Starting Age of Sigmar: Basic List Building

sigmar-throne-horz

Requizen is here to get you ready for putting together your first Age of Sigmar army.

There are a lot of reasons why people are looking to try AoS nowadays – maybe you want to try out a new game, maybe you’re seeing a group start playing at your FLGS, maybe you’ve seen some of the articles or battle reports here and there. Whatever the reason, here are some tips to help you get started in the Mortal Realms. Check the Tactics Corner for more great articles!

Starting Out

Starting is as easy as it is in other games, maybe easier than some. Pick an army you like, get models from it. You did it! Good job!

More seriously, you should think about what kind of games you’ll be playing and who you’ll be playing with. It can really be that simple, though. If you enjoy Open or Narrative play (i.e. no points, bring what you want for a fun time and/or story), literally just buying what looks good and what seems fun to put on the table is all you need to do.

AOSapp-ppage

However, if you want to play Matched Play (which is what we’re mainly going to cover and what many people are playing), there are a couple things to look out for. First, get the mobile Age of Sigmar app. It’s free and has all the latest rules for every model, plus the game rules and FAQs. You can find them online, but the app is way more convenient. Then, go ahead and pick up The General’s Handbook. It’s super cheap and has everything you’ll need to play pickup games with others. Or, if you’re not sure yet, check out the points from an app like Battlescribe and/or borrow the book from a friend.

60040299063_generalshandbookeng01

To start, you’ll need a Leader and a couple Battleline (basic troops) units. Two Battleline are necessary for 1000 point games, three for 2000, four for 2500. Most tournaments seem to be shooting for a 2000 point limit, but 1000 point games are very popular and a good place to start playing. The Ninth Realm recently did a podcast on list building which did a good rundown of building an army, but for starters just pick an army you like the look of, read through their rules (it’s all free!), and select a Leader and two Battlelines you’d like to see on the table. Then just figure out how many more points you need to get to 1000 and continue filling it out with units you like, or ones that have cool synergies.

I’ve played wargames before, thanks. I know how to start an army

Alright, no need to get snippy. I realize that was pretty basic, but not everyone is coming in from 40k or other game systems.

If you want the most economical way to build a force, see if your army has a Start Collecting! box or one of the super value Battalion boxes. You can also order from Frontline and get a nice 20% discount! Most units that come in those boxes are also useful on the tabletop, which is good.

AoSStartCollectingBannerENG

I think the best way to build a list is to figure out what you want your army to do. Do you want to load up on big monsters and overwhelm the opponent with them? Do you want to blob out hordes of dudes and drown your enemy in bodies? Do you want to run an elite, hyper mobile force that plays for map control and is hard to lock down? Do you want to try and take them apart with mass ranged weaponry? In my experience, the best armies in the game are the ones that have a tight idea of what they want to do and use every piece of their list to execute on that. A bunch of reasonably good units slapped together might seem good on paper, but good players with a focused list will take them apart with ease.

The tournament meta is still shaking out, but as far as I’ve seen there are no “bad” armies in the game – everything can be made to work to some degree, with a few exceptions. I would say to come up with your game plan, get a core to make it a reality, and then start building around that core, making sure that your army can support it (for instance, if you want to run lots of magic, maybe don’t pick Gutbusters who only have one Wizard). Or go the other way, pick an army whose aesthetic you like, and then figure out what they can do. Don’t be afraid to mix within your Grand Alliance, unless you really want your Allegiance bonuses.

So What’s Actually Good?

That’s a bit of a loaded question. Part of list building is knowing the meta and figuring out what is powerful on the tabletop so you can bring it yourself, but also knowing how to counter it and beat those meta lists. Currently, I would say the strongest “things” in the game are as follows, in no particular order:

Alternative deployment methods and/or high mobility

stormcast-warbeast-horz

Since there is very little in the game that works at extreme ranges (really only artillery and other certain shooting units), and since Matched Play is also an objective-based game, getting around the table is super important. There are a lot of strong, killy, durable units that will have trouble on the table because they’re simply too slow (though there is merit to having the enemy come to you). High mobility armies, or ones that can “deploy” in irregular manners, will gain advantage on board control compared to ones that are just plain infantry on foot. While board control is not the only thing that matters, it is a huge aspect of the game and one that some armies can play better than others.

