AoS abandoned by my gaming group. Would like to see more QoL improvments for the game!

[CommissarRotke]

1 hour ago, Lich King said:

it wasn’t Covid which hurt AOS because other game systems are far more alive - especially 40K ( also poor rules system ). So there’s something wrong with the community - maybe too many people split over things like meta chasers , then Narrative guys over there - then hobby/ casual guys over there. It’s not focused and it never had the appeal of Fantasy - so when that re releases i fear it will have an even more negative impact on AOS. 

Maybe we can narrow this down even more then: if the people moving into AOS from 40k are only doing so to act competitively, then it'll completely F over an organic AOS group happening in that area.

edit to finish thought: not a catch all, just another idea as to why AOS interest would falter. AOS-only players focusing on comp and meta will also drive out new people. However I can see 40k players coming to AOS only for comp and meta reasons, if that's what is tying together 40k groups in the same area.

It's not focused because GW keeps putting all its secondary media weight behind 40k... I love AOS and I'm tired of being continuously frustrated by GW hemming and hawing about their decision for 7 years. (or at the least, it is not any more unfocused than GW's other rules are)

Edited November 8, 2022 by CommissarRotke

[acr0ssth3p0nd]

1 hour ago, Flippy said:

The rules... if I had to pinpoint the problem, I would say Battle Tactics & Grand Strategies. Without them you can explain really quickly what the game is about: control the objectives, kill the enemies - and focus just on that. With them AoS feels like a different game with a lot more thinking involved (and they change every 6 months).

Totally agree. I've been working on a "Casual Battlepack" for the last few months that includes this sort of set up, stripping away everything that isn't "throw down dice and fight over objectives." A WiP version actually got featured on Warhammer Weekly, which was super rad!

[RexHavoc]

Wow, lot of responses to the thread. I'd worried that it would be seen as too negative! I don't have enough reactions to respond to all! 😅

 

On 11/7/2022 at 5:14 PM, Vicar in a tutu said:

I've been painting Age of Sigmar since 2015. Switched this year to 40k and chaos space marines. The moment I did I found tons more people at the local store who were interested in what I was doing, enthusiastically asking me questions and engaging in hobby and lore talk. I knew 40k was much larger than AoS, but the magnitude at my local scene surprised me. The other reason I switched was the AoS release schedule. The new Slaves to Darkness box is great, but other than that it's been crumbs. I think I read somewhere on the rumour thread here on TGA that Necromunda got more releases in 2022 than AoS.  

Yeah, there is another local club to me but they are entirely 40k focused, with zero interest in AoS. I'm not against playing 40k, its just I own a ridiculous amount of Epic 40k (and I do mean ridiculous) and almost all the issues I have with AoS exist in the current 40k rules as well!

I'm ok with the model range seeing less releases but it still feels jarring to know the game got less design time that a 'side game' (A side game GW didn't even have confidence in on first release!)

22 hours ago, Beliman said:

I'm thinking about this post
I understand that half of this hobby is about the community, and the shortest way to follow it is using internet and social network. But it seems that it's not working for your and your gaming group, and the perception you take is completely the opposite of what you want... so, my take is to ignore them, try to make your own hobby, ignore people on facebook (I didn't know people are still using it!), reddit, discord, twitch, etc... and ignore GW (that's important).

My suggetion is to look for what you (and your gaming group) like and copy it: Play games, talk about lore (youtube has some good reviews, and there are some TGA users that have their own blog with more GW stuff), make your own "beer&pretzel" time (that's important) and use a fancy bar if needed (remember: beers and snacks!). If your gaming group follows your plan and understand that this hobby is not something that needs to be "followed", maybe it will change their gaming perception. Try to switch that "GW hate AoS" for "We don't care about GW". 

Btw, I completely understand the FOMO policy, it's horrible. We need to deal with it (****** Black Library books...). You will be always be prepared to buy their stuff, but it's up to them to make it easy for you. If not, maybe look at other companies (or 3D prints) to make your point clear with your wallet.

Yeah this has definitely been a factor in saving the hobby for myself in the past year. I've removed all the official GW accounts from any social media I use. It felt pointless (any news get reposted right away anyway and better pics always appear within minutes of any promotional post!) Though the other groups I kept are just reposting the GW info, removing GW pages tricked me in being less negative overall. I'm no longer tempted to write comments on GW pages under the misunderstanding that GW were actually listening or interacting, and that mind set has thankfully bled over to the rest of the hobby. There is just no point writing comments like 'price is too high', 'these rules suck/are wrong/too good' or 'why can't you make enough stock'.

