empire guys with shooting, so we're going to try no models in 3" of an enemy model can shoot from now on. This will replace our previous arbitrary 50% limit on shooting models. While we're still playing legacy models at the mo (gonna take years to get thru those end times missions!), were building forces of stormcast and bloodbound to use when theyre ready. Round bases are the best thing to happen to warhammer in ages i reckon!

GreyhawkGuardian
25-02-2016, 01:31
I didn't played a single AoS game yet, its really THAT bad? Not asking for tournament settings, but for casual playing with friends, pizza and beer

I'll be the contrarian to a lot of the voices on the forum and say that I don't think that the rules are that bad for what they are. Yes, it has some issues, but there's a lot of what I'd classify as "Good, Neutral, Bad" when it comes to what it does.

-The Good

Command Abilities: I like how your armies leaders and heroes have abilities that come across like a general actually commanding their army, rather than just being the biggest, baddest beat stick there.

Unit Synergy: It's a neat idea and the way that certain units can work together can help convey the feel of the army. This kind of goes hand in hand with the Formation War-scrolls.

Specific Unit Abilities: This one kind of dovetails back into the above point, but some of the unit abilities have a whole lot of flavor to them. I remember a game that I watched on Miniwargaming that was old school Dwarfs vs Khorne Bloodbound. In the game, a unit of dwarf slayers clashed with the...I wanna say Blood Warriors? The point is that both of those units had abilities that involved being able to make more attacks as they died. The end result was that both units wiped each other out to the man.

I dunno about you, but that's a hilarious bit of dark, Warhammer-y comedy.

Scenarios: I like scenarios. What makes studying wars and conflicts so interesting from a historical perspective, is all the myraid ways that battles have played out over history. How terrain, the plans of the generals, the goals of the different nations, all of those come together to make the history of war fascinating to study and different scenarios mimicing the set up of fictional battles, or just giving you more ways to play is good in my book.


-The Neutral

Initiative Roll for Turn: Not an idea I'm opposed to in theory, just not sure how well this one works out. Knowing my luck, I'd be the guy who rolled a 1 for every turn. :P

Skirmish vs Regiments: While I'm not really in favor of it personally, I'm putting this one down as neutral because it's entirely a question of personal taste. I think that ranked up regiments just look nicer than a bunch of separate guys on round bases. But, like I said, personal taste.

-The Bad

Not Ready for Prime Time: The current rule-set has a few big holes in it that make it feel like an obvious beta to me. While points might not be necessary per-ce, I think that "both sides place down war scrolls until they're in agreement" is too far the other way. I never see anyone playing the game online without some kind of comp system anyway, so I think that baking in a few wound count suggestions for play size should have been a given.

Summoning: ....Is broken. It gets completely ludicrous really damn fast, especially since a summoned creature/unit can in turn summon another summoned creature/unit and etc, etc...

Fixed to Hit Values: This really, really bugs me. You wound a goblin on the same number as an ogre. You hit a unit with shooting on the same number, reguardless if that unit is in the open, in cover, if you're in melee combat, if they're in melee combat or if you're both in melee combat. It shatters any kind of feeling of an internally consistent universe for me.

The other negatives all come down to a question of setting and that can be variably relevant, depending on personal tastes. I'm a huge story and setting guy, so the changes made to it just infuriate me. But, if you're just interested in a game for the sake of the game, that might not matter to you. It all depends, really.

nordsturmking
25-02-2016, 23:59
First of all I think some of the ideas in the rules of AoS are good. But the rules as they were published by GW are not really playable. That's the deal breaker for me. Now I will try to explane why I don't understand the GW politics. So they are by far the biggest miniwargaming company. And do things that I don't understand. And I know I am not the only one.


AoS has 4 pages of rules. That’s clearly not enough. If you take a look at the rules of warhammer CE for example it has 16 pages of rules. And they solve almost every situation that comes up in a game it's like one situation in every game where you have to take break and read a few rules again. I have made about 10 games with those rules and I like them more then 8th edition. The biggest difference is in Warhammer CE you get point costs for every model and the rules are even more balanced compared to 8th edition.



So my point is GW is kind of a big company and they are not able (or didn't want) to create a playable game. They could have done it like paizo when they created the pathfinder RPG rule set. They took an already working set of rules. And invited the community to help them develop and balance the hole thing. They had 50000 people involved in making of the rules most of them didn't get payed or anything because they were just community members who had fun helping the publisher paizo to make a good game. The outcome is a pen and paper rule set that managed to become larger then DnD.



Warhammer CE rules: http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?373349-Warhammer-CE-the-definitive-rule-set-for-WFB-veterans

Harosyn
27-02-2016, 03:03
For me continuing to play 8th edition while taking a wait and see approach on AoS is the only way to go. The last thing I want to have happen is to spend a bunch of money and time on an untested new GW AoS game only to see it fold a few months later and me stuck with stuff I cant use or sell. I cant help but wonder if GW's new business plan is to release a new game , then drop it completely for another game , making players constantly stuck with useless books and models and having to buy new books and models all over again.

aprilmanha
27-02-2016, 10:06
No one I know plays the game any more, even the die hard fans have dropped out to do other things due to the death of the community.

