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

[Greyshadow]

17 hours ago, acr0ssth3p0nd said:

Ask and you shall receive!

Wow, this looks terrific. This is where I'd like to see open play go. I've been learning the game with a new player by playing without the allegiance abilities. Just core rules and what's on the cards - really fun. This looks like a really nice way of playing.

[Marcvs]

12 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

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

while I really like the idea, I think it should also go deeper as, IMHO, the Core Rules themselves should be slimmed down for the "casual battlepack".

With new players (not just for their first game) I have been playing without heroic actions, monstruous rampages and most of the generic command abilities (only kept reroll charge and inpiring presence while reducing CP generation to 1 per turn). The only downside I have felt, also looking at the complaints in this thread, is that losing All out defense increases the lethality of the game even more 😅 the game also becomes (or goes back to being) less interactive without redeploy and unleash hell, but turns flow faster.

[Gitzdee]

13 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

while I really like the idea, I think it should also go deeper as, IMHO, the Core Rules themselves should be slimmed down for the "casual battlepack".

With new players (not just for their first game) I have been playing without heroic actions, monstruous rampages and most of the generic command abilities (only kept reroll charge and inpiring presence while reducing CP generation to 1 per turn). The only downside I have felt, also looking at the complaints in this thread, is that losing All out defense increases the lethality of the game even more 😅 the game also becomes (or goes back to being) less interactive without redeploy and unleash hell, but turns flow faster.

I do think command abilities are fun. My problem with them is that they are located all over the place and its one big mess u need to try and remember. Imho it could all just have taken place in the command phase, it also makes u think ahead. Do i want to active a buff now? Will the unit actually be in combat this turn? Makes for some fun choices.

[RuneBrush]

I think it's really interesting to see how command abilities have evolved over the few years we've had AoS.  Originally if your general had a command ability on their warscroll they could use it.  That was it, very simple, very limited but added a surprising amount of flavour to a game depending on the general you used.  As time rolled on we've seen various changes - command points, generic command abilities, heroic actions, reactions and some armies are able to "play" with the core mechanic, gaining more command points and preventing some abilities from being used.

The issue is that the current usage of command abilities is that it's being used to "solve" a multitude of problems, but they're spread across multiple phases, books and rules.

If I had a magic wand, I'd like a bit of an overhaul.  You can use X warscroll command abilities each turn (based on game size 1000 = 1; 1500 = 2 etc).  You then pick X + D3 command cards from a deck at the beginning of the command phase - those cards include generic options like inspiring presence, all out attack etc, plus some specific for each army.  A unit can only benefit from one card per round and each card has the use conditions on it (e.g. only usable by a Khorne Hero).  The biggest issue is that there are so many different units and abilities that grant / steal command points, you'd almost need a system reset to make it work.

[MitGas]

37 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

I think it's really interesting to see how command abilities have evolved over the few years we've had AoS.  Originally if your general had a command ability on their warscroll they could use it.  That was it, very simple, very limited but added a surprising amount of flavour to a game depending on the general you used.  As time rolled on we've seen various changes - command points, generic command abilities, heroic actions, reactions and some armies are able to "play" with the core mechanic, gaining more command points and preventing some abilities from being used.

The issue is that the current usage of command abilities is that it's being used to "solve" a multitude of problems, but they're spread across multiple phases, books and rules.

If I had a magic wand, I'd like a bit of an overhaul.  You can use X warscroll command abilities each turn (based on game size 1000 = 1; 1500 = 2 etc).  You then pick X + D3 command cards from a deck at the beginning of the command phase - those cards include generic options like inspiring presence, all out attack etc, plus some specific for each army.  A unit can only benefit from one card per round and each card has the use conditions on it (e.g. only usable by a Khorne Hero).  The biggest issue is that there are so many different units and abilities that grant / steal command points, you'd almost need a system reset to make it work.

I love that idea! 

[Flippy]

35 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

You then pick X + D3 command cards from a deck at the beginning of the command phase - those cards include generic options like inspiring presence, all out attack etc, plus some specific for each army.

I very much like the deck idea; the use of cards adds a certain flavour to the game (yes, I still miss the Winds of Magic deck). 

[Greyshadow]

@RexHavoc, sometimes our mates drift off to other games for a whole host of reasons. If you still have a passion for Age of Sigmar, I think seek out some nice folks who feel the same way.

Compliments for your original post. This is good feedback for the next edition of the game.