Yeah the BL fomo is ridiculous. I've cut back from buying most releases- though in too deep with the standard hardback HH siege books so resided to complete that before banning all new 40k books. I was pleased to know that the last book was on its way- until they announced it was being split into two 😡

20 hours ago, CommissarRotke said:

This can definitely be more of an issue of the spaces you've chosen or find to talk about AOS. I find myself talking more about lore or the business side of GW more than AOS metas for the same reason. Overall agree with your post, it's very frustrating being an AOS fan right now and being unsure if we've lost the momentum of 3.0's release!

However if you're not already into it, I don't think buying into 40k is ever the answer for being frustrated with AOS. At the very least, it is exactly what GW wants you to do--instead of finding another game or using a different ruleset you're stuck with them.

Yeah it could be, I find it odd that the biggest AoS groups have very little interest in battle reports, conversions, painting and the biggest conversations are always meta/rules/rumours. I know its whats get the most people excited. Even here and on dakkadakka, painting logs etc are surprisingly quiet. Warseer used to have a buzzing painting log forum for WFB stuff. AoS never seems to have picked up a home for painting.
 

11 hours ago, zilberfrid said:

I'd use a different system with the same models. Something like Onepage rules or Oathmark.

If there's a new edition that fixes all your grievances, your models are ready for it. AoS is a great setting, and most models are great as well.

I've thought about this, most of us are happy sticking with 1st edition/skirmish. We just can't get the buzz going for the game. One of my main opponents couldn't care less what rules we use, they are happy out playing just about anything. I love oathmark, we have been planning a huge LotR game using oathmark as the basis. Used to play Fubar a lot for 6mm (which are the rules that onepage built their game from). I don't particularly feel that swapping out the rules would change some of the issues we are having. If anything, we want to spend more money on 'Official' AoS, we just don't want it to be money spent on edition cycles- we want to buy new campaign books, new models, new terrain. We'd like to actually be able to order models as well- not scrap about at a weekend on the off chance that there is stock left at the actual time pre-orders go live or not rush to buy something just on the off chance it will sell out and never be seen again! GW are making it too hard to give them my cash!

10 hours ago, Gitzdee said:

I also think that Thondia and similar rules updates/ addons are really just that. It is there just to spice things up in case u get bored. No need to buy all this unless u want to go meta heavy gaming. There is this thing about this hobby that nobody tells u about. U dont have to do or buy everything GW wants u to. Lots of things are completely optional. I am in this hobby since 8th edition whfb and i never really needed anything more than the base rules and a tome. 

Same thing with terrain. They are just limited runs u can buy if u want to and are completely optional. I made my own terrain by buying some simple trees in a modeltrain store and cutting up some foam, works just as good as any GW terrain. And with X-mas coming up i want to try and find some cheap snow and pine trees. And i do buy some GW terrain from time to time but i dont want to go and collect everything because i would be broke if i did.

 

Edit2 : Nice models !

As I've said above, they might only be addons but we WANT to give them our money and buy addons. Its just become a minefield or a case of 'buy everything now, regret it later' and hope picking that buying a huge kit for one bit of terrain isn't then repackaged a month later. GW gives more attention to MESGB terrain than it does for AoS! (And I am broke from buying that! 🤣)

9 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

I've seen a similar reduction in my local group with the odd exception.  The pandemic killed off all of the random games that we'd normally play across all systems and now we've started to come back to a bit of gaming, we're choosing to mostly play skirmish sized games such as Necromunda and Aeronautica.  The thought of playing a 3 hour game just doesn't appeal to most of us at the present time, when we also want to catch up from a social aspect too.

I would agree that the release schedule is brutal from GW and I'd love to see it being spread out a bit more.  5 years between editions of the game rather than 3 and put a bit more into each army revision rather that one model and a new book.  However I cannot see that changing.  What I am hoping is that when 4th edition appears we see a lot of the chaff being removed and a general streamlining of the rules.  The joy of 1st edition and to a certain extent 2nd edition was that it wasn't a difficult game to learn, the core rules were short, concise and although some bits were open to interpretation, generally you could have an enjoyable and pretty quick game.

What has recently inspired a few of us is doing smaller path to glory style forces.  Although it's super impressive to play a massive game with huge monsters, there's something appealing about a lightweight army that doesn't have those powerhouses in.

