Anyone else having a harder time finding games since 40k 8th?

[PlasticCraic]

12 minutes ago, someone2040 said:

We'll be flying across from Adelaide. I think you're right in that tournaments definitely help with the ongoing drive. We had our last tournament for the year late October, and originally it was not in the schedule. My suspicion is that tournament wasn't in place, we may have felt that drive fall down a bit as people may have been distracted by other projects.

Cool, I've been following the Doom and Darkness Road to CanCon videos on YouTube, are you involved with those guys at all?  What I like about those videos and batreps is that they come up with their own list tech, not just netlisting.  It's always thought-provoking, and often deeply impressive.

[someone2040]

11 minutes ago, PlasticCraic said:

Cool, I've been following the Doom and Darkness Road to CanCon videos on YouTube, are you involved with those guys at all?  What I like about those videos and batreps is that they come up with their own list tech, not just netlisting.  It's always thought-provoking, and often deeply impressive.

Yep, Doom and Darkness is one of my club mates. Should be a game of him against my Free Peoples up shortly (played on Saturday).

[PlasticCraic]

5 minutes ago, someone2040 said:

Yep, Doom and Darkness is one of my club mates. Should be a game of him against my Free Peoples up shortly (played on Saturday).

Awesome, looking forward to it!

[Tailessine]

Hopefully the AOS rules will be improved with some ideas from 40k (command points, s&t, no character sniping etc) plus extras (meaningful terrain, shooting less powerful, cards a la Shadespire?) better rules = more gamers

[RuneBrush]

I think some of this is because a lot of hobbiests/gamers a bit like moths and always fly towards the newest and brightest release   40k certainly attracted a lot of people for the same reasons AoS did, a much cleaner game and a great reason to dig out old armies and roll some dice.  Necromunda is doing similar currently (myself included).

What I'm finding interesting is that I've not seen many people painting up new 40k armies other than Primaris and Death Guard, whereas I'm still seeing people starting new AoS armies.

[Killax]

@RuneBrush yeah I have seen that too. Though its quite logical because like GH2017 Ive also only seen "great" AoS Armies/Allegiances so far

The advantage 40K now has over AoS in my opinion is that we know Codex will come with rapid pace.

Honestly I think AoS would be just as popular if GW said Battletomes would follow as quickly also. Honestly I expected Nurgle Rotbringers this year and I dont really know why it isnt out yet. Based on DeviantArt I know a ton of Nurgle art is finished too and really a Battletome for them would be easy.

The same also applies for Deathrattle or even one Aelf faction. Many of the Dark Elves units are quite up to date and really ready for some lore, additional rules and Battalions.

So if anything Id say 40k rised to popularity again because of a good core rulesset, future transparancy and other medium popularity (pc games).

[Keldaur]

The problem aren't the game mechanics. Most are transplants from Age of Sigmar adapted for a more shooty enviroment.  I know my opinion will be unpopular.

Many of the things people are asking from 40k to get into AoS like character sniping are the things that were actually done very poorly on 40k. -1 to hit lone non monster characters from shooting is way better that absolute inmunity, and on a scale, no negative modifier is also better than absolute inmunity. The game itself is ****** for anyone who wants to play an interesting tactical game, mostly because it is a shooty game where player interactions are monodimensional, specially now that they had streamlined it a lot. And i am not saying the game is bad, but that the game mechanics are not something that you should transplant anywhere.

40k has a lot of advantadges over Sigmar but certainty and popularity are the ones that will always pull it ahead because they feed each other in a loop that AoS can't even dream of reaching with the current release pace, for starters it didn't start from blowing up a prexisting game world which makes a lot of people reticent to jump over AoS. The setting and lore is also way more known and mainstreamed than anything AoS can deliver. GW has also provided way more support to their milking cow, and we are seeing a rapid release of codexes and the certainty that in  a year tops everyone will have their codex.