Things that can allow you to “deep strike” or “outflank” can be invaluable. As they are relatively rare, and there is very little opponents can do to stop them from happening, they can effectively allow you to set up with a massive advantage. Some examples of this are the Stormcast Eternals battalions that allow them to deep strike, the Skaven Skryre battalion that allows them to do the same. Seraphon also have Chameleon Skinks that can pop on and off the field. Flesh Eater Courts can start units of Ghouls off the board and walk them on from table edges with the Ghoul Patrol. Many of these have restrictions to where they can land (generally have to remain a distance away from the opponent), but even with that, it’s a massive jump from deploying on the battle line.

sylvaneth-horz

On-table mobility is also a big deal. You have things like general Destruction getting an extra d6″ in the Hero phase, and Sylvaneth being able to teleport many of their units through Wyldwoods. Chaos who use Forgeworld models can get access to Sayl the Faithless, who can give a unit extra movement and flying. While these units start on the table, they can jump across the board at surprising speeds, which can be a massive boon for slower but more powerful units that want to get into combat as quickly as possible.

Armies built to take advantage of these sorts of tricks will often rely on their alpha strike providing enough surprise and sudden violence that it can topple many armies before they can react. Especially if they get a double turn, suddenly showing up inches away and then getting to go twice can sometimes be enough for a turn 2 victory. Combating this requires proper positioning and a lot of patience. Using buffer units to keep the alpha strike away from your important models is key, as is having redundant units spread out so getting one unit caught out is not the end of the game.

Multiple point-efficient monsters

stonehorn-beastclaw-lord-horz

I’ve expressed my annoyance with Beastclaw Raiders previously, though I think they aren’t unbalanced as to break the game. However, armies that can take advantage of big monsters that are hard to kill and themselves very killy have been making good results at top tables. Beastclaw Raiders (and general Destruction lists) have been the prevalent ones, but Sylvaneth have made themselves seen with a few lists as well. Treelords and Durthus are brutal!

These lists will often revolve around the obvious – getting the best monsters you can into a list and putting them on the table, then wrecking whatever they reach! These lists are nice because they’re not only good, but also very striking on the table and often quick and easy turns. At 2000 points you can only bring 4 monsters at most, so supplementing them with the right units is key. Blobs of small units is a good option, as it means you have enough bodies to make up that weakness of monster lists. Alternatively, some lists go for filling out the remaining points with lots of ranged units, supporting the big hammers from afar.

Defeating monster spam armies will require you to spread out and reduce the impact they have. Each one is deadly and some (like the Frostlord on Stonehorn) can delete any unit they get the charge on with very little issue. Feeding them weak units to chew through slowly or spreading out so they can’t get successive charges can go a long way to cutting down on the threat. Additionally, locking them down with a big, battleshock immune blob can take them out of the fight, or also allow you to pepper them with ranged units from afar.

Synergistic Heroes and Units

khorne-bloodbound-battle-horz

These are more finesse armies than anything, and haven’t yet taken top tables by storm. However, combo and buff armies are commonplace in tournaments and more serious pickup games, in my experience, so they’re worth talking about.

The quintessential army for this archetype is Khorne Bloodbound, though others do it as well, such as Free Peoples armies using blob units and buffing Heroes. Essentially, you’re looking at armies that don’t have any particular power unit (or at least won’t dump as much into them as they could), but will often have a handful of buffing Heroes to make moderately good units suddenly become amazing. You’ll often see lots of heroes with the Totem keyword, or other things that have a powerful buffing effect. Hit and Wound bonuses add up quickly, and especially things like extra attacks will explode effectiveness.

These armies are often fine losing entire units, or spending a turn waiting for the right moment. They’re all about getting a full storm of abilities to go off at once, and then completely obliterating things with units half their point costs. Watching a cheap unit of Bloodreavers suddenly get buffed up with a Bloodstoker, Bloodsecrator, and Deathbringer and go totally berserk, shredding through a unit of Paladins, can be really impressive! And likewise, a buffed Freeguild Handgunner unit hitting and wounding on 2+ will make many units shake in terror at cheap infantry.