Edited November 10, 2022 by Greyshadow

[Gitzdee]

1 hour ago, RuneBrush said:

I think it's really interesting to see how command abilities have evolved over the few years we've had AoS.  Originally if your general had a command ability on their warscroll they could use it.  That was it, very simple, very limited but added a surprising amount of flavour to a game depending on the general you used.  As time rolled on we've seen various changes - command points, generic command abilities, heroic actions, reactions and some armies are able to "play" with the core mechanic, gaining more command points and preventing some abilities from being used.

The issue is that the current usage of command abilities is that it's being used to "solve" a multitude of problems, but they're spread across multiple phases, books and rules.

If I had a magic wand, I'd like a bit of an overhaul.  You can use X warscroll command abilities each turn (based on game size 1000 = 1; 1500 = 2 etc).  You then pick X + D3 command cards from a deck at the beginning of the command phase - those cards include generic options like inspiring presence, all out attack etc, plus some specific for each army.  A unit can only benefit from one card per round and each card has the use conditions on it (e.g. only usable by a Khorne Hero).  The biggest issue is that there are so many different units and abilities that grant / steal command points, you'd almost need a system reset to make it work.

I think this is great and i think i am going to make a few of those cards if i have a game coming up. Its easier than a cheat sheet and i could make faction specific ones. Its also easier to explain to my wife. I could just hand her the cards she could use. If i give her the whole tome she just says.... nope XD. 

[Marcvs]

42 minutes ago, Gitzdee said:

I think this is great and i think i am going to make a few of those cards if i have a game coming up. Its easier than a cheat sheet and i could make faction specific ones. Its also easier to explain to my wife. I could just hand her the cards she could use. If i give her the whole tome she just says.... nope XD. 

I love cards as game aids! They have really helped me with picking battle tactics for instance. If someone is curious, these (link is for the Order version) are created by a French wargaming channel (Wargame Arena TV) https://www.wargamearena.fr/_files/ugd/b2ad44_f72f3ed812a845cc9866131407ab86bd.pdf

Here's an example:

 

[Beliman]

2 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

You then pick X + D3 command cards from a deck at the beginning of the command phase - those cards include generic options like inspiring presence, all out attack etc, plus some specific for each army.  A unit can only benefit from one card per round and each card has the use conditions on it (e.g. only usable by a Khorne Hero).  The biggest issue is that there are so many different units and abilities that grant / steal command points, you'd almost need a system reset to make it work.

That's close to Asoiaf game: You have a deck made by generic "Comands" + your General "Comands" . At the begining of any turn, each player draw X cards (that can be improved if you take some characters) and that's your hand for the whole turn. At the end of your turn, discard and repeat.

So, if you play with Lannisters and Tyrion as your Warlord, you will have some of his tricks, bribes and defensive stance in your deck, appart from the usual generic cards (Inspiring Presence, etc...), but if you play with Tywin, you will have some awesome maneuvers, tactics and diferents buffs for your units.

Edited November 10, 2022 by Beliman

[JackStreicher]

6 hours ago, Flippy said:

I very much like the deck idea; the use of cards adds a certain flavour to the game (yes, I still miss the Winds of Magic deck). 

While we’re at it*: Same for magic please

Edited November 10, 2022 by JackStreicher

[NauticalSoup]

On 11/9/2022 at 9:49 AM, acr0ssth3p0nd said:

Ask and you shall receive!

The one thing I would immediately change on here, is to carry over 40k's ability to shoot characters when they are the closest model. This has to be the potential as it is currently worded to be extremely frustrating in some cases - I can say this with confidence having previously run bodyguarded Talonmasters in 40k who could shoot you but not be shot back due to janky character shields.

[acr0ssth3p0nd]

Something that might help with both slowing movement and making the game more accessible to new players could be to move Charges to the Movement phase. I can't tell you how many times I've seen newer players look weirded out when I tell them that charging is a separate thing from moving and has its own phase.

[acr0ssth3p0nd]

3 hours ago, NauticalSoup said:

The one thing I would immediately change on here, is to carry over 40k's ability to shoot characters when they are the closest model. This has to be the potential as it is currently worded to be extremely frustrating in some cases - I can say this with confidence having previously run bodyguarded Talonmasters in 40k who could shoot you but not be shot back due to janky character shields.

Good point - will add that change.

Edited November 10, 2022 by acr0ssth3p0nd

[RocketPropelledGrenade]

Interesting to see all the pushback on command abilities. I personally not only love the decision points they offer, but find the core ones pretty simple to keep track of. There's even a reference sheet of less than a page in size that has all core command abilities and their timing on the back of the GHB.

