"3000 words on Age of Sigmar - An Exhaustive Review" Topic

link

I've tried to be as fair and objective as I can, and explain as much as possible about how the rules worked. Our play of them was interesting and revealing.

They're not the worst rules ever, but I can understand the loyalist rage at the percieved simplicity. Please read the admittedly long review for more (or skip to after the photo's for the conclusions).

Enjoy

You wrote an excellent in-depth review there, and it answered just about all of my questions about AoS.

Thank you.

Well done & very informative. Thanks for taking the time to write & share this.

An outstanding, candid and seemingly fair review. Thanks for sharing.

Excellent review. Thanks for posting.

I enjoyed your fair-minded review. Given some of the reviews/articles I would like to thank you for this fair response.

Thank you.

Tony

In the start of you post you state that you 'tried to be as objective as possible'…which of course means that you weren't objective at all.

Matter of opinion; read the review and judge for yourself. Personally I'm not a GW hater or fanboy; though I do dislike their pricing structure and a minority of tournament gamers who try to dictate how their games should be played.

Good review, thank you.

One thing I see in your review that I am not sure if you caught it or not in the rules. There is nothing "locking" a model/unit into melee combat. You can use the RETREAT movement to move away from a fight as long as your models have clear path to do so.

I have enjoyed the 3 games I have played so far. Not the greatest rules ever written, but certainly entertaining enough.

I read your review, I thought it covered everything quite well. One thing I really didn't get; you mention that each of you had 51 wounds a piece. How does this not transfer as a way of balancing armies? Any light you can shed on that?

Well thought out review. Thanks for taking the time.

OK so, as far as the wounds issue.

In Warhammer 8th a goblin had one wound and an Ogre 3, but a goblin cost 4 points and an Ogre 35-ish; why? because their other stats were so different. In WFB the ogre was a better fighter, stronger tougher, braver and better equipped all round, hence costing ten times as much.

In AoS that ogre is still all of those things relatively but now he has 4 wounds to the goblins one, so it is as if instead of costing ten times as much he actually costs only four, he's had in effect a sixty percent points cost reduction if you can only use wounds as a balancing factor.

Now rules synergies and the changed tactical dynamic did compensate a little, but not to an extent that it balanced the whole.

Consider this also, under the rules as they now stand all of the following would be one wound critters: a zombie, a high elf, a savage orc and a gnoblar. All would have hugely divergent points costs in the old rules so it is very much a gentlemans agreement at present to make sure that the game plays reasonably.

@Dean AKI,
Thanks!

Thanks for your review.

Ron

How does this not transfer as a way of balancing armies? Any light you can shed on that?

So 51 wounds of Ogres does not equal 51 points of Goblins.

The Goblins would have needed far more Goblins to make this battle equal.

Thank you for the review – I am liking the new models and the starter set price but not really anything else ! (Have not bought GW stuff for 30 years)

I thought it was a balanced, objective and well-written review. There was another thread a while back on GW financials and I realised that the company's purpose is to churn teenagers – I think AOS will satisfy that

The comment in the review about the rules simply not being competitive is really important. I am thinking I could adapt SAGA and Winter is coming (sorry, I mean Dragon Rampant is coming this Winter)

I don't like playing unbalanced games. The reason to buy commercial rule sets is that some effort has gone into balancing :)

Thanks

John

Thanks for the review. I tend to agree with your assessment: it's not a bad game as games go, but with all the competition, it does not stand out at all and even compares poorly to the other options out there. When I play a fantasy battle game, I want to chase the opponents off the table (cavalry licking at their heels), outflank for a rear charge, absorb archer volleys with skirmishers, support columns of troops with heavy infantry, march block the enemy flankers and generally cause an all-out rout. I enjoy the details of formations, wheeling and maneuvering blocks of infantry. I like the fog of war, not knowing if my regiment will complete a complex maneuver in time to face the enemy. I like wavering the opponent's morale and exhausting his troops. I like the choices of weapons and armour, which might be countered by enemy troops that are faster or more appropriately armed. This is all absent or tremendously abstracted in AoS.

Again, it's recognizably "a game"… It's just one that offers inordinately little to players like me. And I'm cool with that—no love lost if I'm not GW's demographic! The last game I bought from them was a decade and a half ago (Warhammer Fantasy 6th edition), and even then I only bought on army book and then never picked up the game again. WFB 6th Edition seemed OK, if a little bland, but by the late 90s GW models were already becoming extremely ugly and outrageously expensive (even second hand). Games Workshop did excellent games in the early to mid 90's, however, and I happily still play these today. For more contemporary games, I have a glut of better options from friendlier companies!