• Roll-up! Roll-up! Come one and all the fantastic Turning the World to Darkness painting competition. Welcome to any skill level, you can find out more here.
  • It's time once again to ferret out those murderous vampires in a new VAU - Vampires Amongst Us. A cross between Cluedo and a roleplay, sometimes gory and often hilarious! Find out more here.

Age of Sigmar

Banat

Varghulf
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
791
#26
I have already played a battle of AoS with my dwarf friend, and since I am in possesion of Nagash he auto lost a game, and we see no way he can win against him with his current range of models. Therefore I think AoS is not funny at all, because my buddy cannot win with me unless i refuse to field my best model.
Were you nice and fielded ONLY Nagash?
 

Oppenheimer

Crypt Horror
Joined
May 26, 2013
Messages
556
#28
I'm somewhat concerned about the lack of information on how to balance two armies together. But, I like the new rule set. Frankly I think it could use a little thinning of the rules. Now I won't blow myself up every time I try to cast magic. Also, having each caster have an individualized spell is nice.
 

Malisteen

Master Necromancer
True Blood
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
2,134
#29
Basically list building has been removed form the game as a tactical element. You have to get together with your opponent to come up with what the two of you mutually consider to be fair sides (if 'fair' is what you're going for, I've seen at least one battle report representing a deliberately lopsided game from MC1 - handful of skaven gutter runners and assassins trying to take out a wight king leading a larger undead host), and if you cannot agree then you don't have a game. If you play the game and decide that your chosen sides weren't fair after all, then you adjust next time. And if you are aiming for fair, then you need to take summoning into account when deciding on those sides.

But in general, yeah, trying to 'build a better list' in order to get a leg up on the opponent is just not a thing in AoS. There is no system mastery there because there is no system to master. There are tactics and strategy, they're just all during gameplay and not before it.

If you liked tinkering with lists and (especially) character builds, as I did, then it definitely feels like something's missing, but that's the long and the short of it. You have to come to the table trying to bring an army that will be as close a match to your opponent as you can, and then try to beat them with better play and better die rolling. If either side is trying to win by fielding a stronger army then the game will fall apart before it even starts.

The thing is, I don't think that jockeying can be entirely weeded out, and without any foundation to build on, I worry about arms races even among players trying to keep things even. We'll see.
 

Draykorinee

Grave Guard
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
213
#30
As someone who has roughly 50 different lists saved on my battlescribe app, not being able to plan ahead is something that really puts me off.
 

Malisteen

Master Necromancer
True Blood
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
2,134
#31
Basically, yeah. I mean, I've enjoyed both my games of AoS so far (and note that my opponent and I mutually agreed to lists before both games), so it's not like I have had the visceral negative reaction to or poor experiences with AoS that many have had. But at the same time, list construction and build tinkering was a huge part of the game and the hobby experience for me - trying to massage the points or come up with a stronger list within the restrictions of the game for me was PART of the game, and AoS is definitely missing that for me.

But if you try to build a strong list, if you try to get a leg up in the list building phase, then the game just falls apart, because there is zero structure there and it immediately turns into an arms race that lands you in a game that isn't worth playing anymore once the models hit the table.
 

Oppenheimer

Crypt Horror
Joined
May 26, 2013
Messages
556
#32
I did find that building lists was fun before aos. It was almost its own game so I will miss the crunch of that. But I found that I never wanted to build a game with 2 mortis engines or multiple terrorgeists or all blender lords just because it's effective. It seemed dull to play that way. I like playing with units I think are cool. This had me using a lot of special characters that frankly cost too much and had glaring weaknesses. Also I never felt the points were very balanced anyway. There was the de hydra problem for a long time for example.
I think I can still get into building army units without the points but debating what's fair with my opponent seems like kind of a pain. I liked to be able to focus on my army and not worry about what my opponent was building.
Still it should make playing a game go quicker. Sometimes we had guys over and spent so much time building armies that we had little time to play more than a couple turns.
 

Oppenheimer

Crypt Horror
Joined
May 26, 2013
Messages
556
#34
Because they don't own their own armies or books and are borrowing our extras plus are inexperienced enough that they need us to review their lists to make sure they did it right.
 
Top