AoS feels like neglacted child?

[Maddpainting]

What? lol, no its not at all. 2 new armies, broken realms, Slaanesh army 2.0 within 1.5yrs, etc...  We don't "need" a 3.0 book right now so why rush it? 

I can understand if you are playing an army that isn't getting some love right now, but AOS is constantly getting stuff.

[Vasshpit]

@Fulkes 

No one likes entitled complaints. 💯%

However there are a lot of Aelves in AoS with more in the pipeline.  I think that's the point people are trying to make. 

I have no doubts about things coming for all and I'm excited for who gets the attention regardless. 

We cool. 🤜💥🤛

Edited January 3, 2021 by Vasshpit

[Fulkes]

4 minutes ago, Vasshpit said:

@Fulkes 

No one like entitled complaints. 💯%

However there are a lot of Aelves in AoS with more in the pipeline.  I think that's the point people are trying to make. 

I have no doubts about things coming for all and I'm excited for who gets the attention regardless. 

We cool. 🤜💥🤛

It's a poi t being extrapolated out of some very small data points. Hedonites are getting a massive update despite Chaos getting a large addition of models recently so it feels more bias than any actual valid complaint about favoritism.

The death release may also be fairly sizable, but we're too far out to know the details there. 

Don't get me wrong, I want GW to do bigger releases for every army, and I hope Broken Realms becomes a regular fixture for them to push small updates for armies so we can space the battletomes out a bit more with bigger model releases, but I'm not really feeling elf-based favortism is actually a thing.

Also CoS really needs a line revamp come the next book. Old World was cool and all but I can't be alone in wanting mixed race units standard along with seeing how life in the Mortal Realms looks beyond the Old World cosplayers.

[Nizrah]

The sheer amount of books thats Wh40k get is just much bigger. Also looking at AoS. Everyone saying that SCE are in good place just really dont play at the competetive level... This army is in very bad place and the idea itself that big guys clad in armor made from core of the old war their only way to win is to make shooting roster because they are way to weak at melee is disaster. Stormcast doesnt need needs new models. They have enough of it. But they NEED NEW BOOK with fixed warscrolls. Most of the SCE warscrolls were unchanged since edition 0 of AoS, times before first GH. 

My sources thats were quite correct in the past says -> Slaanesh -> DoK, Broken Realms 2 ( new LRL) -> Broken Realms 3 -> Broken Realms 4 (  Vampirates for underlord) -> SCE + AoS 3.0 -> Deepkiny i Maggotkin

Armies like Sylvaneth, SCE, NH, LoN are in dire need of new book and yet they focus on Wh40k. 

[Fulkes]

Let's not forget that AoS and 40k have seperate teams, so it's more of a release schedule issue than one tied.to the devs. Books also take at least 18 months from start to release so any major work aimed at an army like SCE or Deepkin who have internal balance issues but don't really NEED models might be in progress now, or just waiting for an open release window.

[Doko]

Yes 40k get more releases than aos,but it is because 40k sells more than aos(aos with the time is shorthing this gap)

But i can tell you that 40k is going a bad end due to how bad have been this edition.

In my city many people are sick of all the marines releases,the meta being 100% only marines and how hard tau have been done umplayables.even the marines fanboys are sick of playing only mirror games of marines vs marines

Myself hadnt played with my tau since 2 years ago and i just sell all the army(that money have been re invested in finish my fyreslayer army,expand my cos army with some silvaneths for living city and expand it with dark elfs for anvilguard)

 

[Enoby]

Just now, Doko said:

But i can tell you that 40k is going a bad end due to how bad have been this edition.

It's strange, to me 40k has always seemed like marines vs marines (spikey or otherwise) with a sprinkle of other things - and it's always remained popular. While I hope it's not the case, it seems like 40k's fanbase are on the whole happy with marines vs marines. 

[sandlemad]

3 hours ago, Clan's Cynic said:

AoS gets better releases by default just because 90% of the stuff coming out isn't Marines... or should I say, Stormcast. I don't find my eyes (pre-emptively) rolling every time I open a reveal wondering, "gee what does the Imperium/Primaris get this quarter?"

