What AoS can learn from the new 40k

[BunkhouseBuster]

11 minutes ago, Killax said:

In an ideal world I wish to see an AoS very much akin to 40K so that players can blend systems if they wanted to though arnt forced to by any narrative means. All it would really require is a supplement that allows for either but likely having 40K with it's Force Charts and AoS with it's Battalions.

Just a simple conversion chart or booklet for each system would work.  I would pay money for that - seeing Space Marines fighting Stormcast Eternals would be really cool, as would seeing Ghazghul Thraka taking a swing at Gordrak, and Abaddon fighting Archaon!  If nothing else, it gives players a chance to increase the use of their collections.  Even without any fluff justification for it, giving people more options to play with their models is only ever a good thing.

Would make for a unique tournament scene for sure!

[Sleboda]

I was actually looking forward to 40K going full-on pre-GHB AoS for rules.  I figured that with round bases in fantasy, that was where they were headed.  Instead, 40K is pretty much just taking The Ways to Play and single profile types for all units from AoS and otherwise keeping it very close to old 40K.

Since that is the case, I'd now like to see the two systems remain totally distinct so that I can pick a style of play that suits my mood for that night's game.  Either simple rules that allow for great depth an strategy in the play (AoS), or a system of bits, bobs, and hyper detail where list-building and min/maxing determine the winner (40K).

I'd even like to see AoS go back a step and remove magic items, spell lores, traits, etc. It's creeping ever closer to old Warhammer as we go, and hey, didn't GW kill of old Warhammer because it was not a game that sold well enough the way it was?

 

[rokapoke]

14 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

I'd even like to see AoS go back a step and remove magic items, spell lores, traits, etc.

I'd agree to that if only because more than half the time I forget one or more of the items/effects through the course of the game.

[Johann]

3 hours ago, Sleboda said:

 

I'd even like to see AoS go back a step and remove magic items, spell lores, traits, etc. It's creeping ever closer to old Warhammer as we go, and hey, didn't GW kill of old Warhammer because it was not a game that sold well enough the way it was?

 

Sign! I preferred just to put the units/models on the table and not looking for some magic items combos beforehand. Most heroes have unique abilities, in my opinion there's no need for "uniquer" items... 

[someone2040]

43 minutes ago, Johann said:

Sign! I preferred just to put the units/models on the table and not looking for some magic items combos beforehand. Most heroes have unique abilities, in my opinion there's no need for "uniquer" items... 

Personally I feel that magic items are good for the game. It adds that 'fantasy' element, and allows you to customise your heroes a bit. But, I do think they have gone a bit far in recent books to what extent you can customise. Magic weapons, magic armour, traits for Star Drakes, traits for Dracoths.

I don't personally care for command traits, don't feel that they really add too much into the game. What type of general you are will probably be reflected more in what units you choose to field.

I'm also not sure we really need the spell lores and prayer lores. I think in some ways, they could've been done away with if the rules of 1 weren't in place (As every caster gets the two and a unique spell). I think if anything, I'd prefer more 'powerful' spellcasters to have extra spells written on their own warscroll.

I guess at the end of the day though, these options only serve to allow people to customise their heroes more. It's not necessarily a bad thing, if anything it's better for the more narrative crowd.

But for the competitive, I think these things just serves to separate the top of the pack and the rest even further as well, as those factions with battle tomes get access to a swathe of 'free' things such as extra spells, prayers, mount traits, etc.

[Ratatatata]

On ‎2017‎-‎06‎-‎14 at 0:50 AM, WoollyMammoth said:

Not even a little bit? Personally I think something has to be done about shooting, and I think AoS could benefit from adding an option to summon your units in the size you need them. They don't need to go crazy but there is definitely room for improvement.

No.

Somehting has to be done with the matched play points for some of the shooting units, that´s for sure. But the rules as such I have no problem with.

[KnightFire]

On 6/13/2017 at 5:27 PM, AverageBoss said:

I am all for AoS becoming a deeper game. So I would be for most of these rules changes as (especially in the case of S vs T) it would allow for better balance going forward. Also it would be great if it kept our local players around as pretty much all of them (including the guy that runs our AoS events) are moving to 40k with the new edition.

We had something like that, it was called WFHB 8th edition, and nearly everyone agrees that the simplicity of AoS is a huge improvement. GW would lose very large numbers of players if they moved AoS away from a streamlined game where strategy and tactics are key, to one about rules lawyering your opponent out of the game (like 8th was).

