Comparisons between AoS and other games.

[Lord marcus]

Namely kings of war and T9A, its main competition.

 

Please share your thoughts, spanning from rules to gameplay to lore. I will share mine when I get home this evening.

[Siegfried VII]

I am not sure we can make any sense from such a topic because it really is a matter of opinion and taste. There are many people who love Age of Sigmar and many people that love other systems. The reasons are personal for each one of us 

I for example love the new fluff and it feels more "power metal" to me, high fantasy, over the top and I love it for that. I also love the fact that I do not need too many models and that I don't have to paint 40 models of the same unit. And I like the streamlined rules a lot. Perfect? No, but in the right direction they are.

A friend of mine likes to play with little fellows and likes a more historical look/approach in his games, so Age of Sigmar wasn't for him.

Another friend of mine is pissed with GW for their prices and has decided to not spend any money for models of this company.

 

As such I don't see the point of such topics. Everyone should play the game that rocks their world and be happy with their hobby. 

What do you feel that you can "earn" from such a topic? Are you looking for reasons to try Age of Sigmar, or reasons not to?

[tolstedt]

Power Metal is a perfect analogy for sigmar fluff.

Game wise Sigmar feels to me like a MOBA in the following ways: Control space, position well, have a reason to fight, each unit has a unique ability, dynamic interaction of units.

Sigmar is a battle game that has in my opinion ( based on my limited experience of tactical wargames, all of which is with cardboard GMT games and not miniatures) very little resemblance to a military game.

It is a totally different breed of game than WHFB or KoW and requires a totally different approach to play. The strategies and tactics necessary to succeed are different and interesting by their own merits. I think that looking at the silarities between Sigmar and MOBAs would be a good discussion that could net some insight to the game and it's qualities and improve a player's skill by applying thematic ideas and strategic lessons from MOBAs (I'm sure there's extensive writing and video content available).

The fluff and minis enhance the gameplay to create a strong cohesive game experience. Form reflecting content. Mechanics reflecting theme.  

[Lord marcus]

I seek to gain insight as to why the community plays Sigmar and why they like it, so I can apply that as well as the merits of the game to getting my local group to integrate it into our mixed game campaigns

[Lord marcus]

I seek to gain insight as to why the community plays Sigmar and why they like it, so I can apply that as well as the merits of the game to getting my local group to integrate it into our mixed game campaigns

[TerrorPenguin]

Well, I can only tell you my reasons:

- fixed to wound and to hit mean everything has a chance. There are very few unkillable units, the models that you like are almost never 'useless'

- the rules are phenomenally simple to learn, but complex to master. I think it's like magic the gathering in this respect; the basic mechanics are simple, but the complexity is in the warscrolls

- all of the basic rules for units are free; meaning you can make an informed decision about what you're buying; and can theoryhammer to your hearts content.

- the community is very welcoming - probably the most important point. I had a couple of stalled efforts to start 40k before picking up AOS and it was nothing like this. 

I can't compare these points to other systems I'm afraid as I haven't played either KOW or 9th age; or even WHFB - I started playing at GHB

[tolstedt]

46 minutes ago, Siegfried VII said:

 

What do you feel that you can "earn" from such a topic? Are you looking for reasons to try Age of Sigmar, or reasons not to?

I always find it valuable to compare games. It helps to enhance understanding of the game system and what makes it tick. Comparative analysis is a strong and respected methodology.  We can earn knowledge and insights.

[Siegfried VII]

29 minutes ago, tolstedt said:

I always find it valuable to compare games. It helps to enhance understanding of the game system and what makes it tick. Comparative analysis is a strong and respected methodology.  We can earn knowledge and insights.

As long as it does not end up being a conversation about who's favourite game is the best, then yes it can be helpful. I was asking Lord Marcus in order to know his purpose of creating this topic. His reasons are good enough for me so perhaps I'll make another post stating the reasons I like the game...

[Lord marcus]

59 minutes ago, TerrorPenguin said:

Well, I can only tell you my reasons:

- fixed to wound and to hit mean everything has a chance. There are very few unkillable units, the models that you like are almost never 'useless'

- the rules are phenomenally simple to learn, but complex to master. I think it's like magic the gathering in this respect; the basic mechanics are simple, but the complexity is in the warscrolls

- all of the basic rules for units are free; meaning you can make an informed decision about what you're buying; and can theoryhammer to your hearts content.