There's a lot of places some of the complexity could be trimmed down to ease newer players in and relieve the mental burden for looser, more casual games, but I don't think command abilities should be hit. I'd much rather go after stuff like battle tactics and grand strategies and focus the game onto its core objective play (secondary objectives are good, but more as an additional complexity thing for those who want it).

[acr0ssth3p0nd]

23 minutes ago, RocketPropelledGrenade said:

Interesting to see all the pushback on command abilities. I personally not only love the decision points they offer, but find the core ones pretty simple to keep track of. There's even a reference sheet of less than a page in size that has all core command abilities and their timing on the back of the GHB.

There's a lot of places some of the complexity could be trimmed down to ease newer players in and relieve the mental burden for looser, more casual games, but I don't think command abilities should be hit. I'd much rather go after stuff like battle tactics and grand strategies and focus the game onto its core objective play (secondary objectives are good, but more as an additional complexity thing for those who want it).

Yeah, Command Abilities as a system do so much heavy lifting that I don't think they should be dropped wholesale from the "core" experience. That said, there are a few that I think just aren't intuitive enough compared to the complexity and "gotcha" moments they create, like Rally and Redeploy. Between them, Heroic Actions, and Monstrous Rampages, there's just too many layers/complexity to justify the interesting choices they individually provide.

I'd like to see some of them, like Redeploy and Rally, worked into the core system as part of an edition change, which would require varying amounts of work depending on the command.

Rally, for instance, could replace Battleshock in the Battleshock phase - roll dice equal to your Bravery value + the number of models lost, and for each 6 you get 1-wound's worth of models back. "Rally on 5+" is easy enough to work in, and the Insane Bravery command could be something like "Add 3 to the unit's Bravery characteristic for the test." This would also address one of the complaints of the Battleshock phase as a feels-bad area, and help boost the viability of chaff/infantry models.

Redeploy is trickier, and might well require a deeper rework of the Movement phase to be more reactive and "alternating-activations-lite" but if it can be done, I think it would be well worth it for making the movement gameplay feel both deeper and more accessible.

For monstrous rampages, the best bet might be to turn them into either heroic actions or commands, depending on the specific rampage. Keep the tool and the "moment of awesome" feeling, but don't make them a whole extra system for new players to learn. Making them commands/HAs means that new players have alternate choices so they don't miss out on a whole extra resource if they choose not to use certain tools.

[Greyshadow]

I like command points too but I do think that there is so many layers put on top of the core rules. It is really likely many rules will be forgotten about if you play casually. The more I think about it the more I think that 'open play' should become 'casual play'.

Edited November 11, 2022 by Greyshadow

[JackStreicher]

1 minute ago, Greyshadow said:

I like command points too but I do think that there is so many layers put on top of the core rules. It is really likely many rules will be forgotten about if you play casually. The more I think about it the more I think that 'open play' should become 'casual play'.

The issue with labeling ways to play anything else than „matched play“ is that most people won’t play it since matched play is used gor pickup games and the likes. That’s why making matched play itself more casual is important. After that add a specific mode for Tournament Play.

Imo it’s way less likely everyone will play tournament play as a standard.

[RuneBrush]

48 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

The issue with labeling ways to play anything else than „matched play“ is that most people won’t play it since matched play is used gor pickup games and the likes. That’s why making matched play itself more casual is important. After that add a specific mode for Tournament Play.

Imo it’s way less likely everyone will play tournament play as a standard.

Completely agree with this.  I think the play modes need to be updated to reflect how people actually play rather than three arbitrary ideas.  For most people the default way of playing is a matched play structured army, but with a casual approach.

[RexHavoc]

On 11/9/2022 at 10:38 AM, Enoby said:

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. 

This was really well written, thank you. It sums up nicely many of the issues I have been seeing myself.

I've seen posts online which tell of a huge increase in drama across groups, its a shame to be seeing more and more stories like these cropping up on groups. Whilst its easier to ignore for someone whos already invested into the game heavily, it must be making it harder to convince new players to invest heavily (both in money & in hobby time) in a game that is drawing negative attention.