Obviously these types of armies rely on their lynchpin models. Heroes need to be kept safe to make their armies work, and they can suffer against alpha strike armies or ones with strong shooting if they get caught out of position. Playing this type of force can be very rewarding, but can require a lot of setup and planning to pull off.

Mortal Wound spamming

skaven-end-times

This may be the most controversial type of power build out there. Mortal Wounds are an interesting mechanic. They prevent super tanky units with 2+ saves and other buffs from becoming too frustrating to fight. They allow you to chew through those 3+ save, massive wound count monsters at a good rate. However, they’re also good against everything else in the game, because damage that you get no save against (outside of special rules) is just plain strong.

It is not outside of reason to make a list that has the gimmick of putting out as many mortal wounds as other armies are able to put out regular wounds. These sorts of lists can obliterate elite type armies that rely on tough, low model count units and can remove Heroes that aren’t properly protected within seconds. This can be very frustrating depending on how many they can put out and whether you have an army that can survive taking wounds for essentially free.

However, these armies aren’t the end-all-be-all. Against armies that can save against MWs – for instance, Nurgle Daemons, Death if the Heroes are alive, and Fyreslayers – their gimmick reduces in effectiveness. If they’re playing against armies with a lot of cheap models, well, no one really cares about removing 10 Grots, that costs basically nothing. Alpha Strike armies can fight them by being off the table early on, or getting to them and dealing damage before they have the ability to start hurting. Additionally, creating a MSU (Multiple Small Units) style army will force them to split fire, so if you lose a 100 point unit to MW spam, it’s not a big deal since you have more units sitting around doing the same task. Redundancy is key.

Building an army like this can be challenging but very strong. Most MW capable units have things to keep them in check – generally something like very low mobility, a high price tag, or a weakness that can be exploited by your opponent. This is not true for all such units – Thundertusks in particular are able to put out a lot of ranged Mortal Wounds and are quite reasonably priced for their ruleset – but is generally a factor for said units. If you want to make such a list, you’ll have to work around those weaknesses. Skryre Stormfiends, for example can put out lots of MWs at a short range, but are slow (and expensive). You can combat this by including Sayl to give them movement, or using the Clan Skryre battalion to deep strike them into range. If you want to have a high damage output army, you can’t go wrong with a list like this. Start by picking your MW dealer and figuring out what you need to support them – to hit buffs for abilities that proc on 6+, or mobility buffs for slow units.

age-of-sigmar-splash

Putting it all together

So, how to get started in AoS? It’s not that complicated! Or rather, it can be complicated, just in a different way than it is in other games. Since you have all the rules for free (other than The General’s Handbook), you can take your time and figure out what rules you like. But for the most part, you can take what looks good (as long as you aren’t being silly). Pick a gimmick, or pick a model/unit you like and build around it. As long as you start with a reasonable foundation and then build intelligently around it, you should do well against many opponents.

Just keep in mind that different armies have different strengths, so decide if you want to build based on army aesthetics or a gameplay abilities. You probably already know what kind of gamer you are, but it’s important to remember that there’s no wrong way to enjoy a game. Whether you’re building an army because it’s cool looking, or because you want to create a tournament stomping meta-smasher, as long as you’re having fun you’re doing it right!

~Tell us about your Age of Sigmar army list.

And as always, Frontline Gaming sells Games Workshop product at up to 25% off of retail, every day! Frontline Gaming will buy your used models for cash or store credit!

secondhandhsop
  • thereturnofsuppuppers

    This article was way too good for BoLS

    keep it up!

    • jeff white

      truth is this guy writes well. smart cat.

  • Krizzab

    Great article.

    • ragelion

      Indeed a very good article.

  • SilentPony

    Is there still no point value in this game? The article references loosing units worthy X or Y but all the warscrolls I can find on the GW site have no point values on the units.

    • Adrien Fowl

      Points were introduced in summer 2016 (if I am not mistaken) with the General’s Handbook. The new battletomes, like the Tzeentch one, is supposed to include all the points for the units within the book itself.

      Nowadays (almost) everybody plays using points.