- the community is very welcoming - probably the most important point. I had a couple of stalled efforts to start 40k before picking up AOS and it was nothing like this. 

I can't compare these points to other systems I'm afraid as I haven't played either KOW or 9th age; or even WHFB - I started playing at GHB

GHB?

[Thomas Lyons]

4 hours ago, Lord marcus said:

GHB?

General's Handbook.  This was the supplement that gave AoS points.

[Soulsmith]

For me, Age of Sigmar gives me more freedom. I am primarily a painter, and whilst my force may not end up super competitive, that's fine. I can use what I want to, and fortunately the battleline units if I do play points are units I like anyway.

[HobbyHammer]

10 hours ago, Lord marcus said:

I seek to gain insight as to why the community plays Sigmar and why they like it, so I can apply that as well as the merits of the game to getting my local group to integrate it into our mixed game campaigns

This part should be mentioned in the opening post,

I would say though dude, be careful with you posts on this forum.

We have a great positive attitude in here and from looking through you other posts, it could appear very negative and baiting to spill some hate. For instance, 'Loss of TK Range' 'Why the Hate...' and the Waywatcher one are the three other posts. From looking at your Painting post too, which I am happy to see as it looks cool, it appears like a KoW player coming on to bait AoS players. 

This post could be a great read for New players, but it does need to be worded a little different. Like this post above.

[Lord marcus]

1 hour ago, HobbyHammer said:

This part should be mentioned in the opening post,

I would say though dude, be careful with you posts on this forum.

We have a great positive attitude in here and from looking through you other posts, it could appear very negative and baiting to spill some hate. For instance, 'Loss of TK Range' 'Why the Hate...' and the Waywatcher one are the three other posts. From looking at your Painting post too, which I am happy to see as it looks cool, it appears like a KoW player coming on to bait AoS players. 

This post could be a great read for New players, but it does need to be worded a little different. Like this post above.

I'm not trying to "bait anyone". I am trying to have discussions about topics, I admit, are hard to talk about. I am also trying to ask questions about ranges and models I am interested in and that the members of this forum would know more about.

 

Frankly, I'm feeling targeted by your post when all I am trying to do is have discussions. I mean no Ill will, and have no evil intent. The cautionary tone is not required.

I posted and will continue to post my miniatures as a showcase of how I paint AoS figures. If you don't like them because I choose to place them on unit bases that's fine because it is your opinion and you are allowed to voice it. But I am going to keep posting photos of my Models regardless.

[Lord marcus]

2 hours ago, Soulsmith said:

For me, Age of Sigmar gives me more freedom. I am primarily a painter, and whilst my force may not end up super competitive, that's fine. I can use what I want to, and fortunately the battleline units if I do play points are units I like anyway.

Thank you for your reply, and your insight.

7 hours ago, Thomas Lyons said:

General's Handbook.  This was the supplement that gave AoS points.

Thank you!

[KHHaunts]

14 hours ago, TerrorPenguin said:

Well, I can only tell you my reasons:

- fixed to wound and to hit mean everything has a chance. There are very few unkillable units, the models that you like are almost never 'useless'

- the rules are phenomenally simple to learn, but complex to master. I think it's like magic the gathering in this respect; the basic mechanics are simple, but the complexity is in the warscrolls

- all of the basic rules for units are free; meaning you can make an informed decision about what you're buying; and can theoryhammer to your hearts content.

- the community is very welcoming - probably the most important point. I had a couple of stalled efforts to start 40k before picking up AOS and it was nothing like this. 

I can't compare these points to other systems I'm afraid as I haven't played either KOW or 9th age; or even WHFB - I started playing at GHB

I would agree with this pretty much:

There really isent anything in the game that is so OP that it cant be taken (even Nagash) and im happy to see lots of characters being taken in games now. List building can improve your army but not to the point where your opponent will have no chance. Little whitewashing from this game.

Yes having to deal with so much abuse from the other communities we can seem a little skitish but thats because we would hate to see TGA become like Whineseer. But on the whole AOS players are chilled.

 

Trying to think of how to compare directly to another game without the "Mines better" thing happening. Here goes.

Something that appeals to me about AOS over other systems such as 40k, WHFB and KOW (although i have less experience with the latter) is the fact that there is an appealing lerning curve in the game. compared to other systems that dont have a curve but a bloody big step that many people have to suffer game after game of struggling in order to clamber up onto it (if you have never played before). Not just in the mechanics but in the community as well. Aos really does allow for an appealing element at all levels.

