So how does everyone feel about Age of Sigmar?

[Fellman]

2 hours ago, Gorthor21 said:

Does anyone ever feel bad for thosto bladestorm?

Yes! one of the first big stormcast sacrifices 

[Gorthor21]

Wasn’t Jactos Goldmane the first named stormcast who was slain but did not reforge?  
I know that Vandus is really seen as a Mary-sue because he was on the front of most of the stormcast stuff in the beginning but I really want to see them expand on his story.  I do feel kind of peeved they haven’t made more mention of these original Lord Celestants like they do in 40k with Calgar or Dante.

[Melbar]

How does everyone feel about Age of Sigmar? Good question, but as I can only speak for myself I would say that I have no special feelings about it.

For me it’s a mixed back.

The main selling point for me is the miniatures and not much more. I like some parts of the background, others not so much. For me it’s a sunday morning cartoon world where everything is possible, which can be both a boon and a curse. Fun to watch (Rerolling Ones makes really good battle reports), but not good enough to invest to much spare time in it.

The rules have forced me to not involve anymore in gaming, as they devolved to cater first and foremost the tournament crowd (nothing against tournament players!), which is not in the slightest my cup of tea. Also the rules are written in such a bad manor that they need to be revised two weeks after release. As this is clearly just a vehicle to sell more toys makes the game for me even less appealing (“stir the hopes of gamers that next time all will be better” is something I really dislike). In contrast to GW I don’t see their books as collector’s items and therefore it both baffles and pains me to pay a premium for a rushed product. The background story is not good enough/engaging for me to buy the books just for a read anymore.

I’m aware that there is the app for the warscrolls, but it does not solve the problem of the half backed rules.

All in all I enjoy the miniatures and will continue to buy one or two per year, but the “Game” has lost me. But this is just me and I can use my toys for different gaming systems without annoying all the people who enjoy AoS as what it is – a really respectably hobby with many different facets.

 

Stay healthy!

Edited August 4, 2020 by Melbar
spelling error

[Skreech Verminking]

On 8/2/2020 at 4:52 PM, Gorthor21 said:

Does anyone ever feel bad for thosto bladestorm?

No.

But I do feel pity for mighty Queek Headtaker 

[Gorthor21]

3 hours ago, Skreech Verminking said:

No.

But I do feel pity for mighty Queek Headtaker 

I used to play clan Mors in fantasy so I feel you haha

[stratigo]

5 hours ago, Melbar said:

How does everyone feel about Age of Sigmar? Good question, but as I can only speak for myself I would say that I have no special feelings about it.

For me it’s a mixed back.

The main selling point for me is the miniatures and not much more. I like some parts of the background, others not so much. For me it’s a sunday morning cartoon world where everything is possible, which can be both a boon and a curse. Fun to watch (Rerolling Ones makes really good battle reports), but not good enough to invest to much spare time in it.

The rules have forced me to not involve anymore in gaming, as they devolved to cater first and foremost the tournament crowd (nothing against tournament players!), which is not in the slightest my cup of tea. Also the rules are written in such a bad manor that they need to be revised two weeks after release. As this is clearly just a vehicle to sell more toys makes the game for me even less appealing (“stir the hopes of gamers that next time all will be better” is something I really dislike). In contrast to GW I don’t see their books as collector’s items and therefore it both baffles and pains me to pay a premium for a rushed product. The background story is not good enough/engaging for me to buy the books just for a read anymore.

I’m aware that there is the app for the warscrolls, but it does not solve the problem of the half backed rules.

All in all I enjoy the miniatures and will continue to buy one or two per year, but the “Game” has lost me. But this is just me and I can use my toys for different gaming systems without annoying all the people who enjoy AoS as what it is – a really respectably hobby with many different facets.

 

Stay healthy!

Very few AoS tourny players think any of the rules cater to them or to tournament play in the least.

[Grdaat]

Just now, stratigo said:

Very few AoS tourny players think any of the rules cater to them or to tournament play in the least.

I'd be very surprised if that was true, since creating tournament style matchups is one of the points behind matched play, and separating models into current and Legends status.

[Skreech Verminking]

7 minutes ago, Gorthor21 said:

I used to play clan Mors in fantasy so I feel you haha

Yeah clan Mors really Is one of my favorite clans.

It really has a great background to it.

Considering that we don’t really have any subfactions, I guess I’m still playing a clans Mors (or Morskritt) Army

[Melbar]

14 minutes ago, stratigo said:

Very few AoS tourny players think any of the rules cater to them or to tournament play in the least.

I am sure that the tournament people are not 100% happy with the rules and for good reason. After all, they are the guys who play a lot and talk about it very "loudly" on the Internet. But it still feels to me from the GW side that everything that matters is matched play games. All other game mods get just some half backed rules once in a while. Don't get me wrong, I'm just not a fan of the current direction of the rules.