Yes, this. A pretty common refrain in 40k circles has been how much creativity has gone into AoS releases vs 40k being marines, marines and more marines, often even just “here’s another bolter-wielding primaris infantry unit that isn’t meaningfully distinguished from its 2-3 predecessors”. Or put Broken Realms against any Psychic Awakening book.

Other GW stuff aside, AoS is well served in terms of release quantity and quality.

[Fulkes]

Broken Realms had real lore too.

[yukishiro1]

I think the big thing with AoS is how many of the armies have tiny collections. In 40k, the only army with a tiny collection is Harlequins - and even there, they can easily ally in two other large collections in a way that AOS armies can't (yes, you can take allies, but not getting allegiances changes things fundamentally). Meanwhile, AoS is full of armies that don't really feel full yet. So it is easy to feel as an AOS player like the game isn't being supported. But that's more a problem of releases being spread too thin over too many books than there being not enough releases period. 

Edited January 3, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Eldarain]

I don't see them pushing back the edition. If anything they might condense the BR books the way they did PA. Especially if it's ending ties into the new edition's storyline.

[Saturmorn Carvilli]

2 hours ago, Enoby said:

It's strange, to me 40k has always seemed like marines vs marines (spikey or otherwise) with a sprinkle of other things - and it's always remained popular. While I hope it's not the case, it seems like 40k's fanbase are on the whole happy with marines vs marines.

It kinda has always been that way.  The differences as I see it are: Space marines are going to a full model refresh and as GW Stormcast Enternals x12 are getting an even larger number of releases for even a new faction (which few think of Primaris marines as).  I also think far less consider Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves Deathwatch and all other space marines as different factions sharing models (when for game/model purposes they probably should).  So many lump all that into one, already established faction which makes it seem like insanity to get the number of new models they have.  I am not suggesting Primaris haven't been heavy-handed in new models.  Just that when one steps back a bit, it isn't as bad as it is perceived.

The same has happen to a lesser degree on the Chaos side with two new factions (Death Guard and Thousands).  Which again for game and model purposes I think should be considered seperate factions that share (less) models with other factions and have similar aesthetics.  Additionally, CSM recieved a nice update to a number of their older scuplts which likely fuel the fire for some factions still heavily dependent on Finecast ([cough] Eldar).

Finally, what is really chaffing a number of active/mathhammer players is that space marines have pretty good rules. 

1 hour ago, yukishiro1 said:

I think the big thing with AoS is how many of the armies have tiny collections. In 40k, the only army with a tiny collection is Harlequins - and even there, they can easily ally in two other large collections in a way that AOS armies can't (yes, you can take allies, but not getting allegiances changes things fundamentally). Meanwhile, AoS is full of armies that don't really feel full yet. So it is easy to feel as an AOS player like the game isn't being supported. But that's more a problem of releases being spread too thin over too many books than there being not enough releases period. 

The big difference is nearly every faction in 40k has been well established in the number of units they have available.  Many of those factions have old, outdated sculpts and may have lost of number of units from the so called, 'no model, no rules' thing.  But they still have decades of existence that got them where they are.  Additionally, there realistically aren't that many avenues for adding more factions.  Sure, GW can add a bunch of Chaos mirrors of Imperial factions and a few more Xenos ones, but I also don't think it is that hard of an argument to say that 40k is near/at capacity for factions.  Especially if players expect them to receive something new at least every couple of years.

Age of Sigmar on the other hand, is only half-a-decade old.  With only a few factions composed of models from before the game's existence.  Even less are factions that have all five of those years as being a thing.  With likely a number of factions that haven't been added yet.  I think it is also more likely that GW is attempting to get out at least a few more new factions before coming back around to add major reinforcements to the ones that already exist.  And I believe GW currently see it as far less profitable to refresh WHFB models that made it to AoS (Sorry Skaven, Lizardmen and Cities of Sigmar players).  Which is likely why after more than a year there has been non-easy-to-build Chaos Warriors and Knights.  They probably aren't coming any sooner than those other former WHFB faction models.