[Elmir]

2 hours ago, someone2040 said:

Personally I feel that magic items are good for the game. It adds that 'fantasy' element, and allows you to customise your heroes a bit. But, I do think they have gone a bit far in recent books to what extent you can customise. Magic weapons, magic armour, traits for Star Drakes, traits for Dracoths.

I don't personally care for command traits, don't feel that they really add too much into the game. What type of general you are will probably be reflected more in what units you choose to field.

I'm also not sure we really need the spell lores and prayer lores. I think in some ways, they could've been done away with if the rules of 1 weren't in place (As every caster gets the two and a unique spell). I think if anything, I'd prefer more 'powerful' spellcasters to have extra spells written on their own warscroll.

I guess at the end of the day though, these options only serve to allow people to customise their heroes more. It's not necessarily a bad thing, if anything it's better for the more narrative crowd.

But for the competitive, I think these things just serves to separate the top of the pack and the rest even further as well, as those factions with battle tomes get access to a swathe of 'free' things such as extra spells, prayers, mount traits, etc.

I agree with you that some personalisation of your heroes is welcome... I don't mind spell lores at all (especially now with the rule of one becoming the de-facto rule in our gaming group, regardless of type of game played). As a death player, it doesn't help that our casters are so spread out in small, borderline useless sub-factions like deathlords and death mages... The command traits and magic weapons can be fun too if they are well balanced (sadly, GW does drop the ball on this sometimes). 

I sadly does create a divide between factions with a recent book vs those stuck with an old book or without a book. I do feel GW should crank up the release speed (maybe a small reword of old books like they did with Khorne). 

I am however worried about one single thing: faction/rules bloat. Halfway through 7th edition 40k, GW went absolutely nuts with creating new traits, artifacts, formations etc. all spread out over several sources (WD, campaign books, mini-dexes,..).  It created a super confusing gaming environment that actually gave me a certain level of enui to start a 40k game... And you needed a frigging extra bag just to carry all those books. 

In short: I do hope GW manages to make meaningfull, larger sub-factions in AoS. If all sub-factions will be getting their own spells, magic weapons, traits, army wide rules,... It's going to take some constraint on GW's half to not create a cluttered mess of special rules. 

And while I like Beastclaw raiders or Ironjawz, I think they actually should just be part of larger fully fledged ogor or greenskin subfactions. Same goes for all the mini-dwarven subfactions we have now. 

[Killax]

3 hours ago, someone2040 said:

Personally I feel that magic items are good for the game. It adds that 'fantasy' element, and allows you to customise your heroes a bit. But, I do think they have gone a bit far in recent books to what extent you can customise. Magic weapons, magic armour, traits for Star Drakes, traits for Dracoths.

I don't personally care for command traits, don't feel that they really add too much into the game. What type of general you are will probably be reflected more in what units you choose to field.

I'm also not sure we really need the spell lores and prayer lores. I think in some ways, they could've been done away with if the rules of 1 weren't in place (As every caster gets the two and a unique spell). I think if anything, I'd prefer more 'powerful' spellcasters to have extra spells written on their own warscroll.

I guess at the end of the day though, these options only serve to allow people to customise their heroes more. It's not necessarily a bad thing, if anything it's better for the more narrative crowd.

But for the competitive, I think these things just serves to separate the top of the pack and the rest even further as well, as those factions with battle tomes get access to a swathe of 'free' things such as extra spells, prayers, mount traits, etc.

From my perspective customisation is the key selling point of Warhammer and it always has been. Games Workshop made a grave mistake in not implementing this option in AoS from the getgo. 

To me Command Traits are another type of bonus that allow players to personlize their general even more, again I love this aspect because it means you can shape a model like you want to and Named Characters are not the devault best anymore.

More spells per faction allow for a better reflection of that faction. It makes close to no sence if all characters know the same lores. By large because we imagne they come from different schools and use different magical energies to their will.

What we see for the competative design vs narrative design is that roughly each Artefact, Spell and Command Trait list contains 3 very potent choices and 3 narrative choices. To me this is an excellent way of dealing with things because as a fan of the recent Battletome's I can say that in no case 1 choice is always the best. This is the type of pro/con design that is reflected extremely well in 40K and I hope to see in AoS one day.

Examples are: Powerfist vs Power weapon, Plasmagun vs Multimelta and even Monster (high damage low attacks) vs Infantry (low damage high attacks). The beauty of this design is that it shows you that GW can create pro/cons for everything if they set their mind to it. The most recent GW releases have been better than ever. As someone who's played since a young one from 1999 I can tell you that GW is finally realizing what is the pro to playing Warhammer, it is and always should remain customisation, of both rules (army/weaponry) and models (conversions).