If i want to have a no holds bar game with one of my experienced friends then we add all the bells and whistles pick of make a great battleplan and duke it out.

on the other hand if my nephew decides he wants in i can teach him the rules without it being intimidating for him or boring for me (Because some other systems rely on their complexity to be fun).

Im planning on getting back into 40k soon after about 10 years out of it and honestly i find the prospect a daunting as most people dont wantto play into games or build up because its seen as boring.

But in AOS ive found it quite fun to help out in my local shop by teaching the rules of AOS to four young lads and just having them field their small forces all against mine. It was fun in its simplicity.

Phew!

 

[CoffeeGrunt]

I'm coming at it from the view of a 40K player who has also dabbled in a good load of other systems. The lovely thing about AoS is that I feel I have a more even playing field with my opponent. For example, when building my fleet in Dropfleet it turned out I focused too little on Ground assets and dropships, so my fleet is awful at objective play until I get a couple more expansion boxes. I love that game to bits; the space battle play is tonnes of fun and once I get a decent fleet together I'll be doing okay at objective play.

In 40K it's another story though. I can't run my Tau list, it just smashes stuff. It's nothing clever or fulfilling on my end, they're simply so survivable and so shooty that I cripple my opponents when they're halfway across the table, and the game becomes a slog of picking off survivors like ticking off a checklist. My Guard tend to be more even, but they need hordes to work, and so movement phases take an eternity.

On top of that, it's still so easy to smash newbies, which is pretty awful. I can constantly pull out rules they simply don't know exist. However in AoS, there's only 4 pages and it's all incredibly-elementary. Players tend to get the basics down within the first turn of a demo, and by the end of it they're putting together the combos in the lists I've picked and anticipating mine. Once they go home with the rules to look over their options, they're normally digging through the rules to come back the next day full of ideas about their armies.

As far as similar systems, I just don't find rank-and-flank exciting or fulfilling. For one, it doesn't feel characterful. Why are Dwarf Slayers, Orks or Khorne Marauduers fighting in perfect, organised rows? These are raging barbarians or suicidal berserkers, they should be swarming across the table in a loose pack. I think what really killed it for me was that, with the high buy-in cost, the game was ultimately 2D squares bumping into each other, and individual models operate as wound markers, basically. You could replace a block of 40 Skeletons with a 10x4 movement tray and a sharpie marker noting, "40 Skeletons," and functionally it made no difference.

However in AoS, the position of each model matters. My cavalry have to position themselves for the charge so that I can get as many lances in on that initial hit as possible. My zombies swarm around a stricken squad, regenerating around and behind entrapped Heroes, feeling more like a horde.  There's another one, zombies fighting in perfectly organised ranks. Why? They're zombies for crying out loud!

Don't get me wrong, I understand that for others that rank 'n' flank play is way more appealing, and all power to them. Just isn't for me. If it was, I'd be on 9th Age, not here.

Now, in Total War it's a completely different story...

[Kaleb Daark]

In respect to the two other systems, and I say this having never played them but being someone on the outside looking in, one is a traditional Rank and flank game (KoW) which was sitting in WHFB's shadow for some time till End Times.  The other is a protest game and in truth I genuinely believe that for all the good of its community it's flame will eventually dim.

What is disappointing is that both capitalised on rage and anger and shock for their foothold and expansion.

Now that all said and done, I was one of those people who pretty much sold all my fantasy stuff, based on giving AoS a try with the starter box game at my local GW.  The manager thought it was a pile of dog log, and the game I had sucked balls to use the great Cartman's sayings.

I must issue a disclaimer that the then manager was a gaming bully anyway, high ranking tournament wood elf player and he just reamed everyone he played - yes even the fourteen year old kid who just didn't know what hit him and probably threw his miniatures in the bin outside straight after as the loss was that brutal.  But I digress...

 

The current manager is a superb bloke and a firm AoS advocate and fighting the good fight.  Man should get a payrise for the amount of defending he does.

 

So to AoS... in asking what the differences are, I suppose one can ask what made people walk away from AoS when FB died.   Now, I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that had Rowntree been the MD at the time, AoS would have had a very different reception.  Kirby ballsed up big time.  I think had they been introduced in tandem the migration would have probably been one of natural evolution rather than take it or leave it - deal with it. A Kirby trait throughout his tenure.