I see this more as a supply issue rather than anything else.  I've long been of the opinion that once the initial stock of a new release is sold out, that product needs to go into a made to order phase for the rest of the pre-order period.  You shouldn't lose out on a product because you weren't quick enough in the queue.

I'd also like to see 5-6 year cycles. I'd not have half the issues with GW as I have right now if we were not in a 3 year cycle. We stuck with the early rules as all of us here are sick of books being outdated within months/less than 2 years.

The supply issue is awful. My misses orders a huge order every xmas for club gifts. Whilst we except the pandemic made things bad, the issue we had with GW is their stock control was zero. Last few years, she'd order the big order which was almost always older items (not limit stock or new hype items) and one thing would go out of stock. She'd order in November and we were chasing them January for it. (During the pandemic, it got as far as end of February before the November order was on its way) We'd finally chase them and they would say 'Oh sorry item X was out of stock. It will be back in stock next week and we will send the order out'. The next week still not sent, item X back in store. Contact them again 'Item X back in stock, but Oh sorry items YZ are now out of stock'. They don't put items aside once ordered/paid for and they don't ever contact customers with order issues until we chase (and we always gave them weeks before doing so)

Its happened every year, even before lockdowns started. Now we get around it by breaking EVER order up into the smallest lots we can to get bundles into the free postage values (€25) and not have one big order tied up with one item going out of stock.

Its not a good practice, but better than chasing orders week after they due. You can only imagine what its like on delivery day when multiple units of MESBG MTOs are all showing up in small, €25 value boxes  🤣

 

7 hours ago, zilberfrid said:

Oh, and if you can't get anyone to play, Both Frostgrave and Stargrave have solo campaigns, and Rangers of Shadowdeep is even built for that.

I love oathmark and stargrave. I picked up both frostgrave & shadowdeep but no had a chance to play them yet. Didn't know Frostgrave had a solo campaign, I'm still missing quite a few of the books for it, so I will have to pick them up. I got stargrave so I could play solo 'not-romunda' when nothing else was planned!

7 hours ago, MitGas said:

I’ve got the sinking feeling that 3rd edition rules definitely hurt it a lot over here. 
 

Before 3rd edition we had a lot more activity in the local discord group. Last post regarding AoS was ages ago.  Meanwhile 40k has so many posts you can‘t keep up despite crappy rules. 40k can afford weak rules, AoS cannot. GW need to hire better rule writers IMO. The minis are certainly not the problem, even if the releases slowed down. 

I don't mind the model releases slowing down (I'm a very slow painter!) I just think it would be nice that AoS had the level of attention that 40k side games are getting!

6 hours ago, Flippy said:

But the lack of GW's attention is. This is less of an issue once you have a solid gaming community, but still. They are updating the army books - a mandatory exercise not really connected with any coherent story and rarely stirring any emotions.

 

A moving narrative is all I ever wanted for the game (after all, if it moves past a point you are not keen on, you can always keep setting your games in the past) but agree there isn't enough emotion stirring on the whole! I do wish that they would go all out on the narrative- I get they won't want to kill off a model that is selling for €110 as then people wouldn't buy them as much!

I think the lack of W+ content shows just how little GW put their trust in AoS narrative.

4 hours ago, MitGas said:

I really liked the IMO clever argument that the constant tease of the Old World likely doesn‘t help the overall mood regarding AoS either.  I think a few more definite statements regarding TOW would help as currently people are torn between those settings. I loved the Old World’s mood and setting but now am invested in the new stuff. Playing „historic stuff“ is less interesting to me as we know the ultimate outcome. I‘d rather just read about it. Frankly, with a bit of luck, I could use my Chaos stuff in both settings but I‘m basically just looking for a decent game to play with my friends. 
 

We still play WFB. The issue we have is that some here are less willing to spend big on AoS on the change GW could kill it off (proven by their removal of WFB). Its also been super easy (until the last three months when people have convinced them selves the old world is coming next year for sure!) to buy WFB models for less than new units cost for AoS. I brought some new in box tomb kings for less than the equivalent bonereapers costs direct. Whilst most of us are happy to use models in any settings without issue, again its harder to convince people here to spend money on new AoS models when there is the possibility that they can't be used in the old world (if we happen to decide to switch from WFB to the new version. You never know, it could be the best game ever made!) and every purchase has become a count of how many games can we squeeze this model into', which can take away from just buying a new AoS model just because its cool!