[Gorthor21]

From what I get from the interviews from the guys who do the different ways to play there are less people involved with those rules  typically just a few people making the scenarios so it’ll inherently be a little more unbalanced.  I believe what matched play even remotely fair are the third party play testers.  It’s hard to gauge how many people play each type of game as @Melbar said the tournament people are the most vocal on the internet thus the most seen.

i have not played the game since before there were points and only twice before that so I can’t really speak from experience just from conclusions drawn from the podcasts and YouTube videos I have listened to.  Though the hobby is more an escape for me only painting once in a while and most just reading the novels and battletomes before bed or when I’m in a hotel room.

[stratigo]

9 hours ago, Melbar said:

I am sure that the tournament people are not 100% happy with the rules and for good reason. After all, they are the guys who play a lot and talk about it very "loudly" on the Internet. But it still feels to me from the GW side that everything that matters is matched play games. All other game mods get just some half backed rules once in a while. Don't get me wrong, I'm just not a fan of the current direction of the rules.

Most people also play matched play. Like, unquestionably.

 

Matched play is what you play pick up. Not a grand narrative or a campaign or something. When you've got three hours to spare and want to throw down, you matched play. Which is why GW spends time on it. But they hardly ignore all narrative gaming. They're continually putting out campaigns, narrative scenarios, et cetera. But not many people pay attention to them. 

 

I think you're letting a bias color your perception of the content GW puts out. I can tell you that a lot of tournament players, flatly, just don't like a lot of AoS rules. They're not balanced. They're not even exploitable for those players that get off on winning by any means. 

[PlasticCraic]

In answer to the original question, I feel like it's the best thing since sliced bread.

The game has its ups and downs, and over the 5 years I've occasionally walked away for a breather (either through frustration or just burnout), but I'll always keep coming back.  Over time the game just keeps getting better, and I enjoyed the 12 months up to Lockdown probably the most since I've played the game.

The social aspect is the best part of it, but the game itself in a great place now that every army has a book.  I'll be honest, I'm still reeling from Kroak staying at 320 points, but if I could get through Vanguard Wing days, I can get through this.

 

[Melbar]

17 hours ago, stratigo said:

Very few AoS tourny players think any of the rules cater to them or to tournament play in the least.

 

7 hours ago, stratigo said:

Most people also play matched play. Like, unquestionably.

 

Matched play is what you play pick up. Not a grand narrative or a campaign or something. When you've got three hours to spare and want to throw down, you matched play. Which is why GW spends time on it. But they hardly ignore all narrative gaming. They're continually putting out campaigns, narrative scenarios, et cetera. But not many people pay attention to them. 

 

I think you're letting a bias color your perception of the content GW puts out. I can tell you that a lot of tournament players, flatly, just don't like a lot of AoS rules. They're not balanced. They're not even exploitable for those players that get off on winning by any means. 

Good morning,

of course I’m a bit biased, because that’s the nature of man. The truth lies in between, but as a human I draw my conclusion from the world directly surrounding me. That’s the reason why I wrote “It’s my feeling” – feelings are not matter of hard fact.

Matched play is a good way for pick-up games, sure and I’m glad that the AoS players have this option at hand. But any match I watched in one of the stores was either a training game for a tournament or a matter of “bring the best units and see what happens”.

This can be, of course, a regional phenomenon.

On the internet the most seen discussion turn around “Best or worst units/Army”, Tournament results, Meta, Copy/paste armies, etc.pp.

What makes me wonder is, if the tournament players are not satisfied with the rules, why did they play?

Regarding the narrative stuff:

Since it’s start AoS use the same Battleplans again and again, including a good bunch of rules - they are just renamed. Many of them are directly drawn from the Realmgate Wars book series, including siege rules, times of war and other “narrative” elements without much change. We have an exception in the Battle Tomes and some things like Anvil of Apotheosis or the Malign Sorcery expansion. That is not much, due to the constant recycling. Maybe I have missed something really new here, since I do not longer pay attention to it (since GH 2019).

In the end I think it's a regional thing. Maybe I should give the game another go in the future.

[JackStreicher]

3 hours ago, Melbar said:

In the end I think it's a regional thing. Maybe I should give the game another go in the future.

If so then I am expecting the same where I live (esp with 40K which is a different matter)

[Melbar]

8 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

If so then I am expecting the same where I live (esp with 40K which is a different matter)

40k is really a different beast and I had not played or collect anything of it since my first (and also last) game in 6th Edition*. I will also skip the new Edition, as I like Fantasy settings more than Sci-Fi ones.

*I played from second Edition till end of fifth, Was a good time.