If GW continues this trend, with the release of many third-system games and absolute dedication 40k, i don't see how AoS can thrive. And i say this as someone who has his group to play every week no problem, but nurgle hasn't been released, Aelfs got nothing, death is a complete mess of an alliance, etc. And the battletomes we have, aside khorne, SCE and tzeench all lack severily in the diversity and depth required to feel like you are collecting something interesting enough to justify the pricetags.

 

[Mr. White]

19 hours ago, Kamose said:

Also try to gently nudge people away from exclusively Matched Play gaming and towards some Narrative or Open Play.  I'm not saying there is anything wrong with Matched Play per se, however, I feel that players who emphasize competitive play to the exclusion of all other game types may (unintentionally) handicap themselves, their enjoyment, and their community.  If you and your play group only care about Matched Play, you will natural weed out 90% of the armies and play styles as uncompetitive.  Not because those 90% are necessarily "bad" or nonfunctional in the game but because they are not what the almighty INTERNET has declared to be "The Best".   After that, a fear of losing all the time or lack of 'balance' (whatever that means) or playing less competitive armies will drive many players away.  The saddest thing in this hobby is watching a gaming group implode or wither and die because their group's game nights did not match the overwhelming (and unrealistic) expectations that are bandied around the Internet.  The hobby should be about what you and your friends enjoy and want to try, not what the rectangle you are reading this on says you should be doing.

Narrative and, especially Open Play, do not suffer from this problem as much because there are few restrictions on what the players are allowed to do to have fun.  "I think right now AOS is pretty much summarized as Stormcast vs Daemons vs Sylvaneth in terms of viability. That just won't cut it I think."  This simply is not true.  AoS consists of "All the Armies vs. All the Armies" right now.  The only reason it may seem like "Stormcast vs Daemons vs Sylvaneth" is if you and your gaming group refuse to play any other armies or any other game type.  In short, don't handicap how you play.  Try new armies and new game types, and encourage your group to do the same! 

PS:  Yes, I understand the irony of telling people to ignore what the Internet says to do while writing a post on the Internet suggesting how you and your friends should play.    I feel like I can get away with it since my opinion seems to be in the minority.  '!!smoke bomb!!' 

Hellz yes! Open and Narrative play for the win!

I haven't enjoyed gaming or painting this much since...well...ever. At 42, I was a bit young for WFB 3rd, but the AoS 4page, Open Play ruleset seems to me an updated version of that same sort of free-wheeling gaming philosophy...and I love it!

[Killax]

@Keldaur I really feel your point boils down to this though: "The problem are the game mechanics, the battletomes we have, aside khorne, SCE and tzeench all lack severily in the diversity and depth required to feel like you are collecting something interesting enough to justify the pricetags." 

Despite you initially stating the problems arn't the game mechanics but then follow up on the weaknesses within 40K's and Age of Sigmar's game mechanics... (the Battletome's and how they should add diversity and depth. Something that is actually created by it's mechanics, call it Allegiance rules, Battalion rules or even new Warscroll rules). 

To me the fact of the matter is that Age of Sigmar initially was catered towards a much younger 'step in level' audience and while this is okay the community is actually outgrowing the game design quickly. To the point where not only General's Handbooks are needed to keep the game interesting, by large they are the game. 

As a player of many systems I believe good rulessets lead to great popularity. Not because one person thinks so but because many do. When we peek back at 2017, I saw the following occur:
- Mk 3 Warmachine/Hordes was not doing as well as Privateer Press expected and a lot of former Mk 2 fans where looking for something else.
- Warhammer 40.000 7th edition was not doing as well as fans hoped and they where looking for something different.
- Generals Handbook 2016 set a standard of a good game again, it wasn't extremely diverse but at least the system wasn't to blame. Initial costs where good and while combo's reigned the game itself was fun in it's combo-y way. GH2016 was a great succes and catered to a lot of fans who where dissapointed at WarmaHordes or 40K.
- Warhammer 40.000 8th edition is around and is a massive improvement over 5th, 6th and 7th 40K. Tons of new players join because they like shooting and the sci-fi setting. It's at an alltime high because Games Workshop is extremely clear on what they are going to do and how they are going to do it. Yes a ton of rapid paced FAQs isn't fun but it certainly shows they care. I wish AoS recieved a similar treatment.
- Generals Handbook 2017 is still very cool but some things that ideally where fixed wern't (random Battalion costs and their interactions). We have added new Armies/Allegiances who matter but it would be incorrect to state that some didn't simply fall of the radar (Death's gone altogetehr, Ogre Kingdoms is gone and mixed GA Chaos is gone).