2 hours ago, Lich King said:

We’ve completely quit as well. Moved over to OPR’s Age of Fantasy for a much more sound and tactical (and fun ) experience . I couldn’t imagine myself going back to a GW game with all these books and now you guys have GHBs every 6 months?! Insane…

it wasn’t Covid which hurt AOS because other game systems are far more alive - especially 40K ( also poor rules system ). So there’s something wrong with the community - maybe too many people split over things like meta chasers , then Narrative guys over there - then hobby/ casual guys over there. It’s not focused and it never had the appeal of Fantasy - so when that re releases i fear it will have an even more negative impact on AOS. 
as a former fantasy guy myself I may try TOW but it won’t replace Age of Fantasy or Age of Fantasy Regiments due to GW always incorporating sales into their rules which destroys their games.

Sad to see we are not alone. I'd not fault anyone for liking the game in a different way, but it does feel like narrative players are expected to segregate themselves away from the main hobby sites just because some would rather buy new models/convert/write lore than get constant rules updates and point adjustments.

24 minutes ago, CommissarRotke said:

Maybe we can narrow this down even more then: if the people moving into AOS from 40k are only doing so to act competitively, then it'll completely F over an organic AOS group happening in that area.

edit to finish thought: not a catch all, just another idea as to why AOS interest would falter. AOS-only players focusing on comp and meta will also drive out new people. However I can see 40k players coming to AOS only for comp and meta reasons, if that's what is tying together 40k groups in the same area.

It's not focused because GW keeps putting all its secondary media weight behind 40k... I love AOS and I'm tired of being continuously frustrated by GW hemming and hawing about their decision for 7 years. (or at the least, it is not any more unfocused than GW's other rules are)

I agree with you. I do feel that sometime around 2nd, GW started making changes to the game to bring back in the more competitive crowd and then we saw a huge upsurge other players being told we were playing the game wrong.

I understand that 40k is their big money maker, but in two years we could have seen something more than one W+ cartoon. But then I'm still bitter about them not letting Josh Reynolds finish the eight lamentations (only to recently bring out godsbane, which the blurb could have been the same book just with stormcast plastered on top!)

[CommissarRotke]

28 minutes ago, RexHavoc said:

There is just no point writing comments like 'price is too high', 'these rules suck/are wrong/too good' or 'why can't you make enough stock'.

There might not be any lasting change from commenting criticisms but I do think it's worth doing still--especially about pricing, and especially about book pricing when there are pre-release patches and glaring typos for said books. They cannot charge for premium products without giving us premium products.

32 minutes ago, RexHavoc said:

Yeah it could be, I find it odd that the biggest AoS groups have very little interest in battle reports, conversions, painting and the biggest conversations are always meta/rules/rumours. I know its whats get the most people excited. Even here and on dakkadakka, painting logs etc are surprisingly quiet. Warseer used to have a buzzing painting log forum for WFB stuff. AoS never seems to have picked up a home for painting.

I wonder if the painting/hobby and batrep talk is on discord rather than forums or groups? It's certainly easy to share images there vs a forum and people could do tandem streams to support painting contracts. The batreps is especially strange when those are how you further analyze the current rules and meta.

[Flippy]

1 hour ago, acr0ssth3p0nd said:

Totally agree. I've been working on a "Casual Battlepack" for the last few months that includes this sort of set up, stripping away everything that isn't "throw down dice and fight over objectives." A WiP version actually got featured on Warhammer Weekly, which was super rad!

Please share. I have a game or two scheduled this Sunday and it would be great to try this.

[Bosskelot]

A lot of what I'm hearing in this thread is that AOS really does need its own Tempest of War.

 

[JackStreicher]

3 hours ago, acr0ssth3p0nd said:

Totally agree. I've been working on a "Casual Battlepack" for the last few months that includes this sort of set up, stripping away everything that isn't "throw down dice and fight over objectives." A WiP version actually got featured on Warhammer Weekly, which was super rad!

Link please! ^^

[acr0ssth3p0nd]

19 hours ago, Flippy said:

Please share. I have a game or two scheduled this Sunday and it would be great to try this.

 

17 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

Link please! ^^

Imgur link for online ref

EDIT: PDF Link

Edited November 9, 2022 by acr0ssth3p0nd

[Enoby]

The local group around my area has dried up too, unfortunately. A lot of that was due to drama, according to the remaining member, but they've really struggled to get the game running again unfortunately. 

I've no doubt that this is partially due to the residue drama - I'm not sure what happened, but it was a big schism in the end. But even from those who played afterwards didn't seem too into continuing.