The 'mashing of units' in the current game is why I love (and have tried to stick with) playing the original skirmish over the main game. The main game always seems to end up being about how quickly you can pile all the models into the centre and then watch as handfuls are deleted off the tabletop. I've not managed to sit through a youtube battle report for third edition as the ones I have tried have all become like this. At least with skirmish, the games were quick enough that if you ended up loosing your models a bit to quickly you'd have time to throw down some more terrain, reshuffle your deployment and play again.

I've never been much for the rules, I've always been more about making cool models and just wanting to see them run about on the tabletop. All the extra rules and strategies just bogged down what I want to get out of the game. I understand that a complex game can be fun, but AoS (main rules) doesn't feel complex, just bloated with extra things to remember. Its a bizarre mixture, it feels GW wants to cash in on the tournament scene, appeal to narrative players and only give the rules enough attention to sell (more) models. 

I also remember that the start of AoS being the best time for the game. I loved how folk were just having a blast, coming up with new narratives, crazy conversions and paint schemes, and getting stuff on tabletops as quickly as they could. I get why GW would add points and battletomes, but I still think the community would have carried on forming their own balancing versions for tournaments or pick up games and would have done a better job of it. It would have worked well, leaving GW to push narrative events and new models and let the more competitive players build a points system that they actually enjoyed using (and probably balanced it better!)

I've actually yet to read BR Kragnos, but you are not the first person I've heard mention the ending flop. Again, I think this is one of the biggest issues with the game over all. Its in an odd place where GW both want to move the narrative on AND still be able to continue selling character models at a huge mark up without them being invalidated. It makes for difficult story telling, there is no drama when your main characters are protected by plastic armour (Its like plot armour, but it protects GW ability to keep selling models!) 🤣 I also still stand by my decision that bringing Gotrek back & getting rid of Josh Reynolds were overall damaging to the game/setting as a whole. 

The game definitely needs a decent release schedule to keep it feeling alive, but I agree that this version does just feel like its slapping on a new red cover (side note: I'm a HUGE fan of the red/gold version they have now gone with, and do have a twinge of regret that I brought almost every book for 2nd edition and sticking with that era only! The red and gold are so much more warhammer than the sterile white covers/boxes previously used!) and releasing what is amounting to little more than a 'balance patch'. 3 year edition cycles are dumb and its change for changes sake (and profit of course). Its definitely amounted to a feeling in my group that they are just treading water until they release the old world, just to see if they can continue with AoS as a 'main game'. No one here wants to buy into the lore and books if they are all going to be 'End Timesed' in a year or two. (and yes, battletomes are now €42.50 here, which is insane for a rulebook you might only get a few months out of before they release some new game version & zero day errata)

We've also noticed they have dropped the amount of the LE battletomes down to around 700 per release and some are still sitting on the store weeks after release. Again, not a healthy sign and not a good one for anyone toying with the idea of playing AoS but who was already aware that GW LE books sell out often 5 minutes prior to the actual release time! Coupled with the possibility of the old world replacing AoS (How ever slight that notion might actually be), its going to bring in less new players. Which means less money, causing them to consider loosing AoS altogether. Its a cycle GW don't seem to bothered by (not going by their pro

I also hope that it is just a lull, and hope that we the first big release of next year brings in a new wave of AoS excitement. But I can't shake that notion at the back of my mind that arranging anything for AoS this time next year might be a waste of time right now!

 

On 11/10/2022 at 11:53 AM, Greyshadow said:

@RexHavoc, sometimes our mates drift off to other games for a whole host of reasons. If you still have a passion for Age of Sigmar, I think seek out some nice folks who feel the same way.

Compliments for your original post. This is good feedback for the next edition of the game.

Thankfully, my gaming group is pretty chill. Whilst we have all kind of abandoned AoS right now, I've been itching to get back to playing. My main opponent is never too bothered about what we play, they are just as happy playing MtG, board games, Video games, oathmark or WFB. They are not a hobbyist at all (I paint all their armies) and they are just content playing games.

The issue is, we all pretty much feel the same way about AoS right now and even I'm having a hard time getting that excitement levels up and keeping them there.

Its been easier to engage with other games so much more recently. Being able to watch themed shows, battlereports, converse with people online about models or campaigns and basically engage in the hobby outside the actual hobby itself does help keep excitement for projects up.

I think the only reason we have all drifted towards other games recently is the wave of 'whats the point' with AoS, when it seems a very uncertain game to be playing right now. Not that GW can ever take away the game/setting now its out there. Same as with WFB.