The cartoon stylings of the models, as well as the Xtreeeeeme lore seems to be making sure no one here tries to revive it either.

Kahadras
27-02-2016, 13:57
I cant help but wonder if GW's new business plan is to release a new game , then drop it completely for another game , making players constantly stuck with useless books and models and having to buy new books and models all over again.

Pretty much AoS in a nutshell IMHO. I think GW assumed that there would be mass migration of players from Warhammer over into Age of Sigmar with each player buying a whole new army in the process (or at least a starter box set or two). This, combined with the 'dripfeed' system where players are asked to keep spending money to keep up with the AoS background and for fresh battleplans to use, was probably expected to make GW a ton of money.

TimLeeson
27-02-2016, 21:58
It is pretty interesting, though, to see what the reaction will be for AOS adopters who collected these armies and now found that their armies have been eliminated. Imagine the poor AOS player who defended the game to his friends, started collecting Tomb Kings, and went to the local GW to play as his army grew, and then POOF! The entire line vanishes into thin air and his only recourse for growing his army is to buy from eBay sellers jacking up the prices now that the Tomb Kings miniature line has become a super rare collectible. You were warned by us "Haters", but you didn't listen, and now look what's happened.

It's also interesting that GW put out a softcover version of the Tomb Kings army book not too long ago. Is it possible that they did so when they already knew they were planning on squatting the Tomb Kings army? Hmm. Who else got a softcover army book before AOS?


In short, I don't really care at all.

I started a TK army with a "gut feeling" they would get squatted and the kits i liked (which were only two to be fair) would go away forever and honestly I'm only bothered I had to rush to get the remaining stuff before it sold out. Otherwise, I couldn't care less as i've been enjoying making this army. I'm a collector/modeller only though so I do not care about the game side and if I ever did get into the game it would just be with a few close friends anyway so DIY is always an option for me there too. So no real loss other htan not being able to expand the army in the future, but I got everything i wanted for it.

Chikout
28-02-2016, 02:59
I still find a lot of these reactions strange. I understand being sad or even angry about the squatting of Tomb Kings, but anyone who did even the smallest amount of reading should have realised this was coming. The tomb kings were crushed by Nagash in the end times and they did not get a new name for AOS. This all suggests that the Tomb kings had been destined for the chopping block. I am not trying to defend GW in this, just saying that I highly doubt that anyone would start an AOS tomb kings army with any expectation of continued support from GW.
The other point is that the very nature of the game of AOS means that anyone who currently has a Tomb Kings army should be able to use it for as long as AOS is available in its current form.
That said any other army that has not received a new name for AOS is probably on the way out. This means The Empire and Brettonians. The elves will survive but will probably have a pretty radical overhaul. The other factions will probably be pruned of finecast as they are updated.
All of this is not new information and really just common sense. I am actually surprised how much has been kept. I fully expect d the lizardmen to be squatted too.

As for me I am still on the fence. I have always been a fan of the Dark elves and Wood elves. Seeing how the new Aelves turn out (shadow Aelves are apparently coming this summer) could be enough to pull me in or to put me off completely.

Grey Seer Diatribe
29-02-2016, 04:08
I miss the Old World. She was a grand old girl. But I also love the new one as well. I wish the player base would support both, instead of generally shunning in favor of 30k/40k.

Ayin
29-02-2016, 14:50
I miss the Old World. She was a grand old girl. But I also love the new one as well. I wish the player base would support both, instead of generally shunning in favor of 30k/40k.

The player base can't support both, as only one is part of a product line currently supported by the company which controls them. And the company wishes we would support it over other companies lines, or in addition to 40k, not instead of 40k.

blindingdark
01-03-2016, 16:34
I miss the Old World. She was a grand old girl. But I also love the new one as well. I wish the player base would support both, instead of generally shunning in favor of 30k/40k.

The new one is just MTG with Sigmar. It is overly generic. It does not have redeeming qualities. I can barely understand how the two could be liked by the same people they are so far apart in depth, flavour and quality.

Kahadras
01-03-2016, 17:18
The new one is just MTG with Sigmar.

Nonsense. GW wishes that they had anywhere near the same quality as MTG has when it comes to creating background. Zendikar, Ravnica, Naya, Innistrad, Lorwyn, Theros, Kamigawa, Bant, Mirrordin are/were all facinating places with interesting lore behind them. I've heard that GW are at least starting to expand on Age of Sigmar there's no real hook to draw me into the world. There's got to be more than 'EPIC BATTLES!!!!' to interest me.

NoobLord
01-03-2016, 17:28
There got to be more than 'EPIC BATTLES!!!!' to interest me.

Gold spray paint? That's enough surely? (don't call m...)

Malagor
01-03-2016, 17:30
And the floating isles of shimmertan, never forget those.

maze ironheart
01-03-2016, 17:43
What do I think of age of sigmar 6 months on Hmmmm Still hate the game for killing WFB Still hate it for its Garbage rules Still hate how the only thing GW need to increase sales has not changed and that is price reduction Still hate how they won't admit they messed up and bring Warhammer Fantasy battle back.All in all think it should crawl back into what ever hole it came out of and stay there forever and be erased from history.