If I were to hazard a guess why, and to relay my own experiences, it's because AoS currently seems to be a competitively geared game without the mechanics needed to feel satisfying. I've played AoS, 40k, and Malifaux. Out of those, Malifaux is by far the most tactically demanding but it suits it as it's a skirmish game very focussed around scoring points over killing things. 40k, when I played it, was very lethal and there were a lot of hard counters, but you felt more in control as you have lots of options when building lists - though balance was rubbish, it had a strong illusion of choice. In AoS, I've found the game to retain the high lethality but with fewer options so you feel less in control, even if the balance is actually much better than 40k.

For example, I had a game of Slaanesh vs Ironjawz. Despite my best efforts screening, by turn 2 the Ironjawz had wiped out a good 3/4 of my army. We played again, the Ironjawz player failed the charge, and I counter charged leaving them with only about 1/3 of their army left. Technically a 50% win rate, but it didn't feel satisfying to play in either case. It felt quite similar in a tournament I was in; I came second with a S2D Archaon list, but most games were just slaughterfests as soon as bases touched. Definitely a part of playing Archaon lists, but it seemed to also be the case with Squigs vs Ossiarchs on another table. 

To cut it short, the recent AoS games I've had and watched seemed to be so lethal you hardly had the chance to appreciate the models on the table. There wasn't much back and forth in a unit, but rather watching things dissapear once charged (unless they save stacked, which usually happened on models with high damage output), which can be tactical but I wouldn't say enjoyable for most. I doubt 40k is much different in this regard, but I think all of the options and better cover rules give people more of a sense of control. 

To add to this, though, I think Grand Strategies and Battle Tactics haven't gelled well with AoS's 'simple' gameplay. Unlike Malifaux, which has models directly built around their schemes and strategies, the GS and BT are tacked on to the AoS rule set. While they do add to strategy, they feel like busywork in a game that started out with a focus on pure casual play. I think they're a good idea in a way - making matched play it's own thing - but their implementation leaves me feeling more fussed when playing. 

The healthiest I've ever seen an AoS community was in a local GW at the beginning of AoS. People came in to play against strangers in drop in games where they'd make their own battleplans (or just run up and kill) with agreed upon lists, usually with a silly narrative focus. The casual atmosphere helped the game grow and retain players.

That's not to say AoS should drop points and battletomes, but rather I think the rise in more competitive oriented rules has likely seen these casual players feel alienated. While it would have brought in competitive players, in my experience it was the casual players who gave life into the community. 

Another issue, which was more the beginning of AoS 2 than 3e itself, is that the narrative took a nosedive at the end of broken realms. Likely due to a rush, but the initial three Broken Realms books seemed to be pushing the narrative in a strong way, really shaking things up - indeed, they were considered much stronger books from a story perspective than Psychic Awakening as things actually happened. However the fourth book, Kragnos, was a big dissapointment for many. Whereas the ascension of Morathi and Belekor's boiling skies drew a lot of excitement, the Seige of Excellis was met with a resounding "meh" as little was achieved and plot points seemed covered over or forgotten about. It felt like it was written in a rush, and instead of triumphantly heralding 3e, it started on a damp squib. 

The releases have, for many, been an issue. While I only buy a specific set of armies, I think releases for any faction help make the game feel alive. I think there's almost a psychic scarring from the End Times - a knowledge in the back of the mind that AoS could be ended if it doesn't do well enough. Realistically, AoS is likely doing fine financially (though not compared to 40k), but the lack of releases turns attention to the idea of "what if AoS isn't doing as well anymore? Is this the new normal?".

As mentioned by a few people, battletome quality has turned a few people away. I think most agree that the 3e Battletomes are better balanced and more thought out, but I think some people are dissapointed that some battletomes feel like small balance patches. It shouldn't be ignored that Battletomes are £30, so you can understand dissapointment when the changes can amount to minor tweaks to some problem abilities and warscrolls. From a balance and game health perspective, these sorts of changes make sense, but from a hype perspective they're just not that interesting - nor do they feel worth the money. 

I'm hoping this is just a lull, and I do think that many of the above are easily reversible (e.g. lack of releases), but it does seem AoS 3 has lost momentum and it's hurting the player base in some areas. 

[CommissarRotke]

12 hours ago, acr0ssth3p0nd said:

 

Here you go!

Do you have a PDF so we don't have to save individual pictures? This is amazing!

[acr0ssth3p0nd]

33 minutes ago, CommissarRotke said:

Do you have a PDF so we don't have to save individual pictures? This is amazing!

Ask and you shall receive!