I honestly think that GW wants to largely get a few more brand-new factions into AoS.  Intermixed but largely afterward the smaller, more popular AoS born factions will get new stuff (along with a healthy infusion of models that the GW artists were inspired to create).  As much as it pains me, I don't see the pre-AoS models (or even factions with a good number units) getting refreshed models or even new units for quite a while save when GW artists inspiration for something.  As much as it pains me to say it, I don't see Skaven, Lizardmen, Cities of Sigmar, the older Death/Destruction factions and Slaves to Darkness  changing all that much for the next few years.  I don't say that with malice. I just think that is how it is going to be until at least most of the AoS born factions have a couple dozen model/unit options.  My impression (based only on my opinion) from GW is those factions have models that are serviceable enough as to not be concerned about updating them any time soon.

Edited January 3, 2021 by Saturmorn Carvilli

[Greybeard86]

17 minutes ago, Saturmorn Carvilli said:

Age of Sigmar on the other hand, is only half-a-decade old.  With only a few factions composed of models from before the game's existence.  Even less are factions that have all five of those years as being a thing.  With likely a number of factions that haven't been added yet.  I think it is also more likely that GW is attempting to get out at least a few more new factions before coming back around to add major reinforcements to the ones that already exist.  And I believe GW currently see it as far less profitable to refresh WHFB models that made it to AoS (Sorry Skaven, Lizardmen and Cities of Sigmar players).  Which is likely why after more than a year there has been non-easy-to-build Chaos Warriors and Knights.  They probably aren't coming any sooner than those other former WHFB faction models.

I honestly think that GW wants to largely get a few more brand-new factions into AoS.  Intermixed but largely afterward the smaller, more popular AoS born factions will get new stuff (along with a healthy infusion of models that the GW artists were inspired to create).  As much as it pains me, I don't see the pre-AoS models (or even factions with a good number units) getting refreshed models or even new units for quite a while save when GW artists inspiration for something.  As much as it pains me to say it, I don't see Skaven, Lizardmen, Cities of Sigmar, the older Death/Destruction factions and Slaves to Darkness  changing all that much for the next few years.  I don't say that with malice. I just think that is how it is going to be until at least most of the AoS born factions have a couple dozen model/unit options.  My impression (based only on my opinion) from GW is those factions have models that are serviceable enough as to not be concerned about updating them any time soon.

I think you are right. I think "old sculpts" are simply filler waiting to be replaced, and I do think that GW is going more "high fantasy" with AoS.

What irks me is that they seem to be happy with tiny factions, while neglecting the possibilities of alliances that would result in well fleshed out armies. Even within factions, they seem to encourage further specialization.

Why is sylvaneth not allied with wanderers in a more meaningful manner? Why are dwarves scattered in 3 different factions with little no to synergy?

It would appear easy to merge those tiny ranges into decent "bigger factions".

[Fulkes]

1 hour ago, Eldarain said:

I don't see them pushing back the edition. If anything they might condense the BR books the way they did PA. Especially if it's ending ties into the new edition's storyline.

I could see it happening depending on how many Broken Realms books need to come out first. 

[NinthMusketeer]

TBH I am a bit overwhelmed with the pace of releases and am quite glad if things are slowing down for 2021. But then I do AoS and 40k.

Regardless, I can see how someone would see AoS as somewhat of a neglected second child. It obviously does not get nearly as much attention or resources as 40k. And for my part I say thank goodness, because the attention AoS DOES get is clearly more caring than 40k. Don't get me wrong; I am sure the 40k devs are passionate about the game, but they have a lot more to do in the same amount of time and it shows.

Look at Psychic Awakening vs Broken Realms. They are polar opposites. PA did almost nothing story-wise with only a handful of plot points across all nine books that mattered, the content was largely a dump of new stuff that was mostly too niche or too bad to be viable on the table, but the stuff that was good made the books mandatory because it was a free upgrade that an army was objectively worse for not having. Broken Realms has meaningful story developments, content that is both thematic and viable, and the overwhelming majority of that content is totally optional to boot; players lose nothing by not having it (bar Idoneth, who do need it but receive some welcome and needed updates in the process). So ultimately I am pretty happy with AoS' state as 2nd-favorite.

Edited January 3, 2021 by NinthMusketeer

[Ragest]

5 hours ago, Maddpainting said:

What? lol, no its not at all. 2 new armies, broken realms, Slaanesh army 2.0 within 1.5yrs, etc...  We don't "need" a 3.0 book right now so why rush it? 

I can understand if you are playing an army that isn't getting some love right now, but AOS is constantly getting stuff.

