The Future of AoS...

[Aeryenn]

As for the Runewars it is simply a product which I hate from the first preview (and I have a lot of FFG products) - it all comes to aesthetics. I hate WarCraft 3/WoW style not to mention Hearthstone and I would believe you, if you told me Blizzard was behind Runewars. It would be a torture for me to paint those minis. It can't be even compared to AoS.

[Killax]

@Aryann everyone should really play whatever they want! What I dislike, I have this same gripe with Shadespire, is games that for an unclear reason seem to step away from regular D6 and use one that they made up themselves or blend in several D6, D8, D10 and D20 together.
The issue I have with that is that many can obtain X D6 from any boardgame, while almost nobody can obtain those special dice unless they directly buy into that game, this is just a low wall but a wall nontheless.
Runewars can be great, it just doesn't appeal to me. Likewise X-Wing doesn't appeal to me either. I like Runebound, I like Star-Wars but I don't like them too much as gaming worlds.

What Blizzard has very effectively done with World of Warcraft and Starcraft is be a copy of what was then available content for Warhammer Fantasy and Warhammer 40.000. I personally don't dislike this homage but I don't feel Blizzard even once put a good boardgame on the market. The previous WoW miniature game was garbage in my opinion and if some thing GW is doing poor jobs from time to time know that great compagnies usually lack the creative minds that allow for total creative freedom (required for creating awesome new games).

Age of Sigmar is a fine example of how GW was willing to let go of the old that didn't meet the requirements they needed in order to sell it. While this sounds like a poor excuse the prime objective is and remains to be for GW to sell miniatures, not soley competative games, not communities. There is more hobby content to be sold but that really is secondary to the miniatures sales.
WoW and Heartstone are fine examples of how Blizzard was willing to let go of a strategy platform that was less popular and a tradingcardgame platform to incorporate it all into games that require you to spend hours and hours to archive succes. This has been a very smart move for them.
In my opinion FFG still very much shoots and sees what sticks. The ammount of discontinued games they have versus the time their community puts into it to set 'something up' is just unfair. Conquest LCG was a fantastic game for example and didn't survive for even 3 years, I really do think that Runewars will suffer the same fate. 
It's very likely FFG and GW cut ties the moment FFG wanted to continue to push their own miniature games. Though their relation has been benificial to both sides. GW has learned to make good games again and FFG has learned what a good miniatures game requires.

[DarkBlack]

Expecting more cool stuff and battletomes.

Hoping we get everyone to the same level (i.e. battletomes and updates for AoS), aelfs and Death really need some attention. Hope the bloat stops at DoT level (already a bit much for me).

Talk of "meta", over- or under-costed units and thing that are or are not "competitive" puts me off the game. I kind of hear "the are lists that WILL give you a terrible game and people who will bring them"

. I don't see why people insist on making Warhammer (either) competitive, it's balanced about as well as it's going to get, but isn't quite; GW does not make games with competition in mind.  I really find the Warhammers better if I take a more casual approach. Plus there are games designed with competition in mind and they are so much more suited to that.

[Killax]

23 minutes ago, DarkBlack said:

 

Talk of "meta", over- or under-costed units and thing that are or are not "competitive" puts me off the game. I kind of hear "the are lists that WILL give you a terrible game and people who will bring them"

. I don't see why people insist on making Warhammer (either) competitive, it's balanced about as well as it's going to get, but isn't quite; GW does not make games with competition in mind.  I really find the Warhammers better if I take a more casual approach. Plus there are games designed with competition in mind and they are so much more suited to that.

Completely agree. What I think at this point would be ideal is to see the shift of new stuff not only go back and forth between Chaos and Order but simply have the patron include Death and Destruction as often.

Age of Sigmar is absolutely not soley designed for Competative play, I'd even go as far to say it isn't designed for Competative play at all. However you can add more rules to create a competative setting for it  Age of Sigmar simply put in my opinion is a game made for a hobby, where the hobby comes first. Much like Warhammer Fantasy was up until 5th edition. 

