"AOS has no tactics...TRUE or FALSE?" Topic

I am finding some really enlightening videos and blogs about this issue, and I'm seeing some very thoughtful and intelligent discussions about it.

This Youtube channel in particular really opened my eyes to the tactical possibilities possible in AOS.

As I have said, I think that this game is upsetting so many people simply because it's totally unfamiliar territory, particularly to competitive Warhammer players used to a point system and used to the restrictions of formations.

But unfamiliar doesn't necessarily mean bad or overly simplistic.

Here's the link:

YouTube link

How do you set up a game of Age of Sigmar? Normal terrain rules?

Nobody knows.

It's extremely bad and "simplistic" is too generous a description.

False

But it still sucks.

AoS setup & terrain? You use a GM with a scenario like Warhammer originally did.

I think that this game is upsetting so many people simply because it's totally unfamiliar territory

It's upsetting even those willing to at least stomach the Warhammer World turnover; because it 's like your waiter says, "here's some bread. The rest of your sandwich you ordered will be ready in a few months."

You can coddle GW, or rock back and forth whispering, "it's all OK, it's all OK" to yourself over and over. It's STILL half-baked.

I've watched a lot of videos of competent fanboys giving it a go as best they could with such an underdefined structure. After it was over, even the most favorable of reviews was like they were trying hard to compliment a kindly uncle's bad toupee.

Being strictly a 40K aficionado I have not played WHFB in any of its previous editions including the current AoS, but to be fair as a totally new set of rules without the luxury of years of development and fine-tuning the previous editions had, we can't expect it to be polished. I'm sure that with the many questions players undoubtedly have with the AoS rules in its current form due to its vagueness and open-endedness, the rules will develop over time through player suggestions/feedback and FAQ's. Be patient.

From experience I find that well-defined rules with point systems are conducive to an ultra-competitive "win at any cost" mindset in gamers who thrive in tournaments with their power army lists. I prefer to play for fun in an environment where it's "not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game." That's why I avoid the tournament circuit and I use army lists that fit the background, not one that's designed to defeat the opponent through min-maxing.

Alas, we're conditioned by years of detailed rules, so AoS is bound to draw heavy criticism. Who knows? If GW reboots the 40K rules with the same over-simplicity, I might cast my own stone.

+1 Beast Rampant and Mithmee.

Christopher

Another thing to consider may be the fact that AoS's target demographic are 10-12 year olds, a group perceived as easily bored with short attention spans who are discouraged by big rulebooks and who just want to put in a quick and easy game.

That's actually a good point 28mm fanatic

I've seen this type of game before….. Crinoline :) think I might give it a try now as I already have the over the top miniatures to play it. Don't need anything new but free rules and free warscrolls( more rules silly name ) ;)

"Cronopia"….. Don't know where auto correct got crinoline from…. Or even what it means LOL

Chronopia actually has rules, though. It also has the most interesting Orcs in the hobby, and comes close with its Elves as well.

…And the Beastclan dwarves, too!

Silly people think that AoS can't have tactics and the only thing you can do is have a giant scrum in the middle of the board. Of course this isn't true. Will the tactics be the same as WHFB? Of course not. Will they be more realistic or better or more fun? I dont know as I havent played the game enough yet.

The fact that the rules are only 4 pages is meaningless as far as how good a game is. I used to run/play a game called Company Commander with my 20mm modern historicals. The rules to this game are very short and "simple". However the games we played with those rules were some of the most realistic tactics-wise, and the most fun.

People have lost the ability to have a game without point values for units, apparently. (or never had that ability) Coming from a historical gaming background, I am ok with setting up a scenario as a GM, or working out something with the other player…

I have a hard time believing that GW targets 10-12 year olds. It doesn't really make any sense. In their financial report, they did mention that their primary customers were teenagers and young adults. So since that is in black and white, we now have to push it down to 10-12 year olds? Soon people will be claiming that GW's target audience is wealthy toddlers!

#1 tactic in any wargame… roll better than your opponent.
this always wins.

What I meant when referring to Cronopia is the tendency of ending up with a big pile in melee with high casualties and very few routed troops. Fun fantasy game and I suspect if taken on its own merits and in the spirit of its design, AOS will be fun also.

If everyone lets go of the idea that this is a WHFB replacement and just sees it as a new game it might seem a lot cooler

@Der Krieg Geist

That's just the problem they in fact did replace WHFB with AoS. If they just released AoS as a separate game this discussion wouldn't be even taking place or at least not in this manner. I'm still baffled by this decision and happen to be on the side of the fence who believes that was not a good idea for reasons already stated by many.

Christopher

Christopher.
I get you but that is just my point exactly. AOS is not a replacement it is a new game with a new setting. All previous editions of WHFB are not now somehow invalidated and magically vanished in to the ether ;D They will be played and available on the secondary market for decades to come. Play what you love and enjoy. Why let yourself get caught up in all the negative hype? Play both, play neither, play one and not the other. Play something entirely different. Have fun Brother

@Der Krieg Geist

Personally I haven't played WHFB in about year or maybe two as I prefer historical gaming. It's not that I didn't like WHFB which I did/do and actually enjoyed the 8th edition as well as the 3rd, but rather I just seem to always have other things I'd prefer to do.