      • SilentPony

        That’s good. It was poor gaming mechanics not to have a point value. Spam is a real thing, and lots of gamers aren’t above it.

        • Adrien Fowl

          I tend to believe that the gqme was released without a point mechanic so that the community could get involved with it after testing the rules and the game.

          That is what GW did, so the General’s Handbook was written by GW and some representatives of the gamer community. They are already working on a new edition, after asking for some valuable feedback.

          I strongly recommend you to grab yourself a copy of the book and see it for yourself. It won’t let you down.

          • euansmith

            Reading design notes over on Warlord Games’ blog gives some insight in to the mind set of the people behind 40k/AoS/Bolt Action/Black Powder/etc. They seem to like playing big games with a strong narrative feel. I guess they hoped that releasing AoS without points would encourage people to try their chosen style of play.

            http://www.warlordgames.com/interview-rick-priestley/

          • Hedwerx

            There were certainly a lot of loopholes in BA that showed it was designed with the “mates round a table” ethos. With less thought about filling holes in the rules that the guys who just want to rip their opponent a new one would exploit.

          • Severius_Tolluck

            Yeah I saw that too looking at the book the first time. Then was blown away by how Gamers being Gamers totally blew that idea straight into the trash.

        • bfmusashi

          It was a lot to ask that players figure out balance on their own. It’s almost up there with ‘make your own stats.’

        • Ben_S

          Points don’t stop spamming, as 40k lists show.

  • rtheom

    The thing that I like about this article is that it actually makes mention of the hidden strategy of Age of Sigmar and points it out.

    • Randy Randalman

      There are a lot of tactics in the game. The subtle ones that can win games include choosing combat order correctly, as well as being constantly aware of spacing between units for purposes of reach, buffs/debuffs, etc.

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        Don’t forget getting sucked into combat. If you consolidate cleverly, you can actually rope units into melee with you that were otherwise no apart of the combat.

        • rtheom

          Or preventing opponent’s units from getting into combats by careful elimination of models.

        • Admiral Raptor

          I’ve done this several times when my friends inadvertently moved unengaged units too close. They’re starting to wise up to it now though :P.

      • Ben_S

        I admit to not having given AoS much of a go, but it did seem to me that a lot of it did come down to knowing how to exploit the rules – things like choosing the order of combats or how you pile in – rather than things I’d recognise as tactics.

        • Red_Five_Standing_By

          You do this stuff in 40k all the time.

          • Ben_S

            No I don’t. I haven’t played 40k in years. Though I’d agree that it also suffers from the same issue. A lot of the ‘tactics’ to win the tabletop game involve exploiting rules, rather than actual tactics. Things like mixed weapons in multi-wound units (Nobz) so you can keep them all alive longer or taking one long-range weapon in a unit of otherwise short-ranged weapons, so they can all kill enemies. (Examples from older editions, I know. Like I say, haven’t played in years.)

  • Xodis

    Amazing breakdown of a lot of the strategies behind specific army builds while being realistic in its weaknesses and performance. Loving it!

  • Nathaniel Wright

    Very nice, especially for a ruleset that is only just starting to get love.

  • TenDM

    “but not everyone is coming in from 40k or other game systems.”

    If you’re coming from 40k in particular you should investigate guides like this. Age of Sigmar uses a lot of terms we use in 40k, but the meanings can be very different. It’s all quite obvious when you start playing but until then you’ll find yourself making a bunch of incorrect assumptions on the uses and values of various things.

    • rtheom

      This is very true. One of the biggest things is understanding how Saves against attacks that cause D3 or D6 wounds works. It’s quite a bit different from 40K or most other game systems.

  • Countdiscount

    Fantastic write up. Little by little the “simple game with no strategy” narrative is being corrected with a deep understanding of all the nuance tactics people couldn’t comprehend (or couldn’t properly judge because of no points) when AoS was released.

    • jeff white

      still feels like magic with 3-d cards, but i guess that is the generation.

      • rtheom

        Magic? Like Magic the Gathering? Are you referring to the setting because they are kinds of like “planes”? Or the gameplay? Because I’m very curious about what you think is similar. I love Magic but I can’t really see a connection between the two, so I’m genuinely curious.

        • Karru

          To me, the game is very similar to Magic in the army building terms. Your opponent rarely matters in a significant manner so making your army is all math. Math, as in calculating the most efficient ways to maximise wounds caused and saves made. Since everything is fixed, it will boil down to this. This is why armies like Stormcast and their DS Battalion is extremely popular, because it allows to further ignore the opponents army.

          In regular Magic, not competitive, you have no side decks. You have your deck you put together before the game and you play with it. Of course, you want this deck to be able to take down as many different decks as possible so you make sure you have things that can do that. Board clearing spells or abilities for rushing armies, some powerful direct damage spells for tougher creatures and so on. Same thing with AoS, you make your army as generic as possible to counter as many armies as possible. The game has made this extremely easy because of fixed numbers.

          Then there is the combo aspect. In Magic, some combos have to be executed in a very specific manner in order to pull off. You also have to be careful that your opponent doesn’t do the same to you or counter your combo.

          The lore will always remain as worse version of Magic. That’s always how I describe the lore of AoS. “Imagine Magic: The Gathering Lore and remove everything that makes it good, but keep the ‘Planes’. There, you have AoS.”

          • rtheom

            Well, in all fairness, Magic Lore hasn’t been good since the first time they went to Ravnica, and even then, we need to ignore everything between that and Apocalypse. ;p

            Wait, sorry, Kamigawa was pretty good too.

          • TenDM

            I dunno, you say this like an army that’s versatile enough to handle anything is a bad thing. In Magic there’s a lot more skill involved in list building than 40k or AoS because versatility is a must. The execution seems one sided but it takes skilled preparation and a knowledge of how to use your cards. Without that you’ll get destroyed.
            You can’t just look at what your deck is weak against and throw an Allied Detachment in to compensate. I think Grand Alliances are the worst part of AoS but 40k 7th Edition makes it clear that they would have been part of WHFB if it continued. Sadly don’t think they’ll ever truly fix that ‘bring anything and everything’ mistake, in 40k or AoS.

            Personally I find AoS hasn’t grown massive/bloated enough yet to build those lists that utterly steamroll your opponent no matter what they bring, but 40k is old enough that power creep has set in too deep.
            In both games you can, and to a degree must, build death star combos but I feel like Age of Sigmar is young enough that it doesn’t impact the flexibility of the armies as much. Like you say there’s some powerful stuff out there, but we’re not talking that fifth or sixth generation OP 40k has.

            Age of Sigmar will get there, but I think with the way it’s rules are set up they have more tools to potentially combat it.

          • Karru

            I am indeed saying that armies which are versatile enough to handle anything is a problem. This is purely based on the fact how boring it makes the game. Instead of having the challenge of facing an opponent that currently is countering you with certain weapon choices or having fun getting to exploit a weakness in your opponents army, you are facing the same units over and over again. There is barely any reason to switch things around within your list in AoS once you find the mathematically most optimal list.

            You don’t have “overkill” weapons that are effective but almost useless against certain armies, nor will you find yourself suffering because you didn’t bring enough anti-armour. All of this causes the largest problem I have with the game. My opponent’s army doesn’t matter.

            It’s hard to make a narrative when everything hits and wounds the same no matter who you are facing. My Goblins will kill a Giant the same as they would kill a unit of 20 Swordsmen. All it takes is enough models from my part. Even better would be to take a unit that can dish out even more wounds. This is my largest issue. The army building part of the game is nothing but pure math and comboing. AoS punishes you greatly if you try to massively diversify your army. If you try to take a lot of different units with different weapons, you will find yourself lacking in special rules. You have to keep yourself tied to a set of characters and units that have synergy between them.

            This is the Magic: The Gathering effect. Sure, I can build an ultra fun list that has units from A-Z. Will it work? If I get extremely lucky it might and only might. Even in a casual game, you will have a hard time if you bring in a “sub-par” list. I’ve seen this happen time and time again. Just because you prefer to mix things up in your list doesn’t mean that your opponent isn’t allowed to bring his preferred list. It doesn’t even have to be a powerful list, just a regular AoS list with synergy. In 40k casual setting, I can pretty much bring any dumb list and have a pretty good chance at winning.

            We are already seeing “must-have” units and Battalions emerge. The Stormcast DS Battalion is a must have for any Stormcast army that isn’t spamming Dracothians. For a cost of a single unit, you can ignore the fact that your opponent might have brought some long range firepower. You just pop right next to them like you live there.

          • TenDM

            I think that might just be your choice of faction in 40k. My Eldar can bring anything and perform reasonably well, but my Tyranids Codex is very limited. Half the units are out of the question. My friend plays Orks and Chaos which goes about as well as you’d expect. He’s quite a lot better than me and his Orks still have trouble winning.
            Age of Sigmar obviously isn’t perfect in that regard but I’d struggle to think of a time when GW ever got that right. The game system doesn’t really matter in that regard. Age of Sigmar is just new enough that I feel it hasn’t had the chance to get out of control yet.

  • Antoine Henry

    This is still a bad game and a bad lore. This game would not even exist anymore if GW was not the brand behind.
    Stormcasts are probably the worst of all in that kind. Thank you by being fair to all other miniatures game by stating that this game is lacking everything.

    You killed the old world. We will not forget nor forgive and you will soon do it to 40K.

    • Badgerboy1977

      Had to be at least one didn’t there…

      Don’t enjoy it? Fine, just leave it to those that do and remember that what you state is just an opinion and not fact.

      • Antoine Henry

        Like every article and yours too. No i will not stop acting against this game even if you disagree with me. It seems nowadays that repeating and repeating is the only way to make people understand. I won’t stop then and try to make them understand that having a poo in drinking water is like playing Age of Sigmar. Its amazingly stupid :).

        • Badgerboy1977

          You realise it’s a game with plastic figures set in a made up story line and not an environmental disaster, genocide or sadistic dictatorship right?
          It’s just you seem incredibly angry about something that doesn’t really warrant that level of anger at all, unless you’re just trolling of course which is possibly worse…

          • Antoine Henry

            Very good line of defense. “You are wrong and I am right, you a Troll and I am not”.. Okay, so no its not important, its a game. My post and my point of view is not important either. Its important for me to make people understand that spending their money on something amazingly stupid is not worth it. Of course, informing people that this game is not worth is, is a Troll or is wrong and that this article is again trying to find excuses to this shame and try to find positive things to make “friend” with GW but it is ok. The only positive thing is that GW is doing BETTER now but i fear that Ao40K will be again a mess.

          • Badgerboy1977

            I never at any point said you were wrong at all but then neither am I or anyone else who disagrees or agrees with you as it’s entirely opinion based.

            You think it’s bad, that’s absolutely fine and you’re completely entitled to your opinion as it’s fairly subjective but feeling that you need to ‘inform others’ how bad it is and that they shouldn’t spend their own money on it rather than letting them form their own opinions and decide for themselves is very much wrong.

            State your opinion and give reasons for it by all means but don’t expect others to agree with you and actively trying to destroy something purely due to your own entirely subjective opinion is bizarre quite frankly.

          • MPSwift

            Seconding what BB1977 says below; offering your opinion of the game is all well and good, and indeed a part of a valuable discourse. Objectively stating that others spending their money on it is a waste however is neither accurate, nor productive to the conversation. It’s also exceptionally arrogant that you feel you are qualified to outright tell others how to spend their money but that’s by the by…

            Also, backing up your opinion with reasons why you don’t like AoS beyond the generic “bad game, bad lore” would be a good start… is it the models? is it the game play mechanics? Which in particular don’t you like? Have you tried the game personally? With the general’s handbook/a planned game? Or did you just put models on a table smash them together in the middle and then complain that the game is too simplistic? How much of the Lore have you actually read to make the judgement that all of it is terrible? Personally I loved the opening book by Chris Wraight and have had mixed opinions about the others but it’s a world that’s finding it’s feet so I’ll forgive it the opening stumbles.

            Food for thought.

          • Graymantle

            This. To all the haters for hate’s sake.

          • TenDM

            To be fair though the lore is very much a tool for allowing the player to carve out a place of their own in the game’s world, and the post-End Times stuff is still a bit young and shallow to do that. WHFB had this rich tapestry that had been build over decades, while AoS is just starting out so it’s still this blob of generic fantasy stuff.
            I really like Age of Sigmar as a game but I don’t feel the same connection and sense of history with it that I do with the 40k factions.

          • MPSwift

            I can see where you’re coming from, and more to the point you’ve actually explained your reasoning behind your statement which is what annoyed me more about the OPs post haha. The Old World’s fluff was, as you say, incredibly rich and diverse; with multiple characters, threats and plot threads. But I got the feeling that was also part of its downfall; everything had become lore; canon and scripted, so getting any sense of progression would be difficult. The End Times could have been handled differently and the new game still set in the post-apocalypse old world but then you end up with the same issue of limitations not to mention that someone would inevitably have had to have lost leaving a question mark over what to do with that faction(s). For me, the narrative scope of AoS is that much wider than WFB that if anything it becomes easier to carve out that section of the game world as your own. Or at least it will be once the sandbox has a few more toys in it to play with 🙂

          • TenDM

            I think you’ll be right long term. I’m currently excited about the idea of the clock moving forward in 40k simply because after all this time stuff is actually happening. It’s just that after what The End Times did it’ll take a while to get back to the point where the factions feel as though they have that sense of instant historical weight you feel when you first skim a Space Marine Codex.

        • Koen Cambré

          http://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a3e600810cfa11ed740261dc5297a1db6925f8692eab0433d545a72007036237.jpg

          Good on you! Never allow others to have fun because you don’t like it!

        • Hedwerx
        • matty199

          Thats the definition of a wanker if i ever heard one lol we are so fortunate that you are here to save us from the evil that is sigmar

      • luke-vdv

        Just because he doesn’t play it doesn’t mean it doesn’t still affect him. WFB world is gone, and if you love that world then you can rightfully be pissed off at AoS for replacing it.

    • matty199

      Not the biggest fan of the lore but wasnt the biggest fan of the old world either. The game is much much more fun that fanstasy battles and 40k. Its actually pulled me away from my previous fav fantasy game kings of war.
      I love the 40k fluff but cannot stand the bloated ruleset at present and dont enjoy playing it
      Maybe try playing a game of sigmar lol. Btw i was extremely against this game until i played it

    • Moonsaves

      To be fair, I thought the same and railed hard against it. There are certain poor parts of the lore, but I’ve started reading the books and I like where they’re going. I think it was the “Candlemen” section of Godbeasts where my ears pricked up a bit and I thought “oh, this is actually really interesting”.

      I’ve since gotten into the game and started some projects involving it. Looking into the Old World from the point of view of someone who wasn’t involved in it while it was still around, it’s very easy to accuse it of poor lore as well. I get the feeling a lot of people have rose tinted glasses looking back on it because of nostalgia.

      EDIT: Oh, and that’s before I get to the game itself. In the time it took for the next table to play (and not be able to finish) a game of 40k, we got two good games of AoS in to a satisfying conclusion. It’s just… fun. I enjoyed myself and it didn’t take my whole afternoon. I can see the argument for ranked battles (personally I always thought beastmen marching in lockstep was a bit silly, myself), but I know definitely after trying it that I enjoy the AoS way of doing things.

  • Admiral Raptor

    Great article! A nice representation of the game.

  • ThorOdinson

    Thanks, but no. I play a real fantasy game.

  • Theik

    Step 1) Play fantasy instead.
    Step 2) ????
    Step 3) Profit!

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      Play fantasy

      Discover no one plays it

      Switch to another game (AoS, Warmachine, etc).

  • luke-vdv

    I will never not be salty at AoS. They could have just introduced this alongside WFB as a alternative or just given WFB a skirmish option. Everyone happy. Instead they destroyed the WFB world by replacing it and got rid of the Tomb Kings who are my favourite faction.

    • Vicent Martín Bonet

      IN other words: if they had introduced it aside from WHFB so I could have eternally ignored it.

      • luke-vdv

        Basically. Everyone would be happy.

        • Vicent Martín Bonet

          You missed entirely the point. But well, your sourness, at this point, makes me happy.