[stratigo]

4 hours ago, Melbar said:

 

Good morning,

of course I’m a bit biased, because that’s the nature of man. The truth lies in between, but as a human I draw my conclusion from the world directly surrounding me. That’s the reason why I wrote “It’s my feeling” – feelings are not matter of hard fact.

Matched play is a good way for pick-up games, sure and I’m glad that the AoS players have this option at hand. But any match I watched in one of the stores was either a training game for a tournament or a matter of “bring the best units and see what happens”.

This can be, of course, a regional phenomenon.

On the internet the most seen discussion turn around “Best or worst units/Army”, Tournament results, Meta, Copy/paste armies, etc.pp.

What makes me wonder is, if the tournament players are not satisfied with the rules, why did they play?

Regarding the narrative stuff:

Since it’s start AoS use the same Battleplans again and again, including a good bunch of rules - they are just renamed. Many of them are directly drawn from the Realmgate Wars book series, including siege rules, times of war and other “narrative” elements without much change. We have an exception in the Battle Tomes and some things like Anvil of Apotheosis or the Malign Sorcery expansion. That is not much, due to the constant recycling. Maybe I have missed something really new here, since I do not longer pay attention to it (since GH 2019).

In the end I think it's a regional thing. Maybe I should give the game another go in the future.

Why people still play? They own an army. They like the community. They have fun with the game even when parts annoy people. 

 

And literally every battletome that comes out has narrative scenarios. This is something unique to AoS. 40k doesn't do this. A good chunk of AoS books are given over to path to glory. Something 40k also doesn't do. 

 

Every GHB contains narrative scenarios. Every campaign or special release had a narrative part of it. GW has never neglected narrative. In either of their main systems really. But you know what you can still do in a narrative game? Win. You can still win. So even narrative players aren't ignoring list building and optimum choices. 

[Melbar]

22 minutes ago, stratigo said:

Why people still play? They own an army. They like the community. They have fun with the game even when parts annoy people. 

 

And literally every battletome that comes out has narrative scenarios. This is something unique to AoS. 40k doesn't do this. A good chunk of AoS books are given over to path to glory. Something 40k also doesn't do. 

 

Every GHB contains narrative scenarios. Every campaign or special release had a narrative part of it. GW has never neglected narrative. In either of their main systems really. But you know what you can still do in a narrative game? Win. You can still win. So even narrative players aren't ignoring list building and optimum choices. 

I own currently nine fully painted fantasy armies, all around 100 to 150 models per army, all are painted by myself. Three of them are specifically for AoS (Stormcast, Blades of Khorne and Slaves to Darkness) so I have a big investment both in time (painting) and money. And still I don't play AoS because I do not enjoy the rules.

I fully respect that someone enjoys the company of the great guys in this community and bite the lemon (aka the rules) to enjoy the rest.  But that's not me.

I allready mentioned that I see the battletomes as an exception, the GHB not (it's since the first itteration just a recap of allreday existing stuff). 

Regarding 40k: Yep, you are totally right.

Regarding Win: Winning is valid as long as both sides have the same chances and a good time. Win for winnings sake is a concept I don't like. 

[EMMachine]

Well, how does I feel about AoS.

First of, my last Game was actually 2017 (so I actually never prayed the Second Edition Rules) and I have only played three times in the old Edition.

And still I like the game.

I feel like a historian (or Sigmars Librarian) when I read the lore of Battletomes or Stories and try to find the connections (in fact that is the point why I put so much work into a german Fandom Wiki to give others the chance to find a way into the lore).

And I like tree amount of creative choices I have in that lore (like the Brotherhood of Korhil, the Faithful of Eloni (including the Maiden Guard and the Tribefollowers of Alarielle) or the Shadow Guild). All those would basicly never had room in WHFB.

[swarmofseals]

Although I vastly prefer the lore of the old world and generally prefer the aesthetics of the late WFHB models (with some notable exceptions), I think that AOS is a really solid gaming system.

The more I play competitive AOS, the more I like it.

Is it the crunchiest, most skill intensive and most balanced game out there? No, but I do think it's getting better steadily over time in this respect. I do think that it is substantially more skill intensive than many critics suggest. Definitely enough to keep me interested. I also think that many of the common criticisms of the gameplay are a bit reductive. For example, the claim that games are mostly decided by the double turn has definitely not been my experience. Often times the double turn ends games quicker than they otherwise would have ended, but I think the percentage of the time that the double turn actually changes the outcome of the game is a lot lower than many people think. It's also often the most dramatic swing in the game, so when people look back on a lost game it's the easiest thing to point to and say "this is why I lost the game".  To me it seems a lot like Magic, where there are plenty of players that claim that luck of the draw decides the game rather than skill and often point to mana ****** or flood to explain a loss. Mana flood and ****** do influence a lot of games, but the number of games that are actually decided by ****** or flood is way lower than the complainers let on.