Edited November 9, 2022 by acr0ssth3p0nd

[pnkdth]

22 hours ago, Bosskelot said:

A lot of what I'm hearing in this thread is that AOS really does need its own Tempest of War.

 

ToW has been huge around here. Perfect fit for those who want to play in a sort of "casually competitive" way. Having to create a more balanced army to respond to randomly generated objectives is a lot of fun and reminds of the good old days (depending on where you stand) when TOs and players got really creative with their own tournament packs and composition scoring.

Edited November 9, 2022 by pnkdth

[Bosskelot]

8 hours ago, Enoby said:

If I were to hazard a guess why, and to relay my own experiences, it's because AoS currently seems to be a competitively geared game without the mechanics needed to feel satisfying. I've played AoS, 40k, and Malifaux. Out of those, Malifaux is by far the most tactically demanding but it suits it as it's a skirmish game very focussed around scoring points over killing things. 40k, when I played it, was very lethal and there were a lot of hard counters, but you felt more in control as you have lots of options when building lists - though balance was rubbish, it had a strong illusion of choice. In AoS, I've found the game to retain the high lethality but with fewer options so you feel less in control, even if the balance is actually much better than 40k.

For example, I had a game of Slaanesh vs Ironjawz. Despite my best efforts screening, by turn 2 the Ironjawz had wiped out a good 3/4 of my army. We played again, the Ironjawz player failed the charge, and I counter charged leaving them with only about 1/3 of their army left. Technically a 50% win rate, but it didn't feel satisfying to play in either case. It felt quite similar in a tournament I was in; I came second with a S2D Archaon list, but most games were just slaughterfests as soon as bases touched. Definitely a part of playing Archaon lists, but it seemed to also be the case with Squigs vs Ossiarchs on another table. 

To cut it short, the recent AoS games I've had and watched seemed to be so lethal you hardly had the chance to appreciate the models on the table. There wasn't much back and forth in a unit, but rather watching things dissapear once charged (unless they save stacked, which usually happened on models with high damage output), which can be tactical but I wouldn't say enjoyable for most. I doubt 40k is much different in this regard, but I think all of the options and better cover rules give people more of a sense of control. 

 

40k on paper is highly lethal, but there are several things the game does to offset this. Not only are there plenty of absolute bricks in terms of survivability, but the terrain rules help to ensure not every weapon can be brought to bear on every enemy unit whenever a player wants. In fact in a lot of 40k games turns 1 and 2 are filled with skirmishing and often very few casualties as both armies jockey into position in order to have their big turns on 3 onwards. Trading units efficiently and sensibly is a core part of competitive 40k and getting consistent scoring off of that; not of doing a giant alpha strike and winning the game immediately. There are armies that lean more towards that style of play, and bad match-ups where one faction might be more vulnerable to an alpha strike from a certain other faction, but they're either rarer or they're sort of skew lists focused around gimmicks and so end up being seen less.

Generally the mission design deprioritizes killing too as lists usually have a significant portion of their points dedicated to objective holders and action-do'ers, who themselves might often not be the main sources of damage in an army. Even scary psykers might just be in a list to be doing psychic secondaries and scoring points, not to be doing mass amounts of mortal wounds. Grand strategies and battle tactics do lean towards the 40k style of mission design conceptually, but in reality lists are still just the same as they've ever been in AOS; spam the most efficient damage-dealers and kill your opponent. Those efficient damage-dealers can be your battleline too so you truly can just take nothing but them and be totally fine. This also leads into another divergence in the two systems with damage allocation and wound rolls where, again, AOS deprioritizes variety in unit/weapon types as damage overspill and flat wound rolls encourage finding the most mathematically universal damage dealers.

A good example of what I mean is looking at pre-nerf pre-tome Sentinels, whom the Lumineth player could just spam, alongside Big T, and basically table people while not really doing a whole lot. Imperial Guard in 40k are actually very similar in a way; their shooting even pre-codex is frightening after being buffed lots in dataslates.... but being a very static gunline army in 40k is not a good way to play it. Guard are still in the mid-30's despite their terrifying shooting because that terrifying shooting does not directly lead into winning games.

I do sometimes wonder if a combination of generally high points costs and no real restrictions on unit spam incentivise AOS to play like this. I'm sure if rule of 3 was removed back out of 40k we'd go back to the bad old days of early 8th again and the game would immediately get a lot more miserable. And 40k is able to have back and forth early game trading/skirmishing battles because most armies have access to cheap throwaway units.