 

Back to the shop.

Our most ardent loather of the system and his disciples...

.. will never play it because of what they did to the old setting.

I argue that the armybook stagnation was the real bad guy and the campaign and battletome method should have been done years ago to advance storyline and redraw the map.  Tamurkhan was a perfect example of this, a tremendous book and an absolute snorting bale taurus of a read.

Perhaps in this way Brets would still be alive and kicking - I always thought they'd be an amazing narnia style army with fantastical beasts and druids and  centaurs, all fighting the good fight alongside the knights.

I also think that were GW to give a 'new old world' planet/realm to the mortals to fight on then you'd just get  "oh it's the old world but with a stupid name...might as well have kept fantasy.."

My biggest counter to this is that GW did not advance the storyline. Every editions armybook just re-wrote or retconned the previous rather than saying well, in the intervening five years, this has happened and this is the result, and here's the new map becasue of it.  That's a living breathing world, not what we had.

.. find no strategy in it

Ok, so we no longer have +1 VP for flank or +2 for rear and arcs of fire or fields of view, and yet there appears to be great underlying strategy in making sure you kill what you want to kill and control the other player's movement and charges.  There is a great reluctance to pursue the fluidity of the game. 

.. Apparently everything just evolves into a scrum in the middle.

Did old fantasy not do this anyway when people played deathstars?  I remember some hordes being so difficult to beat that I'd just pack my stuff away as there was just no point in playing.

.. There's no sense of tactical advantage as a goblin can take down a greater demon.

Yet one of their very selling points of fb over 40k was that you can always hit something however slim, whereas 40k had things which just could never be harmed by certain units.  Also said players had tailored lists so extensively that they were rapier sharp for that faction.

 

I do believe that initially their problem is that they cannot see the game for the rules - or lack of them. They try and play AoS like a game of fantasy, yet it doesn't play the same way, nor does it function the same, and by that virtue the people that have seen through the (lack of) rules and given AoS a fair crack of the whip were gamers coming in from the cold, never having played WHFB, who looked at the game with fresh and new eyes and saw new possibilities.

The same people argue that AoS was designed to be played by 12 year olds and therefore doesn't deserve to be classified as a serious game, yet I think with all the combinations and individual warscroll rules there's still great complexity and combinations, and remembering all of them is still a challenge as it was with fantasy battle.

@Lord marcus if you enjoy clear cut binary yes/no rules then I suppose that the other two options are for you.  WHFB was full of this does this, that does that, and in order for you to do this, this must happen or you must be positioned thus.  Yet is was still open to abuse and still abused. But that's the nature of humans rather than the game.

AoS is a very simple set of rules to grasp, yet the mechanics of the game are difficult because the framework exists within the player not in a manual, and as such the complexity comes from understanding the synergies yes, but also understanding how to make your opponent do what you want.

Don't get me wrong, I still miss certain things like the feeling of customising your characters and units to make them 'yours' but I suppose that's all in the mind rather than reality, and I'd say to anyone - do what I did and then see how you feel.  Don't just read the rules and play the intro game, actually play a game with your own army and then see how you feel about the game.

hope I haven't rambled too much!

[mhsellwood]

First I guess a bit about me and my gaming history. I started purchasing GW stuff when Warhammer was 3rd Edition, 40K was actually Rogue Trader, when an army range was four pages of models with evocative names like Dwarf with Crossbow 1 or Dwarf with Crossbow 2, and there weren't no internet. Most of my gaming was done in 4th and 5th Edition (although I did get in a fair bit of 7th and 8th Edition as well). Recently I have played a reasonable amount of Kings of War but no 9th Age.

So, with that background I have to say that on its own merits I have had more FUN playing Age of Sigmar than any previous edition, find the model range more exciting than any previous period and am really excited to see the background develop even further. I also find it more enjoyable than Kings of War, and have no desire to play 9th Age.

Why?