On 11/11/2022 at 7:51 AM, RuneBrush said:

Completely agree with this.  I think the play modes need to be updated to reflect how people actually play rather than three arbitrary ideas.  For most people the default way of playing is a matched play structured army, but with a casual approach.

I also agree and I do wish they would change the names of the game modes! One of the biggest issues I've run into is when I've had with conversations on groups (outside of this forum that it) about game styles, I've then seen the argument that match play is the 'standard' that everyone follows and anything outside of that is the oddity!

Sure, its probably the most common and it will be the easiest to find pick up games for, but I've seen opinions on how people play everything from 'narrative is just match play but you named your commander' to 'Open play is just for people that want to smash their biggest toys together'! There is such a weird atmosphere with the AoS crowd right now, that play modes are set in stone and that everything should be spoonfed (lest you are deemed a cheat and be caught playing outside the sandbox!)

Personally, I've never understood the need for so much competitive focus on a game that demands so much imagination and creativity prior to even getting on to the tabletop! Also never understood the need for so many to require the game to be balanced (points wise & rules) to be able to play. Its understandable for pick up games, but outside of that so many seem to come into the hobby with this idea is the standard and anything outside that box is the oddity! I'd like to know which real life battle came with equal armies and had a fair chance of either side winning!

=================================================================================

One other issue I've had with AoS recently is that after 7 years, we still have such an odd disparity between the lore and the actual model ranges. The lore is this magnificent, ridiculous over the top imagery which is quite often lovecraftian in the level of cosmic horror. Whilst some models convey this, due to so many things being ported over from WFB we are left with a model range that is surprisingly bog standard. Even some of the more recent releases have been closer to the Euro Grim dark style of WFB/LotR than what is displayed in the lore & art. Range updates are so sporadic. Some getting just a random new hero and others getting nothing. I know we are getting a big CoS overhaul soon, I think what ever they do here will make or break the future of the setting!

One last point, I wish GW put as much effort into their books as cubical 7 does. I brought several bits from them for WFB (not for the roleplaying rules, just for the lore & art) and the quality is fantastic.  I've taken a quick flick though a couple of the soulbound books and they look amazing. I'll be adding some of the reference books to my shelf for sure! I know that a lot of the old lore for WFB was built upon heavily from the earlier WFRP game, and clearly Cubical 7 are doing the same for AoS now. It just irks me somewhat, as I have no real interest in the game itself and have to pay the parts of the book that will never get used! But their source books are just so good.

 

[Beliman]

1 hour ago, RexHavoc said:

Its in an odd place where GW both want to move the narrative on AND still be able to continue selling character models at a huge mark up without them being 

That shouldn't matter.

We've been playing wih death characters or people that are not "active" in the lore for about years (Arkhan, Nagash, Prime,...) and we came from WFB that had a lot more death characters (Gorbad, grom, etc...).

[Greyshadow]

I remember when 40K was about the same age as Age of Sigmar is now and the manager of Mind Games Melbourne, probably the biggest bricks and mortar Games Workshop stockist in the state, was livid about the new direction of 2nd edition 40K. There was a huge exodus of Dungeons and Dragons players at the time. I was surprised as I thought this new version was the best thing ever made.

My point is that gaming groups do break up and whilst it can be melancholic, it isn’t inherently bad. If you aren’t done with the Mortal Realms yourself, seek out new enthusiasts. I think there are a lot of people out there who are still having a lot of fun with it.

 

Edited November 13, 2022 by Greyshadow

[JackStreicher]

7 hours ago, RexHavoc said:

Personally, I've never understood the need for so much competitive focus on a game that demands so much imagination and creativity prior to even getting on to the tabletop!

First off: Very well written and structured comment!

I agree. All the competetive gaming has always felt to me like it was not what the game is supposed to be.

Back in the day my brother and I even made at least thematic Tournament Lists and everything was more relaxed (whf). All that would be required is a crude balance so no unit escalates too much and every unit becomes useful.
Nowadays everything feels hyper competetive and thus ignoring anything that’s not the matched play rules. The game loses so much potential.

It‘s a pitty really.

[magtchu]

This thread is slightly disconcerting - I was under the impression AoS was doing really well and growing year by year, is that not the case? That's what I see people say elsewhere.

[magtchu]

Also I worry about these kind of topics leading to a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy i.e. if you were thinking of getting into AoS and were doing online research to see how active it is and came across a topic like this it would really put you off. I mean is it really doing that badly, I heard elsewhere from multiple people it was catching 40k up. Sorry I'd have added this to my first post but can't see an edit function.