Edited November 9, 2022 by Bosskelot

[JackStreicher]

I‘ve just watched the latest wh+ Battle Report.

It highlights most of the issues I have with the current AoS:

- Roughly 50% of all damage consisted of Mortal Wounds

- Battle Tactics

-Lethality: Almost every unit evaporated in an instant the moment some other unit did as much as glare at it.

- Annoyi g special rules: To me it felt like Lumineth were cheating due to the amount of special rules and the way the special rules work (it’s not about the power, but the nasty way they impact the game): Whenever the Chaos Player showed one special rule the Lumineth player pulled 2-3 out of his sleeve. Everytime they showed  another LRL rule I just went „eyes rolling“ of course they do. (personal bias probably). I did not enjoy that battle report at all.

A little off topic: The new S2D book seems mostly amazing, one of the few bad things (as proven in the video) is the Daemon Prince 👌🏻 A chaos Lord rose to the rarest of ranks just to be worse in melee. 🤣
 

imo AoS needs matched play for casual pickup games. And a new ruleset called Tournament play for the comp. players.

 

Edited November 9, 2022 by JackStreicher

[Flippy]

45 minutes ago, Bosskelot said:

but in reality lists are still just the same as they've ever been in AOS; spam the most efficient damage-dealers and kill your opponent.

There is a solution, though some people seem to really dislike this idea: hard cap on elite units. This sort of restriction may be easily introduced in specific battle pack. 0-1 Blood Sisters, one reinforcement only…

But then you touch the underlying problem, which is a shallow roster for many armies.

[RocketPropelledGrenade]

20 minutes ago, Flippy said:

There is a solution, though some people seem to really dislike this idea: hard cap on elite units. This sort of restriction may be easily introduced in specific battle pack. 0-1 Blood Sisters, one reinforcement only…

But then you touch the underlying problem, which is a shallow roster for many armies.

Defining "elite units" would be a nightmare there, unless you go in and rewrite battletomes to do it on a case-by-case basis.

[Flippy]

32 minutes ago, RocketPropelledGrenade said:

Defining "elite units" would be a nightmare there, unless you go in and rewrite battletomes to do it on a case-by-case basis.

GW can manage that on a two-pager. Remember “the Hunt” battlescroll? This would be a perfect addition to GHB, to test this approach for six months.

[acr0ssth3p0nd]

11 minutes ago, Flippy said:

GW can manage that on a two-pager. Remember “the Hunt” battlescroll? This would be a perfect addition to GHB, to test this approach for six months.

I do think that adding a few more "role" keywords might provide a good number of design tools for relatively little complexity. "Cavalry" and "Infantry," for example.

[Harioch]

45 minutes ago, acr0ssth3p0nd said:

I do think that adding a few more "role" keywords might provide a good number of design tools for relatively little complexity. "Cavalry" and "Infantry," for example.

Like the Warmachine keyword which serve no purpose ? 😁

I don't disagree with your opinion at all. I'm also in favor for more keywords to really add to what is already going on with infantry/monsters and heroes. Nothing too complicated but something to really make a distinction on battlefield role. Right now, cavalry is just something that isn't infantry and has better movement. Just as an exemple, the damages impact that they pretty much all have on their warscroll could have been a generic rule for every cavalry unit. Just a thought.

[Arzalyn]

10 hours ago, Enoby said:

To cut it short, the recent AoS games I've had and watched seemed to be so lethal you hardly had the chance to appreciate the models on the table. There wasn't much back and forth in a unit, but rather watching things dissapear once charged (unless they save stacked, which usually happened on models with high damage output), which can be tactical but I wouldn't say enjoyable for most. I doubt 40k is much different in this regard, but I think all of the options and better cover rules give people more of a sense of control. 

To add to this, though, I think Grand Strategies and Battle Tactics haven't gelled well with AoS's 'simple' gameplay. Unlike Malifaux, which has models directly built around their schemes and strategies, the GS and BT are tacked on to the AoS rule set. While they do add to strategy, they feel like busywork in a game that started out with a focus on pure casual play. I think they're a good idea in a way - making matched play it's own thing - but their implementation leaves me feeling more fussed when playing. 

This is exactly the problem me and my group are having with this edition. Too much lethality (be it mortal wounds, high rend with the now super common +2/+2 profile) to the point of it being a matter of who got to charge/cast/shoot first with its power unit. Most of the games one player has less than 1/3 of its army left while the other has over 2/3. I miss the 2~3 turns with units slowly fighting each other.