This is the fundamental advantage even of their core plastic products. Converting resin is unhealthy and converting white metal models thakes much more time.

7 hours ago, Sleboda said:

I was actually looking forward to 40K going full-on pre-GHB AoS for rules.  I figured that with round bases in fantasy, that was where they were headed.  Instead, 40K is pretty much just taking The Ways to Play and single profile types for all units from AoS and otherwise keeping it very close to old 40K.

Since that is the case, I'd now like to see the two systems remain totally distinct so that I can pick a style of play that suits my mood for that night's game.  Either simple rules that allow for great depth an strategy in the play (AoS), or a system of bits, bobs, and hyper detail where list-building and min/maxing determine the winner (40K).

I'd even like to see AoS go back a step and remove magic items, spell lores, traits, etc. It's creeping ever closer to old Warhammer as we go, and hey, didn't GW kill of old Warhammer because it was not a game that sold well enough the way it was?

 

Well that option is there but again, trying to play with new players without any consensus for points (be it power level or cost) simply said does not work out well. This has to do with the foundation GW planted and continued upon aswell. Even MtG, another spin off from the D&D populairity in the 80s has it's costs for playing things.

The two big distinctions in AoS and 40K from a rules perspective are that AoS has a lot of unit support and makes units the key element where 40K really applies a rock/paper/scissors design, unit A can deal with B but is destroyed by C. In addition 40K processes faster as a game because every army has ranged support and has something to do from turn 1 and on. This is only the case for some AoS armies and these are largely what make up the competative top (if youd care about that). 

Personally I think AoS going to old Warhammer is the way to go, like 40K is much more akin to WFB as anything. The reason for this is simple. WFB did not fail because of the modular designs for army creation, it failed because the creative spirit of it had met its end. What I mean by this is much more on a physical level, 20mm models who have to form ranks cannot be extremely dynamic, look at how 'stiff' Chaos Warriors are put onto 25mm bases, it just isn't what the 'skirmish/spread out unit' games offer. From Malifaux to Warmachine all recently succesful miniature games have adopted dynamical designs and thus require models to not be crunched up. AoS would have been a direct succes if GH was supplied instantly with the new game release and simply changed the system while retaining the 'norm' for army constructions, this is what 40K has done aswell.

There is also a very simple reason as to why games like this are popular, they offer you the option to customize and personalize armies.
You will never have to thake item X or Y but not having the option means you are playing the exact same force as any other player with that army. Again comming from D&D, not being able to customize anything is about as un-characterful as it gets. This is how AoS started for unknown reasons. 

[RuneBrush]

46 minutes ago, Killax said:

Personally I think AoS going to old Warhammer is the way to go, like 40K is much more akin to WFB as anything. The reason for this is simple. WFB did not fail because of the modular designs for army creation, it failed because the creative spirit of it had met its end. What I mean by this is much more on a physical level, 20mm models who have to form ranks cannot be extremely dynamic, look at how 'stiff' Chaos Warriors are put onto 25mm bases, it just isn't what the 'skirmish/spread out unit' games offer. From Malifaux to Warmachine all recently succesful miniature games have adopted dynamical designs and thus require models to not be crunched up. AoS would have been a direct succes if GH was supplied instantly with the new game release and simply changed the system while retaining the 'norm' for army constructions, this is what 40K has done aswell.

The reason WFB failed (and I use the term loosely) is because it wasn't making enough money.  Without getting too far into this (I'm sure there are lots of discussions online already), to play you needed to have invested upwards of £500 into an army and the ruleset had become a monolithic beast from iterations over a lot of years.  Many players were starting to source their models from third parties at a fraction of the price and for a company that is at it's core a miniature producer, GW had to change something - and chose to change everything

I personally love the flexibility we've got - you can knock out an army list in a coffee break and most units have quite a bit of customisation from different weapon options.  I'd be quite sad if AoS became too much more complicated - I think the various traits, artefacts, banners and other bits is as far as it needs to go.  That said I'd not be upset if matched play got a more granular point system and narrative adopted the existing points.

56 minutes ago, Killax said:

As someone who's played since a young one from 1999 I can tell you that GW is finally realizing what is the pro to playing Warhammer, it is and always should remain customisation, of both rules (army/weaponry) and models (conversions).