It's true that you can always play older editions, but they become harder to get games for as the player base for it dries up. In my neck of the woods it's always the latest edition that gets played the most and if you don't like it you either quit or play a less satisfying game. This is now magnified with AoS.

I'm actually more sympathetic to players from one of my playing groups who are hard core WHFB players and now find themselves being split into groups of pro and anti AOS. It doesn't effect me that much as I don't play that often these days, but I do care how it effects my friends. GW's decision was an awful one and could have been avoided if they simply released AoS as a separate game and left WHFB alone.

Christopher

Your points are well taken and perhaps my view comes from the angle of one who is not found of pick up games. I usually pre plan games and am more then willing to let newcomers join in the game, but. I don't believe that I ever just showed up at a shop with an army and hoped to find an opponant.
As for GW I think perhaps they realized that their pricing and processing structure no longer works with a mass battle game. Since lower prices is not an option they consider viable, then a lower model count at a higher price point is what they went for.
Seen in this light a new edition of WHFB would not work as few will pay continuosly inceasing premium pricing for line troops. The new AOS allows everything produced to be seen as special/premium while allowing all the older miniatures to remain viable but not as new/ cool as the newest premium models.
I believe this whole plan of GW is much better thought out then many here seem to believe. Since their goals are obviously to stay in business and continue to make a healthy profit some small credit to them may be due.

It's not a question of whether AoS has tactics or not. Checkers has tactics, after all… In fact the only game that I have ever played that doesn't "have tactics" is War (a game where each player draws the top card of a poker deck and the highest card wins that round).

Rather, it is a question of WHAT kind of tactics does AoS support? Does it support strategies used by ancient or medieval tacticians? Can you disrupt supply lines, bog elephants with skirmishers, break up heavy infantry formations in broken terrain? Can you flank charge, march block, scout, set fire to the fields? Can you climb walls, pour oil and fight through the castle chambers? Most games would support at least some of these things, and they are exactly those rules which give the game it's authentic feel. AoS feels a bit like a rugby match, which is fine, but not what many would want in a fantasy battle game.

Well from looking at the latest pictures that are up on GW site AoS is nothing but 40K Fantasy.

I can't believe I'm going to defend GW, gut here goes.

Fantasy is like a musical group. They produce one hit album and life is good until they have to produce a second album. All their fanboys want the second album to sound exactly like the first album. only better. You do this album after album and you paint yourself into a corner. You become a piece of nostalgia. When you're out of ideas and your fan base has had it's fill of songs that sound exactly like the songs on your last album, then you either fold your tent or risk the wrath of your fanbase and reinvent yourself.

GW was out of ideas to make Fantasy exactly like Fantasy only better. Sales were disappointing, so they decided to reinvent themselves. Their hardcore gamer base, predictably, is up in arms.

I think GW believes that the age of big games with lots of figures to paint is over. Fantasy players are not historical players. A kid is not going to paint 40 spearmen all exactly the same and repeat. They tried, it was called Warmaster.

I think they are positioning AOS to be a competitor for Malifaux. If all the tactics, combinations, and card management of Malifaux are too much for you, we have a little game called AOS. Cool miniatures and throwing dice is a simpler mechanic than Malifaux's card management. If you get tired of pushing figures into the center of the table and rolling dice, we have a little more complex game called 40K.

Is AOS simple? Yes, but so is DBA, DBM, Hordes, etc and they have a devoted fan base. They couldn't make Fantasy again, and they couldn't make Malifaux, so this is what was left.

@Joe Rocket,

That is one of the best and most honest interpretations I've seen on here.

As you said, this is a move that in some ways GW had to make.

It's a very peculiar thing the way people tend to categorize GW. First they are the kings of fantasy, being the biggest and best game and the best miniatures. They have this hugely successful run of fantasy that lasts over 30 years, which finally runs into a corner.

I have always had this overriding feeling that GW is damned if they and damned if they don't. Making great minis for three decades and rules to support them somehow wasn't enough for some people.

I think you are right, that in this day and age the time of people painting huge fantasy armies might indeed be over. Whether it be due to shortening attention spans because of technology or other cultural shifts, I think you are right. People just don't want to have to do that much preparation to play a fantasy game, they want to get into it quick. The people who tend to play older Warhammer with the classic huge armies tend to be the old guard people who have been playing Warhammer forever.

I've been with Warhammer since the beginning, so massive armies and the work required to make them I actually enjoy, that doesn't phase me at all. But I'm an exception, the majority of younger gamers don't have much inclination to paint and collect huge armies, they just want to play a game.

On the other hand, there is still a following of GW by the hobbyist and collector, and their miniatures are still purchased by the hobbyist. But perhaps not in a volume big enough to make substantial profit any more.