So what I hope and believe is that Games Workshop is considering a second edition of Age of Sigmar with simply put superior mechanics. The fact that characters get screened in 40K is what makes them very interesting also. In Age of Sigmar the game itself is still ruled by either HUGE blocks of infantry or monster characters, shooting is most certainly still around but a little meta-countered by the need/will for monster characters. The moment we'd see a rule added that protected non-monster characters more AoS unit diversity will appear. The moment more scenery interactions are presented in the game is also the moment where smaller units will matter again. The prime reason why AoS isn't as popular as it could have been is because the Shooting Phase and Magic Phase arn't fleshed out much, way too little for something called a fantasy army game.

[chord]

Locally the lack of storyline releases for AOS and the GHB2017 seemed to put a damper on the community.   The additional abilities are just piling up too much to make it fun it seems, lots of trying to keep track of too much.

 

Hopefully the next GHB moves back to less rules/abilities. 

[Twitch of Izalith]

AoS is definately going through a slow patch accross the board - even these forums are quieter than they were a couple of months ago. We had a quiet spell when shadespire came out - that didn't interest me at all so I have been playing 40k.

The new 40k is definately a more complete game than AoS until you get to matched play missions - Apart from scorched earth the AoS missions are awesome. And we just play that you can't burn objectives on turn 1 which fixes scorched earth pretty well.

40k's problems are mostly only evident in the tournament setting. At the sort of casual competitive level I play at I don't have much to complain about. Just make sure you use lots of scenery because everything is lethal!!

I think new releases definitely help drive the enthusiasm so hopefully 2018 will bring new battletomes.

 

Just a quick point on character sniping - You can do it in 40k - theres these things called snipers... You NEED to be able to do it it AoS because characters are so vital. taking them out is how you beat a lot of armies. Its more worthy of the herohammer title than 4th/5th edition in my opinion. I think the rules are fine in both systems. 

Except Guilliman - you should be able to shoot at him from anywhere. Even the next table....  

[Keldaur]

@Killax Yes and no. I don't see the diversity in DoT, SCE and Khorne to be a game mechanic, it could be a result of game mechanics but i think it's more about the amount of warscrolls which each book contain, the options. Kharadron for example have a small amount of warscrolls but plenty of rules to give some flexibility in list building and uniqueness. When i talk about game mechanic i mean the core mechanisms that make the game work in a way.  Yeah there are a lot of factors to account for in ones game popularity and i wouldn't mind an AoS 2.0 if i had faith in GW playtesting ability. But what gives me faith is that the latest books to  be released seem to have been going in a direction which for a single army means to make most options be self-contained in a single book rather than the mish-mash mess that we see in many of the outdated factions (ie elfs, death, etc).

@Twitch of IzalithI am aware of the existence of snipers... but they are not cost efficient at dealing with characters in competitive  battles, there are plenty of ways to deal with them, either through shooting or LoS'ing them.  What you said from a "casual point of view" is why I am remarking that i don't think it's a bad game, except if you are expecting something that the game is not. AoS is a better game from a competitive and tactical point of view since the game requires way more interactions between both players (melee combat is way better than in 40k, objectives are scored each turn) and there is more uncertainty (double turn) that increases the array of possibilities you have to take into account when playing. 40k is monodimensional, i can pretty much end up my deployment and imagine how the battle will go with a high percent of accuracy because most interactions are done in the shooting phase, and the objectives are scored by the end of the game, the same is not true to the same extent for AoS. 