Blimey I feel old now...  I'd been fully employed 3 years by the time you ventured into the hobby 

[Elmir]

52 minutes ago, Killax said:

From my perspective customisation is the key selling point of Warhammer and it always has been. Games Workshop made a grave mistake in not implementing this option in AoS from the getgo. 

To me Command Traits are another type of bonus that allow players to personlize their general even more, again I love this aspect because it means you can shape a model like you want to and Named Characters are not the devault best anymore.

More spells per faction allow for a better reflection of that faction. It makes close to no sence if all characters know the same lores. By large because we imagne they come from different schools and use different magical energies to their will.
 

Oh, I agree that customisation should be a thing... I'm just hoping they don't go overboard with mini-factions, all with their own little lists/tables. 

Believe me, it's created a downright convoluted mess in 40k, and I fear AoS might be headed for that same mistake. I'm pretty sure that if I made my own little formation using an internet tool, 90% of the playerbase wouldn't even realise it was a fake halfway through 7th ed 40k.... Simply because there was such an overload of them and nobody could keep track of it. And facing an army that you haven't got the slightest idea of what it can do, isn't fun... Winning because you were able to blindside an opponent who doesn't know what a certain spell/item/ability does, isn't satisfying. Late 7th edition 40k created a lot of "feelbadsies" moments like that...  

BTW, I'm not saying every single model in a GA should use the same spell lore. That would indeed be a bit bland. But all greenskins using the same spell lore (based on the power of gorkamorka) vs one lore for ironjawz, one for bonesplittaz, one for goblins,... is the difference between your opponent ever having a chance to learn what certain enemies can do vs it being impossible to learn the whole game. 

There is a fine line between rules bloat and characterful rules. They crossed it in 7th edition 40k imo (and judging from the sigh of relief from many  40k players at the prospect of cutting that bloat, I wasn't the only one with that opinion). 

[Killax]

4 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

The reason WFB failed (and I use the term loosely) is because it wasn't making enough money.  Without getting too far into this (I'm sure there are lots of discussions online already), to play you needed to have invested upwards of £500 into an army and the ruleset had become a monolithic beast from iterations over a lot of years.  Many players were starting to source their models from third parties at a fraction of the price and for a company that is at it's core a miniature producer, GW had to change something - and chose to change everything

I personally love the flexibility we've got - you can knock out an army list in a coffee break and most units have quite a bit of customisation from different weapon options.  I'd be quite sad if AoS became too much more complicated - I think the various traits, artefacts, banners and other bits is as far as it needs to go.  That said I'd not be upset if matched play got a more granular point system and narrative adopted the existing points.

Blimey I feel old now...  I'd been fully employed 3 years by the time you ventured into the hobby 

Well the thing is with WFB that it used to be the the main seller from GW, 40K eventually took over but this wasn't the case for I believe roughly 20 years orso. My prime thought behind why it took over is because 40K surpassed WFB in designing interesting models that where not mono-pose monsters, mono-posed models while also still being a little bit bigger overall. 

I really think a little goes a long way in terms of customisation. I don't feel more Banners or Musicians need to be added but I do feel that a Hero should feel like a character and I also think the game in itself would become more intresting if certain units had particular jobs. They more or less do now but the downside of the 4+/3+ and 3+/4+ designs is that it doesn't really emulate the events from a narrative standpoint all to well. 
As an example, why can a minor character wound a monster in the same way as chaff? The narrative does not suggest this is possible but it is common in any game.

Im still relatively new to the hobby aswell! AoS was a whole new start, WFB is passed but I do think many of WFB's core rules where a very good startpoint. You can see how they influenced other well devined games and for GW to throw it all out in my opinion remained a mistake. Frankly speaking the fact that 40K now has Tougness and Wounds on their Vechicles again is the best thing that can happen to the game because it's much easier to balance models who all share the same statline. AoS did this very well in the basic principle but there is a fine balance between narrative game approaches and easy to design game approaches, a balance that 40K seems to have found "better".

4 minutes ago, Elmir said:

Oh, I agree that customisation should be a thing... I'm just hoping they don't go overboard with mini-factions, all with their own little lists/tables. 

Believe me, it's created a downright convoluted mess in 40k, and I fear AoS might be headed for that same mistake. I'm pretty sure that if I made my own little formation using an internet tool, 90% of the playerbase wouldn't even realise it was a fake halfway through 7th ed 40k.... Simply because there was such an overload of them and nobody could keep track of it. And facing an army that you haven't got the slightest idea of what it can do, isn't fun... Winning because you were able to blindside an opponent who doesn't know what a certain spell/item/ability does, isn't satisfying. Late 7th edition 40k created a lot of "feelbadsies" moments like that...  

BTW, I'm not saying every single model in a GA should use the same spell lore. That would indeed be a bit bland. But all greenskins using the same spell lore (based on the power of gorkamorka) vs one lore for ironjawz, one for bonesplittaz, one for goblins,... is the difference between your opponent ever having a chance to learn what certain enemies can do vs it being impossible to learn the whole game. 

There is a fine line between rules bloat and characterful rules. They crossed it in 7th edition 40k imo (and judging from the sigh of relief from many  40k players at the prospect of cutting that bloat, I wasn't the only one with that opinion). 

I completely agree with you on not going overboard! I just think that the way Battalions and Artefacts interact can be odd for example.

As before I feel AoS to 7th comparison is a better system, however AoS compaired to 8th feels to me like 8th is going to do a better job.

For spells I think one per race/force makes sence. I am a firm believer of Battletome's often being better when they represent a dual or trifecta of sub-sub-factions. As an example I really like Blades of Khorne and Desciples of Tzeentch because they logically allow for this. With this I mean that they cover the rules for their new AoS range, Slaves to Darkness and Daemons. 

I personally dont believe that AoS would suffer from rulesbloat fast nor does it suffer from it now. What I do think would be better to prefent content bloat is to logically combine several sub-sub-sub-factions into one booklet  In that same vein I hope GH2 archives enough influence so that House-rules can largely become a thing of the past. 

[chord]

9 hours ago, rokapoke said:

I'd agree to that if only because more than half the time I forget one or more of the items/effects through the course of the game.

Agreed, less looking up stuff!  

[KnightFire]

2 hours ago, Killax said:

Personally I think AoS going to old Warhammer is the way to go...
 

I could not disagree more.

[Sleboda]

3 hours ago, Killax said:

Well that option is there but again, trying to play with new players without any consensus for points (be it power level or cost) simply said does not work out well.

You keep stating that in factual tones when others, like myself, keep telling you that this has not been the case for us.

Maybe new ppl you encountered early on picked up on your negative vibe or your aura of disappointment over a lack of points and reacted accordingly?  Ppl are sheep waiting to be led, and as a leader in your area maybe your disposition disinclined new ppl to embrace the pre-GHB system.

Just a thought. 

[Mikosan]

I don't know, I picked up AoS day one and watched as my garage group of 20 years evaporated despite my enthusiasm for the more narrative sandbox approach.  Obviously it is just my experience, but the GHB brought in the majority of the guys I play regularly now and tournaments have brought in more still.  A good attitude can only take a game so far, at some point other people have to buy in. Right or wrong, points brought people in that had stayed away for whatever reason, and for that I am grateful.  Having said that, I still don't want to see much change with the core rules, if the only change to shooting was that a unit in combat can only shoot the unit they are engaged with, I would be ok that.  I really just don't want to see a return to the days of stressing over the minutiae of convoluted rules and rules that exist to negate other rules.

[chord]

2 hours ago, KnightFire said:

I could not disagree more.

Agreed!  That would most likely drive me away 

[chord]

35 minutes ago, Mikosan said:

I don't know, I picked up AoS day one and watched as my garage group of 20 years evaporated despite my enthusiasm for the more narrative sandbox approach.  Obviously it is just my experience, but the GHB brought in the majority of the guys I play regularly now and tournaments have brought in more still.  A good attitude can only take a game so far, at some point other people have to buy in. Right or wrong, points brought people in that had stayed away for whatever reason, and for that I am grateful.  Having said that, I still don't want to see much change with the core rules, if the only change to shooting was that a unit in combat can only shoot the unit they are engaged with, I would be ok that.  I really just don't want to see a return to the days of stressing over the minutiae of convoluted rules and rules that exist to negate other rules.

But simplicity of rules brought in new players.   Maybe the old players were just upset at change?

[AverageBoss]

7 hours ago, KnightFire said:

We had something like that, it was called WFHB 8th edition, and nearly everyone agrees that the simplicity of AoS is a huge improvement. GW would lose very large numbers of players if they moved AoS away from a streamlined game where strategy and tactics are key, to one about rules lawyering your opponent out of the game (like 8th was).

The new 40K rules are nothing at all like 8th edition Fantasy. Nor are they nowhere near as complex or bloated. The new 40K rulebook is only 12 total pages. That is quite the far cry from the 100+ page WFB rulebooks. There is such a thing as being too simple (which I think AoS is in some places). And additional rules do not take away strategy (unless they are bad rules). And rules lawyering is still present in AoS, that is a problem with people, not game systems.

[Killax]

1 hour ago, Auticus said:

Our old players stopped playing because they were upset it ceased being a tournament game.

Here it stopped because it stopped being a defined army game.

Bring whatever you want with unclearity to rules, removed wizard individuality and unclear army construction mend you have to spend hours in order to play an easy game in the first place.

As before even something as simple as a power point level works in order to give a clear army indication.

For those who dissagree, feel free to point me to the store and story games that do not use the GH or any other Battletome for that matter.

[Sleboda]

6 minutes ago, Killax said:

Here it stopped because it stopped being a defined army game.

 That's closer to why we lost ppl.  It stopped being ranks, formations,  regiments, etc. and became a small skirmish game.  Ppl wanted a game with armies, not loose collections of troops.

Even with points, AoS hasn't pulled back in those looking for games that do that (KoW, 9th Age).

[Trout]

4 hours ago, chord said:

Agreed!  That would most likely drive me away 

Yeah, I would move on too. I don't think we have anything to worry about though. It's clear from how they have been training their managers that this is a top-down company-wide commitment to putting streamlined casual gaming up front and leaving crunchy competitive tournament stuff in the background. For them to change, they would need to either ditch their CEO (who has been doing a phenomenal job) or end up going down that route accidentally through rules creep.

[bsharitt]

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

 That's closer to why we lost ppl.  It stopped being ranks, formations,  regiments, etc. and became a small skirmish game.  Ppl wanted a game with armies, not loose collections of troops.

Even with points, AoS hasn't pulled back in those looking for games that do that (KoW, 9th Age).

I didn't play WHFB(was considering it, but heard rumors that big changes were coming and waiting it out), but did notice the local WHFB community basically completely went to Kings of War and some 9th age or kept played 8th edition. Even though I liked the idea of AoS well enough I ended up going Kings of War because there was no AoS community. The GHB completely changed that and now there's a healthy AoS community and the KoW community has shrunk some due to it(but both games are living side by side and a lot of the AoS players actually seem to be 40k people, not necessarily old WHFB people).

[Mikosan]

5 hours ago, chord said:

But simplicity of rules brought in new players.   Maybe the old players were just upset at change?

Thats exactly why I don't want to see much change with the core rules, the simplicity makes it an easy game to start up, more so still the great pricing on start collecting boxes, battle force boxes, and saner unit box cost.  My old group loved the nitpicky movement rules and winning in the list building phase, deathstars, unkillable heroes in a 40 block of white lions with banner of the world dragon, Lol, AoS offered none of that on launch so yeah the change was more than they could bear. Really they are good dudes, just very particular about the kind of game they wanted to play.  None play war-games as far as I know now.

I love going to tournaments, and I am by no means a competitive player.  I get out once a month to game.  Thats it.  At club day I can get one game at 2k in as its a fun casual environment, at a tourney I can get 3 games in a row.  I see maybe one power gamer, after that I am on the bottom tables and really enjoying myself and usually learn something even from getting stomped by top tier lists.  This to me is the great thing about AoS with points, I feel like it is right down the middle in the casual vs competitive arguments.  It can do both, often at the same time depending on the players involved of course. Maybe I just play in a casually competitive environment haha

[VBS]

A random thought, but I find quite ironic when people say they don't want AoS to go in the WFB direction. Because it already is (sort of!).

The initial AoS incarnation was the most far removed version possible from WFB. But when GW introduced the GHB, it was precisely to cater part of the old crowd and competitive players that couldn't live without their precious soldiers having points (not only that, but GW backing out from their initial conception for AoS is evident). Match play was the objective of the GHB, the other 2 "ways of play" being anecdotal at best since narrative/open play always existed in any wargame and no one needs an official book to tell them they can play however they want or that it is nice to forge a narrative for campaigns (I mean... DUH!).

So we see that since its release, AoS has started incorporating more and more elements. Points for minis spawning a competitive scene, netlists, win at all cost, toxic mentality, etc.... Then also magic items, traits, special rules, and power creep leaving behind non-updated armies/legacy. All this sounds very familiar, right?? Obviously, it will never be like it because of fundamental game design differences, but it is evident that some elements made their way into AoS, which was not the case at the start.  It is closer to what WFB was now than it was at the start.