• As mentioned, it scales really well for player skill level - I can run a cut down version for my six year old son, and also do really thoughtful games of movement and buffing and tricksy shenanigans with my friends. And enjoy them both.
• Things happen. By this I mean I can remember games of Warhammer where my tricked out Vampire with some support basically chewed through an army. My opponent rolled dice and achieved nothing while I killed his little dudes. That was the game. Long games of avoidance with one round of combat that ended it all. Games ended on turn one when my Vampire miscast and blew himself up. Purple Sun that wiped out half my army and then generated another 12 power dice. Characters that were functionally unkillable. The .5 inch dance. In AoS I have seen Skarbrand wiping out a unit of Kurnoth Hunters, then nearly killing a Spirit of Durthu in one round of combat before mercilessly being put down by a unit of buffed hammerers. A bloodletter horde running rampant through the heart of a shooty high elf army. Exciting memorable things.
• In Age of Sigmar different units achieve similar things may be through a variety of ways, all of them appropriate to the unit. So as an example think about a units toughness.Some units can play around with speed to gain survivability. Some regenerate damage. Some are tougher against particular attacks. Some have high saves, or high wounds, or high bravery. Some gain toughness through buffs within the army list (models in an army list with the Luminark are going to be tougher than those in a list without one, in the aggregate). Although the end result is the same, in games as in life, the journey is the fun bit not the arriving.
• The back ground has room to grow and develop, and it is very different in tone to what came before but it needs to be taken on its own merit. At this point I think what excites me most about it is that we are not in the situation of wondering what nerfs and buffs our preferred army will get, and wondering if this time it will be the Dwarf warriors that finally get updated. Instead we have the excitement of what are they going to do? What new armies? What new board games? What support is going to be out there? It feels fresh and exciting.

Still, it is not for everybody so maybe a question back to OP is: What does your group want out if its games?

[CoffeeGrunt]

I think part of my opinion of 9th and KoW is coloured by the fact that even our local diehard FB players don't like either. Apparently 9th keeps rebuilding itself from the ground-up meaning that it's awkward to get comfortable with the system in order to start working out army lists, and the other is good, but apparently bland in terms of flavour when playing.

Your opinion may vary, but that's what the anti-AOS people locally are telling me. IIRC they actually went back to FB 6th for their games in the end.

[TerrorPenguin]

3 hours ago, mhsellwood said:

 

• In Age of Sigmar different units achieve similar things may be through a variety of ways, all of them appropriate to the unit. So as an example think about a units toughness.Some units can play around with speed to gain survivability. Some regenerate damage. Some are tougher against particular attacks. Some have high saves, or high wounds, or high bravery. Some gain toughness through buffs within the army list (models in an army list with the Luminark are going to be tougher than those in a list without one, in the aggregate). Although the end result is the same, in games as in life, the journey is the fun bit not the arriving.

Thank you! You've just put into words something I've been thinking about - no we don't have S vs T tables anymore and some would say that this is ridiculous and lacks complexity, but units are tough in a variety of ways that fits their background; which makes it all the more immersive. The Wight King is tough (halves wounds) because of his armour; bloodletters can be tough if favoured on a dice roll because of regeneration; undead have poor armour but are tough because of their regeneration.

It removes unecessary maths (not even maths really, consultation of books) and adds more in flavour. 

Dont know if it was intentional or not but for me, it's a huge improvement and allows  for a lot more variety than a 1-10 scale

[Ollie Grimwood]

1 hour ago, CoffeeGrunt said:

I think part of my opinion of 9th and KoW is coloured by the fact that even our local diehard FB players don't like either. Apparently 9th keeps rebuilding itself from the ground-up meaning that it's awkward to get comfortable with the system in order to start working out army lists, and the other is good, but apparently bland in terms of flavour when playing.

Your opinion may vary, but that's what the anti-AOS people locally are telling me. IIRC they actually went back to FB 6th for their games in the end.

I think that's a problem with game design by consent, you can never please all of the people all of the time, especially considering T9A was a bit of a protest move ( nice idea though) 

I feel the AoS, "don't like it, house rule it" approach is a nice way to go after all people do tend to want different things from their wargames 

[SuperHappyTime]

On 12/19/2016 at 4:09 PM, Lord marcus said:

Namely kings of war and T9A, its main competition.

 

Please share your thoughts, spanning from rules to gameplay to lore. I will share mine when I get home this evening.

Both of the listed games (KOW and T9A) have a number of rules designed for Rank and Flank games, which is a different concept than the unit-skirmish of AoS. Compare and Contrast to Warmahordes, Infinity, and Malifaux, which are very individual units providing unique abilities. Warhammer 40K on the other hand is very similar to AoS, though there is more of an emphasis on the shooting phase than a close combat phase.