Games Workshop has even mentioned that Shadespire is made for competative play. If players do want to have that competative balance, logic and mathematical approach to the game I'd strongly suggest them to pick that up. 

[Aeryenn]

11 hours ago, Galas said:

You can have variation in two forms:

-Complete basic ruleset and simple rules for units and armies (This was how WHFB played)
-Simple basic ruleset with complicated rules for units and armies (This is how AoS is played)
 

And thats ok. The problem comes when you have Complicated basic rules + Complicated special rules for units and armies.

Couldn't agree more. There are so many things I'd like to mention... It might be a bit chaotic:

In my opinion each and every unit should have at least two skills/special rules, with heroes having 3-5. That makes them more easily adapt to current situation and opponent. There is this video game - Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War 2. Every unit had some skill or/and upgrades. I remember that basic Guardian squad from Eldar race could play various roles on the battlefield thanks to its skills: using fleet on foot it was perfect as an early game scout unit. Placing shields made them hold ground and defend important places. Granades where perfect for destroying tougher enemies as well as bringing panic to enemy lines. There was also the fourth skill that increased their survavility. And that's just one unit from one faction. Each and every hero had like 8-10 upgrades that gave him new skills, weapons or armor making him play different roles.

Keeping in mind that a miniature game is not so easily variable (we need to buy new minis and paint them) it should pay much attention to make each unit viable, able to react to different threats. Who would like to play a match up you know right from the beggining you are not able to win, because you have no resposne to unit X that your opponent has? Those special rules/skills/upgrades/artifacts can be of a great help to make each unit playable.

I really enjoy FFG's Living Card Games that expand your playing possibilities with every new pack of cards. In Conquest I can play Chaos either as a self-sacrificial deck where you spend your units to bring stronger ones to the table (demons), or you could create a high demaging deck but with the risk to harm your own units, or create a deck focused on Brutal keyword which makes your unit attack harder for each damage token on them, etc. etc.

Possibilities for the win. Games with units like "it has 2 atk and 3hp and thats it, fighting against units with 3 atk and 2 hp and no skill" are boring.

[Chillpill]

Put it this way. I absolutely loved the Warhammer Fantasy World... but I ended up mainly buying books (Malus Darkblade, Gotrek and Felix, Army Books, Lore Books etc.) rather than playing the game... because the thought of having to buy and paint dozens of models was always too daunting to me. Plus there was no one around where I lived that would play.

 

Fast forward a good 10 years and you do not need that many models anymore, it's a lot less daunting to start. It also appears to be tons more popular than WHFB was? I also live somewhere else now and there seems to be a lot more going on and there are 2 Games Workshop shops within 20 minutes of my house.

Factoring all of that into the equation, what happened now was I so far bought:

Gates of Azyr
Age of Sigmar "Rulebook" (Mighty Battles in an Age of Unending War)
General's Handbook
Grand Alliance Order
Grand Alliance Destruction
Destruction Battletome Ironjawz
Destruction Battletome Beastclaw Raiders
How to paint Ironjawz

1 box of Ironjawz Brutes
About £200 worth of paints, brushes and tools (impatiently waiting for goblingaming's delivery, unfortunately a few things were out of stock)

I cannot wait to get started. I am so pumped for it I am even considering doing one of these painting journals on here... I am a total, utter noob when it comes to painting though and I always sucked at Arts&Crafts... I just don't have the steady hands required for finesse painting like this I think... but I will do it now!

So yea I invested a little bit into AoS... the Future better be GOOD!

[Sleboda]

16 hours ago, Travis Baumann said:

Making every new unit be an exception to an existing rule or to add new rules in and of themselves (and then to make those rules only accessible to those that put cash down) is exactly why 40K is in the state it is now.

Agreed.

[Sleboda]

6 hours ago, BURF1 said:

That's a side affect of tournament play, not necessarily rules bloat. I guarantee you that that exact conversation has been happening since the very first comp pack got introduced. 