Ironically, I look at the demise of fantasy battle not as some business-related mistake or misguided path that GW took, as so many like to accuse them of – nor do I think it was GW's prices that brought about fantasy battle's demise. I always have to laugh when I hear people say that GW's pricing in the 90s and 2000s were outrageous, but then go on to say that OHH yeah they own three Warhammer armies and two 40k armies, but they won't buy any more gosh darn it, lol.

I think it was simply times changing. No one on here who has been so quick to blame GW for fantasy failing ever offers genuine reasons behind it. They just say that "GW let fantasy fail" because of lack of communication or lack of interaction, etc. If that were true, then how did it last for 30 years? While there is some truth that 40k did carry GW for most of its existence, that still does NOT explain why GW kept fantasy for so long. You don't invest in 8 editions of a game spanning two decades and more if you're losing money at it. You don't make figures and print books for a product line that massive if it's losing money. And not only that, but why would GW have made so many thousands of sculpts for so many minis and published so many rules and supplements for fantasy if it wasn't making money???

You don't invest materials and resources into a product line if it's losing money. Fantasy made GW a lot of money through the 80s, 90, and 2000s, and if 40k was first in their sales, then fantasy was a significant 2nd in sales, that can't be underestimated.

That is what bugs me about the criticism of GW for "killing fantasy". Youtube is full of channels complaining how GW abandoned the tournament community, or failed to do this or failed to that for a particular part of the player base.

What's amazing about that is that during this whole time GW has paid hundreds of employees to sculpt tens of thousands of minis, to write hundreds of rule books and rules supplements, painting guides, modeling guides, terrain guides, rules amendments, etc. etc. That doesn't even count the authors employed to write Warhammer novels or develop software for their PC games, not to mention the money invested in professional photography of its miniatures for all of its books. The list goes on and on.

I just see this as a lot of people living in an entitled culture taking for granted a company that consistently turned out high-quality products for a niche market that people loved, and did so for a very long time.

I am far from being a GW fanboy, there are many things that GW has done that I don't agree with, and many things I do agree with. But since I was a teenager I have considered the Warhammer Old World to be one of the best fantasy settings created since Tolkien created Middle Earth. And I have considered the miniatures that accompany that world to be among the best miniatures out there. Pretty much as simple as that.

Warhammer fantasy couldn't last forever, nothing grows forever! The tournament players who felt they were entitled to have GW be at their beck and call unto infinity to make 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th edition for the purposes of satisfying their every complaint about every tweak for every stat imbalance that affects their particular army. Couldn't happen.

It was Warhammer Fantasy Battle, not Warhammer Tournament Battle.

Sales were disappointing

Sales were disappointing because GW made the game to freaking expensive.

When you have to shell out $700 USD-$1200 to get a decent size army many new players not to do that.

So if buying one army was out they were not going to buy a 2nd or 3rd army either.

I am just glad that I got my armies 20 years.

who felt they were entitled to have GW be at their beck and call unto infinity to make 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th edition for the purposes of satisfying their every complaint about every tweak for every stat imbalance that affects their particular army.

If they actually cared, they would only have to do that once or twice. The cycles of "old and busted" vs "the new hotness" (that you haven't bought yet) and the need to spend ever more and more for a *starter* army, not to mention the blatant disregard for the intelligence of their customers (statements of "no price increases this year" followed by a box change that is a price increase per model of up to 100%) is a deadly combo, and GW just lost a 30 year tentpole title because of it.

Marketing techniques are one thing. Blatant dishonesty and addict baiting another entirely.

My point exactly Gypsie. That's the box they created for themselves. The fanboys are saying give me some "new hotness" that's got enough value to make it worth my while to buy new rules, codes, etc. but don't touch this and don't touch that. After eight editions, what more could be done that would have enough value without major changes to the bits that hardcore gamers love about the game? They were damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they don't change anything, gamers moan that there isn't enough value for their money and if they do change, then we moan about that.

Mithmee,

Good news and bad news. You're going to need less figures with OAS. The bad news, is that GW has learned from Malifaux and other skirmish games that people will still play silly prices for plastic miniatures. A boxed set of five plastic Malifaux figures will set you back $30. USD One Teddy is $15. USD A GENCON Teddy is $45. USD

GWs new mini's will also be better copywrited/patented. You can't copywrite Elves because it has a common usage. But you can copywrite Aelf. A silly distinction to gamers, but a huge deal if you own the intellectual property.

I suspect "Aelf" specifically is not as defensible a trademark as they want us to think, but some of the other new ones will likely stand.

Joe, you missed part of my point. GW has consciously allowed "old and busted" to develop. It isn't enough that a new model is cool to see on the table or does something interesting; it must also be more efficient for its points than the models GW has amortized. Sometimes these things correct with a new edition, but more frequently a new edition, with its new interpretations of the web of special rules, is what consigns those units and models GW does not have plans for to the "old and busted" category. With a few possible exceptions none of it was accidental.

As a side point, I suspect the trend toward bigger and often highly intricate plastic kits that won't stand up to transport is not simply artistic, but a desire to make the physical models shorter-lived. Old and Busted in a literal sense. I really doubt the new Nagash or the Undead Merry-Go-Round will survive in a box in the attic quite like those old metal Marines do, and that's the goal.