Honestly, there isn't much of a reason to get into the rules beyond that. Those systems are very different from Age of Sigmar.

Lore-wise, KOW, Malifaux and Infinity have decent-great settings, but no (or rather, an unnoticeable progression from an outsider's perspective) plot. Warmahordes and 40K have (IMO) both great settings (though different) and have a progressing plot. While realistically you can say T9A has a generic fantasy setting, it doesn't legally have a setting (The setting is Warhammer Fantasy. But since they don't legally own WFB's IP, and have done little to put out what they've created so far, there basically isn't a setting, past what is in the armybooks. Ironically, a lot of that is based off of WFB IP) and doesn't have a plot (no setting, no plot). IMO, AoS has a mediocre setting and a good, well-moving plot.

[KHHaunts]

On 21/12/2016 at 5:14 AM, mhsellwood said:

First I guess a bit about me and my gaming history. I started purchasing GW stuff when Warhammer was 3rd Edition, 40K was actually Rogue Trader, when an army range was four pages of models with evocative names like Dwarf with Crossbow 1 or Dwarf with Crossbow 2, and there weren't no internet. Most of my gaming was done in 4th and 5th Edition (although I did get in a fair bit of 7th and 8th Edition as well). Recently I have played a reasonable amount of Kings of War but no 9th Age.

So, with that background I have to say that on its own merits I have had more FUN playing Age of Sigmar than any previous edition, find the model range more exciting than any previous period and am really excited to see the background develop even further. I also find it more enjoyable than Kings of War, and have no desire to play 9th Age.

Why?

• As mentioned, it scales really well for player skill level - I can run a cut down version for my six year old son, and also do really thoughtful games of movement and buffing and tricksy shenanigans with my friends. And enjoy them both.
• Things happen. By this I mean I can remember games of Warhammer where my tricked out Vampire with some support basically chewed through an army. My opponent rolled dice and achieved nothing while I killed his little dudes. That was the game. Long games of avoidance with one round of combat that ended it all. Games ended on turn one when my Vampire miscast and blew himself up. Purple Sun that wiped out half my army and then generated another 12 power dice. Characters that were functionally unkillable. The .5 inch dance. In AoS I have seen Skarbrand wiping out a unit of Kurnoth Hunters, then nearly killing a Spirit of Durthu in one round of combat before mercilessly being put down by a unit of buffed hammerers. A bloodletter horde running rampant through the heart of a shooty high elf army. Exciting memorable things.
• In Age of Sigmar different units achieve similar things may be through a variety of ways, all of them appropriate to the unit. So as an example think about a units toughness.Some units can play around with speed to gain survivability. Some regenerate damage. Some are tougher against particular attacks. Some have high saves, or high wounds, or high bravery. Some gain toughness through buffs within the army list (models in an army list with the Luminark are going to be tougher than those in a list without one, in the aggregate). Although the end result is the same, in games as in life, the journey is the fun bit not the arriving.
• The back ground has room to grow and develop, and it is very different in tone to what came before but it needs to be taken on its own merit. At this point I think what excites me most about it is that we are not in the situation of wondering what nerfs and buffs our preferred army will get, and wondering if this time it will be the Dwarf warriors that finally get updated. Instead we have the excitement of what are they going to do? What new armies? What new board games? What support is going to be out there? It feels fresh and exciting.

Still, it is not for everybody so maybe a question back to OP is: What does your group want out if its games?

What he said.

Especially the first two points for me.

Well said!

[the_prophecy]

I´ve tried KoW, T9A and AOS. I think T9A is the weakest games of them all because it is way too complicated and old fashioned then the other two. It takes all the unnecessary and outdated Elements from WHFB into a new even more complicated and ever changing system.

KoW is nice but feels unprofessional in all elements (miniature, marketing, Lore) and the system is nice but really dry for a fantasy game.

Like AoS the most because it feels fresh, a lot happens in a battle, it is thrilling and unpredictable and the Lore keeps getting tighter and tighter. It feels like every single miniature has its own story to tell. So in a rating from 1 to 10 i would rate as such: (and i added my experience in other Tabletops too)

AoS 8
W40k: 7
Saga: 7,5
WHFB 1st to 8th Edition: 7
KoW: 7
Infinity: 6
T9A: 5
Warmachine/Hordes: 3
X Wing: 4

All my personal opinion of course