And don't get me started in the whole detachment monster which forces any tournament (casual or not) to heavy house ruling just because it's the worst feature for matched army building i had ever witnessed in more than 20 years playing miniature games.

I agree with which game is less complete tho, that's AoS beyond doubt.

 

Edit - apologies for the broken english. Normally it's pretty bad, but today it's terrible.

 

[Jamopower]

Not much of a difference around here. Aos has never caught too much attention here, but neither did the New 40k in our Aos group. For me, it's Saga and Lotr that are currently competing for my hobby time.

Don't like the 40k too much. Not because of the rules, but because of the army compositions being a lot more shooty and the classic WH mechanism is not very interesting for a shooting game. The close combat has a lot more "gaming" in it.

[Sleboda]

4 hours ago, chord said:

Locally the lack of storyline releases for AOS and the GHB2017 seemed to put a damper on the community.

For our group, it's the "shiny new" that keeps us from doing much AoS. 

Skirmish had us. Blood Bowl got us. Arcadia Quest consumed us. Now it's 40k and Shadespire.

When AoS gets a new infusion (death, elves), we will point that way again.

[stratigo]

11 hours ago, Killax said:

@RuneBrush yeah I have seen that too. Though its quite logical because like GH2017 Ive also only seen "great" AoS Armies/Allegiances so far

The advantage 40K now has over AoS in my opinion is that we know Codex will come with rapid pace.

Honestly I think AoS would be just as popular if GW said Battletomes would follow as quickly also. Honestly I expected Nurgle Rotbringers this year and I dont really know why it isnt out yet. Based on DeviantArt I know a ton of Nurgle art is finished too and really a Battletome for them would be easy.

The same also applies for Deathrattle or even one Aelf faction. Many of the Dark Elves units are quite up to date and really ready for some lore, additional rules and Battalions.

So if anything Id say 40k rised to popularity again because of a good core rulesset, future transparancy and other medium popularity (pc games).

 

40k will always be more popular overall. I can't see ever how AoS could unseat 40k. Even under 7th I don't think AoS ever actually overtook 40k.

[Killax]

1 hour ago, stratigo said:

 

40k will always be more popular overall. I can't see ever how AoS could unseat 40k. Even under 7th I don't think AoS ever actually overtook 40k.

I can see it the same way Blizzards WoW character popularity outshines their Starcraft still.

Be new, inovative, technically solid and most certainly community inspired. See what happens.

[Tailessine]

I could see it happening if eventually they bring out a fantasy boardgame that brings in more of the massive boardgames community; see gloomhaven, D&D etc which i imagine have much bigger sales?

[MrZakalwe]

I've found the same thing, OP, and I'm guilty of it myself- Age of Sigmar has some issues that GW has opted out of fixing (firing out of combat, lack of character protection, crappy balkanised minifactions locking half the miniature range behind a barrier of mediocrity due to the dependence on keyword synergies, doubleturn creating excess RNG).

 

At the moment 40k just feels like a more complete system and with the rapid codex release schedule it really brings to light quite how poor the AoS team have been at catching up with their own edition; it's been more than two years and they still haven't done anything with Aelves beyond mess with the spelling.

 

I want to use my AoS army because I've spent a lot of money and time on it but it's quite hard to convince myself and other people to play the half supported system.

[Twitch of Izalith]

19 hours ago, Keldaur said:

@Twitch of IzalithI am aware of the existence of snipers...

Sorry! that may have come across way more sarcastic than it was meant! 

I would actually be really interested to hear your thoughts on the detachments force organisation thing... which is relevant because it kind of proves the point the original post made. There is more to talk about with 40k right now so mor people are enthusiastic to play it.

The whole conversation really highlights how dependent we are on games being "supported". If we actually got our wish and GW released every faction at once with a perfect ruleset there would be nothing more to do and we would all get fed up and stop playing!