I played friendlies last weekend with a group at a buddy's house.  No comp,  just 2K Pitched Battle. I lost track of my own rules,  let alone trying to know my opponent's.

It was totally the bloat.

[Requizen]

17 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

I played friendlies last weekend with a group at a buddy's house.  No comp,  just 2K Pitched Battle. I lost track of my own rules,  let alone trying to know my opponent's.

It was totally the bloat.

Learning that stuff comes from experience. The first 40k game I ever played years ago was only 400 points and we still lost track of rules. Our first few AoS games we forgot stuff and that was when TGH had just come out and we didn't have anything but the 4 page rules and our warscrolls. 

Compared to other wargames (heck, even compared to some board games) AoS is pretty to understand, even once you put on Battletomes.

[Sleboda]

24 minutes ago, Auticus said:

One of the reasons I love AOS is that I don't have to memorize a ton of rules.  At 40 years old I lost that ability now that I have about twenty rule systems in my head.  

The warscroll abilities are fine by me.  I have them in front of me.  

 I'm almost 46. Playing wargames since 14, Warhammer since the launch of 3rd ed.

I have more rules, and versions of rules,  kicking around in my head than I should.  The reset of AoS was good for helping me jettison conflicting rules and concepts from 6 editions of Warhammer. Years of memory-erasing beer and Tattoo (rum) helped scrub me clean,  too.

Still, I feel the weight of bloat.  Yes,  experience will ease it,  but yowza, it's really starting to pile up. 

[Turragor]

3 hours ago, Sleboda said:

I lost track of my own rules,  let alone trying to know my opponent's.

I am trying to picture a change that means you now lose track of your rules after a piling up of new rules.

Do you play Khorne? Or something that got an update adding some extra things to consider?

Otherwise surely it's just the same warscrolls.

I don't doubt you feel there's bloat, it's your feeling and it makes no sense for me to challenge it.

I'm just trying to think what has caused it because other than adding more warscrolls (or new factions with a bit more in them) the core rules are just the same.

[Veterannoob]

AoS is growing here and my former scene . 40k players porting into it in heaps . We just need to talk to one another and ****** which game shop it MUST be in and just play. While I understand the mindset of bloat and seeing what happened to 40k the free rules/sheets mitigates that lots for me. I am worried a bit about seeing too competitive or net list bit fortunately that hasn't been our thing here. Just like 8th, if I play at a 100+ player event and the competitive go one way after game 2 and I go the other then I'm happy playing with my peeps. 

[Robzilla]

As someone who loathed AOS on launch, almost (though thankfully didn't) sold his armies and has only recently returned to the fold, begging for a second chance... I hope it keeps on going from strength to strength. 

One thing I will say: I hope GW exercise moderation. 

The Generals handbook and a rough points system is the only reason I have interest in the game (modelling and painting is a different ball park entirely). However I am worried that overlapping books (khorne bloodbound and blades of khorne for instance) seem like a cash grab from GW to double down on book sales from certain factions. I sincerely hope this is the exception rather than the norm, because It's what caused me to jump ship on 40k. Right now I'm relatively happy with the contained and balanced approach foreword has with 30k, and doubly so with the back to basics nature of AOS. 

I like that the generals handbook adds depth, and that the battletomes add a bit more personalisation, but I hope they draw a line in the sand here. No more bloat past this point. Just give us a variety of faction tomes, new minis and regular updates thank you very much! 

[Baron Klatz]

I believe the new Khorne book was the same thing the Stormcast book was, a needed army update for the current bells-and-whistles and a combining of scattered sub-factions for easier availability and synergy.

Heaven knows the aelves desperately need such a boon.

On the point of bloat I bbasically agree that AoS has grown in complexity but I see it in layers of customization and competitive play rather than a rules blob.

They just add more depth and personality to a army that can easily be stripped away for easier games of a more open play nature.

I will however echo the wishes for AoS to be kept as is and any more add-ons to be kept low minimum as possible.