Yes we don't need 3.0

That's why people are starting to "ban" certain armies in online matches or melee armies are completely unplayable right now. We don't see a complete domination of certain type of armies (easy to get, magical mortal spamming and dr+shoot plus mortals) just because in TTS you can play what you want, not tied to physical miniatures, if not all matches would be Barak Zilfin vs Seraphon vs One(or two with Fatemaster)drop Tzeentch and Onedrop Stormcast.

Amazing times of Age of Sigmar, indeed.

[Maddpainting]

Dude... my main army is BoC and i have no problems with Seraphon, Lumineth, KO, or DoT. Bans from TTS is stupid b.c that means the meta never shifts or players don't learn. Its TTS FFS you can build w/e army you want, try new things, learn to play new styles. Old meta lists won't work if the game shifts a bit to heavy shooting.  Shooting meta has been a thing for a long time, IMO its not as strong now compare to a year ago, you are just now seeing it b.c you are playing against people that "can" build those lists. 

PS; thats also not a problem with 2.0, but points and unit problems. Something a GH can fix (you know, the purpose of it).

EDIT: Spelling,

Edited January 3, 2021 by Maddpainting

[BigNStinky]

6 hours ago, Nizrah said:

Armies like Sylvaneth, SCE, NH, LoN are in dire need of new book and yet they focus on Wh40k. 

As a BoC player the fact that you don't even remember they exist to add to this list (let alone can do well) tells me all I need to know about them getting a tome refresh so they can actually perform beyond bestigors +Ungor raiders. I am really glad  the Sons of behemat are out to tide me over for a bit.

 

 

[NinthMusketeer]

2 hours ago, Ragest said:

Yes we don't need 3.0

That's why people are starting to "ban" certain armies in online matches or melee armies are completely unplayable right now. We don't see a complete domination of certain type of armies (easy to get, magical mortal spamming and dr+shoot plus mortals) just because in TTS you can play what you want, not tied to physical miniatures, if not all matches would be Barak Zilfin vs Seraphon vs One(or two with Fatemaster)drop Tzeentch and Onedrop Stormcast.

Amazing times of Age of Sigmar, indeed.

That's because of the double-turn, not because of an inherent ranged-melee imbalance. A double turn is more advantageous to shooting/magic armies because the enemy gets no chance to fight back. This will naturally skew overall results in those armies' favor. An edition change isn't really needed to do what a six-word house rule can accomplish; deploy first go first, fixed initiative. 

[Maddpainting]

Or just make all shooting units cost a little more so you don't want to take full armies of shooting.

[Sarouan]

I think it's just a cycle - when one main GW game gets a new edition, it always feels like the other is neglected for a while, until the time it also gets a new edition and it's the first one's turn to felt neglected.

We'll definitely get a AoS v3 and GW will unavoidably add new things to it / change a few mechanisms. Because that's the way they work and keep selling their rules.

 

16 minutes ago, NinthMusketeer said:

An edition change isn't really needed to do what a six-word house rule can accomplish; deploy first go first, fixed initiative. 

Of course it's needed to do that. See how many players are lost when it's not written by GW designers in the official rules.

Joke aside, I bet that double turn will stay in the next edition and GW will focus more on the battleplans' victory conditions giving more incentive to choose second player on the initiative roll.

Edited January 3, 2021 by Sarouan

[NinthMusketeer]

*sigh* yeah, you make a completely valid point.

[NinthMusketeer]

8 minutes ago, Maddpainting said:

Or just make all shooting units cost a little more so you don't want to take full armies of shooting.

Then they are at a disadvantage if they don't get an early double, which is about half the time. Not particularly fair to armies which have to build that way.

Edited January 3, 2021 by NinthMusketeer

[Eldarain]

They did include questions about the double turn in the last survey so it might be more subject to change than the previous editions

I'm not a fan but if they heavily steer the missions into making it a true choice between extra offensive power and scoring points I could come around on it.

Edited January 4, 2021 by Eldarain

[NinthMusketeer]

I say leave it in the core rules--just remove it from matched play. Matched play is about removing strongly random factors and providing a framework in which skill takes precedence over cinematics. For the same reason I totally support the comparatively bland realmscape rules used for matched play while also supporting the crazy ones available for narrative. AoS would be worse off if either of those things were gone, because they are each appropriate for the context.