State of the Game Inquiry

[chord]

AOS is mostly dead around me.    It was doing well but a combination of new 40K, and the way the allegiance abilities keep getting added/more complex AOS is pretty much dead.  

[Kamose]

8 hours ago, Thebiggesthat said:

I'd check out The Honest Wargamer if you want some unbiased podcast/twitch content, I really like 2Ps in a pod podcast as well. Hard 6 are another good group

I heartily second that! The Honest Wargamer is great!

[daedalus81]

I've been absorbed into 40K for a while as well.  What did they do in regards to stuff like Kunnin' Ruck or Kurnoth Hunters? Did everything just get stronger to match?

[Dragobeth]

13 minutes ago, daedalus81 said:

I've been absorbed into 40K for a while as well.  What did they do in regards to stuff like Kunnin' Ruck or Kurnoth Hunters? Did everything just get stronger to match?

Kunnin'Ruck (all battalions in general) is now more points since GHB 17 and the unit now has a top of 30 minis.

Kurnoth got an increase on points too irc they may have a FAQ too but I'm not sure right now.

Both aren't a priority right now since those are no more top tier list (Tzeentch keeps being top tho, even with the point increase)

[MOMUS]

The trouble with AoS for me is the lack of composition rules make it extremely easy to min-max your army. Battleline means nothing. 

I would really like the next GHB to include maybe an extra layer to the missions to make troops tactically viable.

Im surprised that there is no community comp in place to balance power levels like the old Swedish comp.

[Tzaangor Management]

57 minutes ago, MOMUS said:

Im surprised that there is no community comp in place to balance power levels like the old Swedish comp.

I think that this an interesting point.  I know that you were specifically talking about army composition, something that could be an interesting addition to the AOS rules, but I think if you expand that thought and look at the lack of community comp in evidence anywhere, then you can make an assumption about the health and balance of the game.

It's not perfect, of course, and rules packs for events do seem to have small changes here and there, but I'm not aware of a comp pack or an event that has significantly altered the structure of AOS. This is surprising given the perceived number of complaints about turn order and shooting in particular, but the lack of appetite for systemic changes is, I think, a good indication for the state of the game. 

[Gecktron]

1 hour ago, MOMUS said:

The trouble with AoS for me is the lack of composition rules make it extremely easy to min-max your army. Battleline means nothing. 

I would really like the next GHB to include maybe an extra layer to the missions to make troops tactically viable.

Im surprised that there is no community comp in place to balance power levels like the old Swedish comp.

It really isn't needed. 2-3 Battleline units is expansiv enough for all armies without access to cheap battleline units and the Warmachines/Behemoth limit helps prevent spam. 
Also, making it so that you always have to pay for a batch of models makes it harder to min-max as you dont have too much choices to begin with. 

Also, another thing: I really want AoS to stay as simple as possible. I play both 8th edition 40K and AoS and after every game of 40K im always so glad that AoS keep everything more simpler. List building in 40K has become the most annoying part of the game for me. 

[Wired4War]

On 4/28/2018 at 4:07 AM, Gecktron said:

Also, another thing: I really want AoS to stay as simple as possible. I play both 8th edition 40K and AoS and after every game of 40K im always so glad that AoS keep everything more simpler. List building in 40K has become the most annoying part of the game for me. 

As it stands I'm feeling very overwhelmed as a new player. The rules are super simple and intuitive to learn the game...but now that I want to expand and build an army there are so many allegiance abilities, artifacts, command traits, and battalions to learn and memorize and the game that looked simpler than 40k at first glance is turning out to be much more complex.

[Tittliewinks22]

1 hour ago, Wired4War said:

As it stands I'm feeling very overwhelmed as a new player. The rules are super simple and intuitive to learn the game...but now that I want to expand and build an army there are so many allegiance abilities, artifacts, command traits, and battalions to learn and memorize and the game that looked simpler than 40k at first glance is turning out to be much more complex.

Out of curiosity, why would you need to memorize allegiance abilities/artifacts/command traits/battalions for any faction except the one you are playing?  

[Mcthew]

1 hour ago, Wired4War said:

As it stands I'm feeling very overwhelmed as a new player. The rules are super simple and intuitive to learn the game...but now that I want to expand and build an army there are so many allegiance abilities, artifacts, command traits, and battalions to learn and memorize and the game that looked simpler than 40k at first glance is turning out to be much more complex.

Mmm. I feel the same.

On the one hand I'm standing on the side of the mountain, looking out across a vast never-ending AoS landscape with limitless possibilities. On the other, I know that once I get to ground level, there's the swamp of ever-changing abilities as GW attempt to balance the game, rush out new models and races, and keep it fresh and 'agile'. However, keeping something moving and complicated in root and branch makes it overwhelming too. This is a costly hobby without being bewildered by so many factions crawling out of the woodwork (or nearby oceans!).

It doesn't help that each expensive battle tome looks to be out of date within 12 months. That doesn't keep me coming back for more, more like wonder if GW know what the hell they are doing.

What's keeping me interested in AoS, are the models themselves. And perhaps the promise in this setting. The setting hasn't approached anything like a useable universe for me (and the initial rulebooks were pretty awful as fluff goes, with utterly incoherent ordering and editing). But it can do if they work hard at it and they're backed up by interesting narratives.

The danger though, is that other settings and other hobbies will be more attractive if Games Workshop continue on an 'agile' approach to business. I don't mind them making mistakes, but asking us to pay for them as they haven't thought things through enough...?

Well, 21st Century patience is proven to be quite short... And there are other gaming systems out there...

[Richelieu]

3 minutes ago, Tittliewinks22 said:

Out of curiosity, why would you need to memorize allegiance abilities/artifacts/command traits/battalions for any faction except the one you are playing?  

Depends on how competitive you want to be in my opinion.  I love reading rules (I know, I'm weird) and I like to be prepared for anything any of my opponents can throw at me, so I memorize pretty much everything from every army.  That is, of course, totally unnecessary for playing the game and even playing well.   

[VBS]

6 minutes ago, Tittliewinks22 said:

Out of curiosity, why would you need to memorize allegiance abilities/artifacts/command traits/battalions for any faction except the one you are playing?  

Don't know about Wired4War, but many people learn what other factions do in order to have a better comprehension of the game and improve game-wise, particularly if you are into competitive gaming. "Know your enemy" and all that, as a certain Chinese strategist would say 

 

I also share the opinion of certain fellows around here. I don't feel the game is complicated or anything, it is simply not very practical to play most likely due to how it was initially designed (upon release). To me, there are way to many "non-fixed" factors (modifiers, rerolls, etc...) and non standard info (almost all scrolls having a special rule, situational rules, etc...) that make the game sluggish and not fluid. New armies push in this direction too. I can't enjoy it in the "official way", when other games offer a more pleasant experience. Though I'm fine with just a bunch of models (skirmish, small armies) where the bloat does not kick in or playing a stripped version of it for a beer&pretzel game, which is great but will never get you an oponent.... For me, this is the state of the game, not that it is too relevant as AoS happens to be dead around here, unfortunately.

[Richelieu]

16 minutes ago, Mcthew said:

It doesn't help that each expensive battle tome looks to be out of date within 12 months. That doesn't keep me coming back for me, more like wonder if GW know what the hell they are doing.

I don't this this is an accurate portrayal.  The first of the modern battletomes was sylvaneth and that launched nearly two years ago.  It is still quite a good tome and if not for some subsequent point increases for some models, it would still be top tier.  Tzeentch time launched a year and a half ago and is still the strongest one, so I'm not sure where you got the idea that they're all obsolescing.

Would you rather GW stopped improving their products?  I think it's fantastic that each new tome is better than the last without introducing substantial power creep. 

[Mcthew]

13 minutes ago, Richelieu said:

I don't this this is an accurate portrayal.  The first of the modern battletomes was sylvaneth and that launched nearly two years ago.  It is still quite a good tome and if not for some subsequent point increases for some models, it would still be top tier.  Tzeentch time launched a year and a half ago and is still the strongest one, so I'm not sure where you got the idea that they're all obsolescing.

Would you rather GW stopped improving their products?  I think it's fantastic that each new tome is better than the last without introducing substantial power creep. 

Well, I guess I look at Flesh Eater Courts battle tome and comparing that to more recent ones, for example. In the FEC battle tome there is a lack of allegiance abilities, artefacts etc etc (I haven't got Nagash yet, so don't know if this was improved in that tome), and it's a little threadbare. So I'm expecting another to come out shortly.

 Stormcast have had two tomes already, and there are rumours of a 3rd.

Khorne is another faction that is counting the editions.

Looking back through GW's history, I can't remember there being so many editions being rushed out so often. Which sounds like fun. But it's expensive to keep up, and I must say, alienating too. 

Sure, I like a business that keeps improving products, but there is a fine line between improvement and rushing things out. Apple were a business that were more considered in their improvements and developments. Yet since they've been 'rushing' out improvements or changes they think will engage their customers, they've been alienating more customers than ever.

This chimes with Chord's description of the state of the game too. Here, AoS has peaked interest, but it's been a bit of 'Emperor's New Clothes'. Personally, I like the game. It's great fun, and the models are cool. So I will still be playing, and at least buying the models.

For the time being, anyway.

(Interestingly, it was a GW branch manager that gave me the analogy between Apple and Games Workshop a while back...)

[Gecktron]

40 minutes ago, VBS said:

. Though I'm fine with just a bunch of models (skirmish, small armies) where the bloat does not kick in or playing a stripped version of it for a beer&pretzel game, which is great but will never get you an oponent.... For me, this is the state of the game, not that it is too relevant as AoS happens to be dead around here, unfortunately.

Using smaller armies has proven to be very successful in my area. 1000 points per side AoS is the most common kind of games in my local hobby store. New players can start playing way quicker and it keeps the game lengths on acceptable levels for everyone who doesn't have too much time to spend on their hobby.

25 minutes ago, Mcthew said:

Well, I guess I look at Flesh Eater Courts battle tome and comparing that to more recent ones, for example. In the FEC battle tome there is a lack of allegiance abilities, artefacts etc etc (I haven't got Nagash yet, so don't know if this was improved in that tome), and it's a little threadbare. So I'm expecting another to come out shortly.

 Stormcast have had two tomes already, and there are rumours of a 3rd.

Khorne is another faction that is counting the editions.

Looking back through GW's history, I can't remember there being so many editions being rushed out so often. Which sounds like fun. But it's expensive to keep up, and I must say, alienating too. 

Sure, I like a business that keeps improving products, but there is a fine line between improvement and rushing things out. Apple were a business that were more considered in their improvements and developments. Yet since they've been 'rushing' out improvements or changes they think will engage their customers, they've been alienating more customers than ever.

This chimes with Chord's description of the state of the game too. Here, AoS has peaked interest, but it's been a bit of 'Emperor's New Clothes'. Personally, I like the game. It's great fun, and the models are cool. So I will still be playing, and at least buying the models.

For the time being, anyway.

(Interestingly, it was a GW branch manager that gave me the analogy between Apple and Games Workshop a while back...)

Flesh Eater Courts, Clan Pestilence, Fyreslayers, Seraphon and both Khorne and Stormcasts have battletomes that were released before GW found the right way to do battletomes. Sure, its annoying but the change was for the better and this affected only a limited number of armies. Out of these no one had to buy "the same book twice". The new Stormcast book included 1-2 new chambers (depends on if you count the Extremis Chamber as a separate thing), Bloodbound became a part of the new Blades of Khorne faction. And the other old factions got their missing faction abilities in the last Generals Handbook. 

My point is, this isn't the norm but a extraordinary situation and GW did its best to fix it (including lowering prices of new battletomes, adding stuff to older factions and balancing the game every year to limit power creep).

[Mcthew]

12 minutes ago, Gecktron said:

Using smaller armies has proven to be very successful in my area. 1000 points per side AoS is the most common kind of games in my local hobby store. New players can start playing way quicker and it keeps the game lengths on acceptable levels for everyone who doesn't have too much time to spend on their hobby.

Flesh Eater Courts, Clan Pestilence, Fyreslayers, Seraphon and both Khorne and Stormcasts have battletomes that were released before GW found the right way to do battletomes. Sure, its annoying but the change was for the better and this affected only a limited number of armies. Out of these no one had to buy "the same book twice". The new Stormcast book included 1-2 new chambers (depends on if you count the Extremis Chamber as a separate thing), Bloodbound became a part of the new Blades of Khorne faction. And the other old factions got their missing faction abilities in the last Generals Handbook. 

My point is, this isn't the norm but a extraordinary situation and GW did its best to fix it (including lowering prices of new battletomes, adding stuff to older factions and balancing the game every year to limit power creep).

Well, I hope so. As a new player, entry into AoS has been a little more expensive than I expected. Starting out with Skirmish was fun, but with my eldest now trying to up that to a 1000-2000 point force, and still keep him interested by varying the factions he has, has meant the job-lot of battle tomes we bought at the beginning of this year must last for a long time (a min of 2 years) otherwise I'll stop buying the fluff and he'll stop being interested because we'll fall behind on the rules.

If this stabilises as you say, then I'll be much happier for it and have more money to spend on the bits that count IMHO: the models.

I have my fingers crossed, but it's up to GW to get this right.

 

(Thanks for pointing me to GHB, by the way. Completely missed the Flesh Eaters Court Allegiance bit - very helpful!)

[MOMUS]

1 hour ago, Tittliewinks22 said:

Out of curiosity, why would you need to memorize allegiance abilities/artifacts/command traits/battalions for any faction except the one you are playing?  

People tend not to like it when they loose because they didn't know x/y/z of the enemy's rules rather than they lost because they took a calculated risk and it didn't work out.

[Richelieu]

32 minutes ago, MOMUS said:

People tend not to like it when they loose because they didn't know x/y/z of the enemy's rules rather than they lost because they took a calculated risk and it didn't work out.

Those two things are one and the same.  The calculation just didn't include all the variables.  The only way you can guarantee everyone knows each other's rules is if all the armies are identical and that would be boring.  One of the reasons I, and many others I think, play miniature wargames is that they present a much broader and less defined structure than a board game or CCG.  

[Mcthew]

30 minutes ago, MOMUS said:

People tend not to like it when they loose because they didn't know x/y/z of the enemy's rules rather than they lost because they took a calculated risk and it didn't work out.

This is my frustration too. AoS can be an all consuming hobby, both in time and money. Which is fine, but for those who are budgeting for both (because when you're a dad with two boys, you are afforded little time) competing against opponents who know your army better than you do because their rules are more up to date, can leave a player disheartened.

With anything that changes quickly, there will be different shades of rules being played and no one version of the truth, other than the most recently published. Which is ok if you've got an opponent who appreciates that some players won't be that up to date.

Others, who are not so inclusive, will use that as a weakness and dictate the game. Which is a discouragement.

In the absence of stability, AoS locally should thrive on the behaviour of players, those who do not hide behind the rules and play it because it's fun. And will encourage us newbies whatever our ages. I've been trying to get this going from the ground up with my son's friends (all 9 years old). It seems to be working so far but we're all playing from the same rule books.

[Zambo]

For me it’s important to know that armies that I’ve invested in are going to continue to be supported and advanced 

My last major investment pre end times was 8th edition dwarfs and all of these new plastic  models have been consigned to “order soup lists” which doesn’t interest me 

Since AoS came out I have bought and painted a full ironjawz army which is feeling completely outdated already, if that’s it for IJ’s I will have serious reservations in making any future investments 

[MOMUS]

1 hour ago, Richelieu said:

The only way you can guarantee everyone knows each other's rules is if all the armies are identical and that would be boring. 

Does that reeeeally make sense? ?

There is a clear difference in not knowing what your opponents army is capable of and knowing theyre rules and abilities and engaging them with similar power level units from your own army.

As mentioned by others a barrier to play is the accessibility of army special rules, battalions, allegiance abilities and warscrolls which can sometimes be found all in seperate places and sometimes not all entirely choesive.

In previous editions USR allowed a player to learn a raft of rules which then applied to units in every book, now rather than 140 pages of rules we have the rules spread over 140 warscrolls.

In previous editions armies were kept out of tournaments due to the accessibility of thier rules, nobody likes being beaten when they were unable to have the choice to learn how or why.

[Mr. White]

Fortunately, my area (Central Texas) is AoS rich. There are many active groups and frequent events.

Unfortunately, I can't get out to most of it.

As far as 1K v 2K, I'm mainly interested in FEC and Ironjawz and I don't find either interesting at all at 2K. Well, on the hobby side of the game. I mean, those factions don't have enough variety to make the jump to 2K exciting. Painting 20 ghouls and 3 horrors for 1K is fun and lets me sample the models. Going to 2K generally means just doubling the model count and 40 ghouls sounds like a torturous slog. Even aesthetically, 2K doesn't work here, IMO.  I mean at 1K a zombie dragon is a cool center piece to an army. At 2K it's one of three with none being the 'focus'.

Less is more, IMO.

It seems nearly all the local tournaments are set at the 2k level, but the player base here is really laid back so if i desire a <= 1K pt game (or even Skirmish or Open Play) it's easy to find an opponent. With me only able to really get out for AoS on week nights, 1K is perfect. I've got BB and Shadespire for my 'tourney' games atm. Because 1K is perfect for my current lifestyle, the FEC model selection is fine as is. I'm not upset at all and would rather GW continue to work on cool new factions.

Perhaps at some point in time I'll actually want to soldier on to 2K with a faction. When I do it will be something with a breadth of model selection. Something like Tzeentch where the painting journey up to 2K will be varied and interesting and the army can be centered on one LoC or something.

[AthlorianStoners]

It sucks to see people who aren’t happy with the way their local community runs. 

If possible, I’d suggest everyone makes or joins a gaming group they’re comfortable with. My group and I total about 7 guys, all with 1-3 armies each. It’s an awesome environment, everyone’s on the same page with rules etc and we mix it up as often as possible with the army matchups and battle plans so it’s always fresh. 

 

[chord]

19 hours ago, Mcthew said:

Well, I hope so. As a new player, entry into AoS has been a little more expensive than I expected. Starting out with Skirmish was fun, but with my eldest now trying to up that to a 1000-2000 point force, and still keep him interested by varying the factions he has, has meant the job-lot of battle tomes we bought at the beginning of this year must last for a long time (a min of 2 years) otherwise I'll stop buying the fluff and he'll stop being interested because we'll fall behind on the rules.

If this stabilises as you say, then I'll be much happier for it and have more money to spend on the bits that count IMHO: the models.

I have my fingers crossed, but it's up to GW to get this right.

 

(Thanks for pointing me to GHB, by the way. Completely missed the Flesh Eaters Court Allegiance bit - very helpful!)

I would recommend not worrying about factions, allegiances, etc. if  you're playing with friends/family.   If you go back to the premise of buy what you like, and stick with grand alliances, then whatever interests them works and does not require as much investments.    I've found this works well for new players as the cost to enter is way lower, and the variety is appealing.  (any army of dwarves and elves, sure why not!)

[chord]

12 hours ago, AthlorianStoners said:

It sucks to see people who aren’t happy with the way their local community runs. 

If possible, I’d suggest everyone makes or joins a gaming group they’re comfortable with. My group and I total about 7 guys, all with 1-3 armies each. It’s an awesome environment, everyone’s on the same page with rules etc and we mix it up as often as possible with the army matchups and battle plans so it’s always fresh. 

 

I've got a small local group but its a mix of competitive and casual which has led to AOS slowly dying off.  I think in larger cities this works, but in smaller ones its really difficult.  AOS was doing great prior to the GHB v1.  after matched play got introduced things went downhill locally.