 

[Keldaur]

Definitly, there is more to talk about 40k, it has been a release frenzy ever since 8th got out. For example on my zone there is people who plays 40k, but they are the same that played 7th. The others, including myself, had moved back to other systems as soon we realized the game changes are simply for the worse or insufficient in the game aspects we care about. But this is merely anecdotical and i am sure there are plenty of places where 40k is having a good time, and it is what i do expect.

About the detachments, the main difference is fairly obvious, the AoS system is simple but effective. Allegiance, this locks you which models you can use. Allies are a limited amount, and you require 1 general 2-3 battlelines. There is a limit in war machines and behemoths. Full stop. It allows some flexibilities, but overall the armies you will face have this in common, something you will expect. The characters work mostly for buffing purposes, and there are plenty of synergies between units where spamming one thing isn't just the most eficient you can do with your points. There are exceptions of course, but being able to shoot characters limits the sillyness that you can get out of force multiplier characters (ie Guilliman 40k).

40k system has been done to allow serious spammage, probably because the sale had been really good in the past editions where they had been allowing it more and more. You can pretty much point what unit you want because due to XYZ reasons (normally only mathhammered, because in shooting game is way more adequate to reflect power through statistics)  and then build a list around it. For example before the nerf (and i don't know if after aswell), you could build a list with only stormravens and guilliman. I can tell how you freaking easy to play that is from a gaming perspective (and how uninteractive), but i am sure you are aware of it. To fix this kind of extreme and tactically bankrupt lists, tournaments are limiting the amount of detachments, using 0-2 and 0-3 to units, etc. But this gets me somewhere else which is related. If you change the army building process to be more reasonable, but if you are not going to change the point costs, you are pretty much moving the goalpost. And i am not that much into making the game for GW, so they can profit from it (ie 9th).

[Jamopower]

In the local 40k tournament-scene, they have started to limit the number of multiple units to three of a same kind because of the games going very uninteresting with the armies consisting of just the maximum amount of best units and nothing else.

[Twitch of Izalith]

I really like the "Highlander" rules where you can only take one of each unit until you have one of everything and then you can take multiples.

I think spamming the most points efficient unit in the list is one of the most off putting things in both game systems. Its not as easy to do in AoS unless your battle line has the most broken points cost (looking at you fyreslayers) but it does happen.

I wish the rules designers would sit down with an interesting, varied, thematic army in front of them and say  "right, this is where we need to make the synergies work" - instead it ends up being brimstone horrors buffed by some forgeworld unit there is not even a model for - or something like that.

At least they are reacting to these mistakes these days and if you are playing in clubs and with friends this stuff isnt often a problem.

I think that people forget that just because the rules are open to exploitation does not mean there is anything forcing you to exploit them.

 

 

[chord]

1 hour ago, Twitch of Izalith said:

I think that people forget that just because the rules are open to exploitation does not mean there is anything forcing you to exploit them

THIS!    It's just a game, why must people try to find loopholes?  

[Keldaur]

That's not a loophole. The 40k tester team already said that they didn't want to use the detachment system that is currently in place for matched play, but GW wanted to keep it to allow players to play whatever they wanted. For matched play, the competitive type of play. Yep.

And about the motivation to min max, it is like solving puzzles, it is fun and rewarding, specially when you come up with something and get to experiment by playing and practicing it, and move on from there. That is the game for them. You know, different strokes for different folks.

[Twitch of Izalith]

Yeah thats fine but the min/max approach at its most extreme is not particularly enjoyable for a lot of players. I dont want to play against an army made of brimstones, maleific lords, magnus and the super-chicken (if forgeworld want me to use his real name they need to make it easier to remember!)

At a lesser extreme I don't want to play against an army of vulkite berserkers, battlesmiths and runesmiters either.

I think games should be a social contract between 2 gamers agreeing to have an experience that is enjoyable for both of them and if I write a list like that i know that very few people will enjoy playing against it.

I also think its fundamentally bad for the game if the strongest armies are the ones you can build from the books with the most or biggest points mistakes in them...