Beyond that, although I don't play open or narrative at the moment, I love that these play modes exist. When I first got into AOS right around when the first GHB came out, my wife and I were expecting our first child. I've loved the WHFB setting for ages, but I would never dream of getting a young child to actually play WHFB. A kid can play AOS though, and the system is flexible enough to support either a competitive mode, a sandbox mode, and an RPG style mode. That flexibility gave me hope that in maybe five years or so I'll be putting models on the tabletop with my kid and be able to shape the game to suit his interests.

[stratigo]

6 hours ago, swarmofseals said:

Although I vastly prefer the lore of the old world and generally prefer the aesthetics of the late WFHB models (with some notable exceptions), I think that AOS is a really solid gaming system.

The more I play competitive AOS, the more I like it.

Is it the crunchiest, most skill intensive and most balanced game out there? No, but I do think it's getting better steadily over time in this respect. I do think that it is substantially more skill intensive than many critics suggest. Definitely enough to keep me interested. I also think that many of the common criticisms of the gameplay are a bit reductive. For example, the claim that games are mostly decided by the double turn has definitely not been my experience. Often times the double turn ends games quicker than they otherwise would have ended, but I think the percentage of the time that the double turn actually changes the outcome of the game is a lot lower than many people think. It's also often the most dramatic swing in the game, so when people look back on a lost game it's the easiest thing to point to and say "this is why I lost the game".  To me it seems a lot like Magic, where there are plenty of players that claim that luck of the draw decides the game rather than skill and often point to mana ****** or flood to explain a loss. Mana flood and ****** do influence a lot of games, but the number of games that are actually decided by ****** or flood is way lower than the complainers let on.

Beyond that, although I don't play open or narrative at the moment, I love that these play modes exist. When I first got into AOS right around when the first GHB came out, my wife and I were expecting our first child. I've loved the WHFB setting for ages, but I would never dream of getting a young child to actually play WHFB. A kid can play AOS though, and the system is flexible enough to support either a competitive mode, a sandbox mode, and an RPG style mode. That flexibility gave me hope that in maybe five years or so I'll be putting models on the tabletop with my kid and be able to shape the game to suit his interests.

Many of the top table armies are built around winning the game in their first move. A double turn doesn't matter if your army was crippled turn one, and the rest is stuck fighting a tarpit in your own deployment zone. A few top table armies (*cough* OBR *cough*) are based around being unkillable in an actual fight. But that's all kind of a mess of battle tome power. There's just a lot of hardcore alpha potential in... HoS, DoT, KO, Seraphon, Dok... et cetera. And this isn't really a great thing. It isn't fun to have your army smashed off the board in one turn (usually the first one). But if you aren't building for this, you are putting yourself at the mercy of the double turn.

[EMMachine]

12 hours ago, swarmofseals said:

Beyond that, although I don't play open or narrative at the moment, I love that these play modes exist.

Yeah, thats a thing in my case too. I played 40k since 4. Edition and WHFB in 7. + Start of 8. Edition and my group in that time was very tournament oriented and forums were basicly the same. So as a new player you basicly think that it is the only existing way to play. Even a campaign was more some sort of league with maxed out armies.

Including the three ways to play simply show, that there is more than one way.

[Grim Beasties]

Been a big fan of the setting from the beginning, I have always had a fascination for mythology and with that AoS definitely caters to me. There hasn't been a book or short story I've read from the setting that I have read that I didn't get some enjoyment from. The ongoing nature of the narrative is a much needed breath of fresh air from the constant stagnancy of WFB and to a slightly lesser degree of it 40k now. It's open to great characterisation of your armies and the creation of your own narrative.

[Gorthor21]

Does anyone remember if fantasy really had much of a detailed setting speaking of the day to day lives of the mortal inhabitants aside from the role playing games prior to 7th Ed?

I was thinking and I can’t really remember much and most of it was presented as 3rd person summaries or as anecdotes written in world by imperial scholars.

[Tittliewinks22]

33 minutes ago, Gorthor21 said:

Does anyone remember if fantasy really had much of a detailed setting speaking of the day to day lives of the mortal inhabitants aside from the role playing games prior to 7th Ed?

I was thinking and I can’t really remember much and most of it was presented as 3rd person summaries or as anecdotes written in world by imperial scholars.

I started fantasy in 5th edition, and iirc they definitely had expanded lore for many of the the empire cities, to include their citizens.

[Grdaat]

2 minutes ago, Gorthor21 said:

Does anyone remember if fantasy really had much of a detailed setting speaking of the day to day lives of the mortal inhabitants aside from the role playing games prior to 7th Ed?

I was thinking and I can’t really remember much and most of it was presented as 3rd person summaries or as anecdotes written in world by imperial scholars.

They did, aside from snippets throughout the army and core books you had several novels that expanded on the lives of ordinary citizens.