While we liked the battle tactics and grand strategies has a concept when 3rd dropped, nowadays they are just chore. I saw them as another form to add something else to the game rather than just fighting inside the objective. Instead they ended boiling own to 3 types: choosing a unit to kill this turn, doing something almost irrelevant to you or something super niche case that depend on you including specific units in your army or rolling well.

I'm trying to find some more casual battlepacks so we can play without the polarizing GHB rules and try to keep the group interested in AoS. I really think that a simpler battlepack (that don't make a kind of unit suck) with a good amount of battleplans, as the Tempest of War in 40k, would be good for this edition. Also, one tailor made for smaller points games is really needed, it is really hard to get new people started when they need a 2k army to start playing the game.

[acr0ssth3p0nd]

19 minutes ago, Harioch said:

Like the Warmachine keyword which serve no purpose ? 😁

I don't disagree with your opinion at all. I'm also in favor for more keywords to really add to what is already going on with infantry/monsters and heroes. Nothing too complicated but something to really make a distinction on battlefield role. Right now, cavalry is just something that isn't infantry and has better movement. Just as an exemple, the damages impact that they pretty much all have on their warscroll could have been a generic rule for every cavalry unit. Just a thought.

Totally. To use Sylvaneth as an example, Tree-Revenants (32mm base, 2 wounds, humanoid) would be INFANTRY, but Kurnoth Hunters (50mm base, 5 wounds, big humanoid) would not.

[Gitzdee]

Give everything double the wounds. Should be fun to try out.

[JackStreicher]

7 hours ago, Gitzdee said:

Give everything double the wounds. Should be fun to try out.

Mega gargants are loughing

[Beliman]

9 hours ago, Arzalyn said:

This is exactly the problem me and my group are having with this edition. Too much lethality (be it mortal wounds, high rend with the now super common +2/+2 profile) to the point of it being a matter of who got to charge/cast/shoot first with its power unit. Most of the games one player has less than 1/3 of its army left while the other has over 2/3. I miss the 2~3 turns with units slowly fighting each other.

Another take. What if AoS dmg is ok, but the tools to deliver that damage are the main problem?

Like you said, at the end of turn 3, everyone is already dead. In other words, they engaged between turn 1 and 2: teleports with bonus to charge (and maybe rerolls), Run&Charge, high movement, high bonus to run and/or charge, double movement, slingshots, ranged dmg (shooting/magic), etc...

What if, for whatever reason, movement and charge was the real deal of the Damage-Delivery-System (aka DDS)? no more bonus to bring dmg whatever you want, just the old footsloging mechanic. Units with 4" movement will feel their weight, cavalry with 10" movement are going to decide when and where they are going to charge. Counter-charges are going to feel natural and mandatory and chaff will be basic and not just a tech-piece.

Ranged dmg output will still be a problem, but maybe a cut on range (9"-18" at most) can help with that.

[Gitzdee]

11 minutes ago, Beliman said:

Another take. What if AoS dmg is ok, but the tools to deliver that damage are the main problem?

Like you said, at the end of turn 3, everyone is already dead. In other words, they engaged between turn 1 and 2: teleports with bonus to charge (and maybe rerolls), Run&Charge, high movement, high bonus to run and/or charge, double movement, slingshots, ranged dmg (shooting/magic), etc...

What if, for whatever reason, movement and charge was the real deal of the Damage-Delivery-System (aka DDS)? no more bonus to bring dmg whatever you want, just the old footsloging mechanic. Units with 4" movement will feel their weight, cavalry with 10" movement are going to decide when and where they are going to charge. Counter-charges are going to feel natural and mandatory and chaff will be basic and not just a tech-piece.

Ranged dmg output will still be a problem, but maybe a cut on range (9"-18" at most) can help with that.

The ranged problem could be fixed with better cover saves/ interactions with terrain imho. Its way to easy to shoot at something. I also think artillery needs a comeback but thats a whole different discussion. (the artillery topic is a good one)

The movement thing is a bigger problem i think. The battlefield has become smaller and the models bigger. I think to many armies have access to teleports, pregame moves, movement/ charge buffs and flying. I wouldnt know how to fix this without changing the core rules.

I do think u have a good point here, battles feel chaotic as everything is in combat within the first or second turn and it becomes a massive brawl. I think Whfb did this better, slower movement and pivoting made the movement phase more dynamic. I had to think about where everything would be positioned like chess pieces. AoS feels more like a poker game where u just go all in asap. 

I want more of this:

Less of this: