Thanks for the link! I hadn’t heard of them. Will definitely going to be checking them out! 😁

The old ways are the best 😁 I recall using all kinds of guff as proxies. Things like Pringles lids and cardboard boxes. The only limit is your imagination, and also the actual difficulties you describe 😂 I still agree it’s a great system 👍🏼

True 😂😂😂

Get over it. AoS is going on 10 years of success. 🤷‍♂️

Main studio doesn't want rank and flank.

@mogwaiman6048 I never said rank and flank I said square bases. If you had a bunch of models on square bases, what's to stop you playing them in AOS.

Ooooh now that’s an opinion 😁

@@TabletopSaga :)

Yes! Those were the days 😁

Haha yes we’ve been training for this for years 😂

That’s an excellent mentality to have! Frankly AoS can generate the cash that keeps old world going in its little niche as far as I’m concerned 😂😁

Yeah definitely! If it continues where old world has a nice settled niche and AoS gets loads of lovely new minis I’m entirely happy 😁

That’s awesome! And thank you, I hope I do too 😁

Yeah I think that’s the crux of it. Horses for courses, but my course is definitely the old way 😛

It’s definitely simpler, but I think the depth comes from the interactions in it. It’s definitely a different experience from the old world that’s for sure!

I think there’s a bit in all of us that will always feel that way 🙏🏻

Thanks! I’m heartened to hear you’ve got names for everything and fluff. Makes me think maybe I’m just an old grognard haha. I played the latest edition. While I agree the dice have an impact I think it’s been minimised for AoS and from what I’ve seen of 40k that system too. As you say it’s just my opinion but it certainly felt like I could do what I wanted pretty much whenever - I could do prayers and command orders at will so long as characters stayed in range! That does add a complexity of its own though in working out which order you want to do them in

Hahahaha I’m glad to hear it 😂 Your comment, and a few others on this video, have made me think I have missed something in AoS lore. To be fair to me I did say in the video I wasn’t sure if it was just me not getting it or being stuck in my ways or not. I’ll give it another go!

​@@TabletopSaga I'm not an AoS player (just a bit of Warcry, which is an excellent game btw), but I think a lot of old world players are unfairly dismissive of the lore - like they've taken a glace, gone "nah" and turned their nose up at it. Granted, a lot of the reasons I prefer it are exactly the opposite reasons people like old world lore, lol. I just find the Tolkien and historical stuff incredibly derivative rather than relatable in any way. I know some people love that stuff, it's just never really been for me. That's not to say there's none of that in AoS, but I find the factions more creative - armies of ghosts, or sea elves riding giant turtles etc. Just more interesting to me than the overused fantasy factions copy-pasted from every other fantasy setting. I enjoy the weirdness, and I think the creativity that leads to is demonstrated by how good the minis are - ultimately that all comes from the lore and how it's much more open than GW's more established settings. A couple of things I'd say about the setting and the way it's designed I find interesting is that it's deliberately made to be 'different' from both 40k and Old World. Firstly, it's a setting that does move forward through time (unlike 40k and Old World) - so in terms of 'consequences' it's the only setting where world-changing things can happen in the universe (like the Soul Wars in 2e). Sure, in 40k you had Primaris etc, and primarchs coming back, but they've really reeled that in recently, so it's essentially a static setting again. Secondly it's the expansiveness of the setting. While I realise that for some this is offputting, it's deliberate in the sense that it's designed for you to make 'your dudes' and potentially map out your own part of the world etc. While this isn't for everyone, the opportunity to do some of your own 'worldbuilding' is a big part of other tabletop games, and wargames (like Oathmark with its whole kingdom building mechanic), and not something you can do so much in a fully explored world - so it's just different, not a negative. It's actually one of the things I've seen old-school gamers complain about with modern 40k - as originally it was a much more expansive setting with lots of mystery and opportunity for creativity that got lost over time as everything got explained in exhauastive detail and fixed in place. AoS is where you'd find that side of things now, it's still a world with a lot of 'here be dragons' on its maps, and for many that's a good thing. I'd compare OW and AoS as old world being more of a 'historical' setting, and AoS as more of a 'mythological' setting. It draws from greek and norse mythology heavily, with gods and mortals mixing more etc., and some people really love the real-world mythological stuff - so it hits differently in that regard. I think it's great that it's appreciably different to the other two Warhammer settings, especially now OW is back and you can take your pick. I think directly comparing the two in a 'one or the other' way does an injustice to both - and if you're going to pick an AoS army you should make it one that's completely unlike anything in OW and just lean into the difference.

😂 a nice succinct way of putting it 😂

Haha do both! You can get base converters so you can play both systems with your lizardmen 😁 sounds like a cool background! 🦖

​@@TabletopSaga Excellent idea! I'd get the best of both settings!

I think it’s valid to compare them as AoS was the direct replacement for Warhammer, though yes they are different games intrinsically. Completely agree about the tournament lot

@@TabletopSaga Yeah... sorry if I sounded too critical but your video was pretty spot on in how I feel about things as well. I don't get why people need to compete with everything. Why not stick with stuff that is made for it. My issue with it is that the competitive scene often have a very loud voice in comparison with the size of the actual fan base, that is what often irritates me and how it can impact the development that we do like.

No worries! And yeah I agree. Hearing normal/ordinary/proper players (whatever you want to call them) complaining about the meta is disheartening, and I definitely think it’s led to a world in which a) GW will try and make things balanced but b) in which they will never win because I don’t think ultimately you can satisfy the meta entirely. But it seems the old world has a lovely little niche where it gets to be done the old way, and long may that continue! 😁

😂 possibly harsh but made me laugh

@TabletopSaga well, I can be nice or honest 😂 I did like the 9th age initially. Was a big part of it. But the obsession with nitpicking rules in the pursuit of perfection... an unobtainable ideal in this industry, drove me away, and the it deviated from what it initially set out to be. I left it behind me and worked with ParaBellumWarGames on Conquest. Hands down one of the most thematic AND balanced wargames on the market. It's even got my name in the credits on the 1st edition rulebook 🤓 But ultimately, my favourite game currently is TOW. It is imperfect, but it's jammed full of the obsession driven fun that I remember back in the day (3rd to 6th ed). AoS sadly is a diarrhoea sandwich. Only the bread is 2 more turds. 😉

Lol still mad after 10 years.

@mogwaiman6048 not mad, just dissapointed 😉

​@@SparksKnifecraft just accept that AoS is a main studio pillar and isn't going away. TOW has it's niche and will stay in that lane.

Haha that’s a take

Thanks! Nice song - or if it wasn’t a song it was in my head 😂

Totally. I find the long term plan you have to put into place with the old world is a lot more rewarding when it comes off. I feel like I have more satisfying moments with ir

That’s great, genuinely - hearing that there’s still room for that is good. I think for me the background lore is what inspires me to do that but AoS lore leaves me flat. As I say I’m not sure if that’s because the lore isn’t as good or if it’s just because I’m a salty grognard 😂

@ you’ve got to remember that AoS has only had about 10 years worth of lore and a lot of that had to be separated from end times. Currently it’s focused on particular characters with a much more open ended background lore. For instance, I’ve made a soulblight army with a wood elf theme. They live in shyish (realm of death magic) but have built a major settlement around a realm gate to ghyran (realm of life magic) which mutates the weaker members of the army to be a bit more like the sylvaneth. I would recommend looking at the lore a bit more and look at the path to glory system which is designed for more narrative play.

Very cool! I’ll have a look at the lore again for sure. Not just your comment has suggested that 😁

I think you are right about the initial launch of AoS being forgotten now. I wasn’t in the hobby at the time but from what I’ve heard it was bizarre and made the game difficult to get into. Perhaps they threw the baby out with the bath water?

@@TabletopSaga The game was easy to get into, the people who hated on it were the loud comp crowd. But AoS had a point system and grand alliance army books within a year anyway.

Yeah - it seems like the skirmish, round base, fairly loose system was what was deemed was needed so I suppose nicking a load of stuff from 40k was an obvious move!

I think that’s a fair comment but I do wonder how it fits into the timeline of events. Arguably games workshop stopped writing wargames and became a miniatures company when Bryan Ansell took over, but it many ways that’s seen as a golden age for the company. It opens up interesting questions about the nature of GW games for sure

I have to disagree with this in regards to AoS. The rules team has established a difference between the races via their combat profiles and took into consideration how a model looks when determining defensive stats like armor save value.

I do play historical games. I think it’s not that I want old world to feel like a historical, but rather that the historical nature of the setting lends a weight and a gravity to the games that I appreciate. It also gives me inspiration when coming up with scenarios etc. and perhaps lastly the historical feel of not having to have everything balanced to the nth degree makes for more interesting games. I think so at least

If you want some bland meaningless game then just play checkers bro. The whole point of a fantasy wargame is to have a mix of cool fantasy things like elven magic and a historical type of gameplay like other historical games. Aos basically just appeals to 40k fans who don't give a shit about fantasy. It's sterilized garbage.

@kandrenai No bro! Sounds like the checkers would be more up your alley. I love fantasy battle ,but it truly is bland and has nowhere near the potential that AOS has. Which is why GW replaced WHFB they said so themselves. I don't need a historical game in a fantasy skin, but you do you pal. Honestly you sound just like another bitter fan who hates something for the sake of hate.

@TabletopSaga While I respect your point. I really do. It still seems you want a fantasy game that plays with real world martial conventions. That's fine , I just like AOS for what it is and I think that all the problems you mentioned with AOS can be solved with some imagination. Alas the modern gamer and people in general seem to have lost this. Honestly if you want to blame someone or something. I think the problem is the competitive scene, and that WAAC mentality that has driven most narrative type material from the hobby.

​@@bryanvestal3923Saying 'no you' isn't an argument lmao. Also, you do know that 40k was extremely niche and dying before 8th edition as well right? AOS isn't successful because of the crappy setting and rules, it's successful because it became a flagship game during the wargame boom. Also popular doesn't equal good as seen from both 40k and AOS. If only GW wasn't divided internally with the Citadel team and the Necromunda team and just stuck with Fantasy it would probably be bigger than AOS today. Keep playing your slop though, I'm happy you enjoy it :)

Ah, I wouldn’t know - I stopped playing 40k a few editions ago. That’s interesting though, I’d have thought AoS would have been the test bed for these things not 40k!

Awesome! That’s the way to do it. Clearly I’m just an old grognard 😂

@TabletopSaga Nah man. You are good. I totally respect your opinion.

😂😂😂

Thanks! Much appreciated. Great point about the spectrum too, I think it helps to make your games feel much more meaningful in a wider story if you have all that stuff going on. Not to mention putting into a narrative campaign!

@ Only thing I’d slightly push back on is making the tournament / narrative split a bigger deal than it needs to be. I’ve been to a few tournaments and, while obviously it varies, the flavour in Old World’s ruleset encourages people to have fun with the epic moments and bring armies with a story - you’re rarely more than one catastrophic break test from victory or defeat so you can relax a bit. If you go into it with the right attitude I think it’s a fun part of the hobby.

Awesome - I haven’t attended a tournament but I’m glad to hear it’s quite relaxed.

That’s very interesting. I think AoS will be a game I continue to play in future. I didn’t enjoy it more than old world, but it does offer a different experience. So I suppose it’s horses for courses, but you are absolutely spot on about how excellent those old campaigns were. I’d love another one! If you tell your friends to subscribe and the channel gets big enough you never know, I may even run one myself 😉😜

I’m glad it’s not just me!

Yeah. I won’t argue, except to say some of the old Warhammer sculpts are my favourites. But I think that’s nostalgia speaking 😂

@@TabletopSaga I will add that as a game, Old World loses a few points for Legends-ing half the factions, including Skaven. But since I absolutely need the lore to be good to care at all, well, let's just say it still isn't a photo finish.

Yeah that sucks. I hold on to the hope that they’ll return one day

Model quality isn't even close. AoS wins on that front easily.

Yeah completely valid points. I’d buy your argument about the market segments. The meta chat is something that holds zero interest for me, but from overhearing AoS and 40K players in the shop it’s all encompassing for them. I do wonder if it would have been the same when I was playing in my youth had we had the internet and KZbin though!

Hahaha well I’m not sure you’ll change your opinion if you do watch…

Yeah absolutely, having that real world grounding adds much more weight I think! It also gives me much more inspiration in a way the background for AoS doesn’t so much

Yeah agreed it’s a different kind of game, but I do think the comparison is valid because AoS is what GW decided to replace Warhammer with. And obviously AoS is selling better than Warhammer did. Though having played AoS now, and considering the feel of 8th Ed Warhammer and AoS being tournament friendly/balanced, perhaps they were trying to fit a square peg into a round hole with Warhammer? Perhaps the market moved on. If that’s the case thank heavens they canned it and brought it back in its original guise as opposed to warping it further!

E sport is a good comparison. Clearly it’s a popular move to have made, even if I’ll never get it. It just makes me feel old 😂

@@TabletopSaga Believe me, you and me both.

No game is either a tournament game or casual/ narrative by default. All games are what you make of them. I played back in 6th edition fantasy and there were competitive and narrative players then too. Just like for old world and just like for sigmar.

@@jb87rell See, you understand this, and I understand this. But Games Workshop does not. All "simplifications" as they call them, are meant to facilitate faster play. Those simplifications are the bane of creativity for GW since they had to basically remove relic wargear and customization of your HQ/sargeant models. The stratagems and tactical objectives have short descriptions - this alone to fit them onto cards they can sell you and change when they see fit. The frequent rules changes mimic the "perfect imbalance" of e-sports where certain characters are buffed under the guise of correcting the game balance. Nobody ever asks why is it that the game always needs those. Is it because it is made to maintain this specific status quo? So while no wargame is by default narrative or competitive, GW sure does think so and will work tirelessly to make it so.

@ if GW was only making the game to be an esport why does every codex have a narrative crusade section? Why do they release crusade books? There's two this edition so far. Why does every issue of their monthly magazine have narrative missions, rules, and/or units that aren't meant for tournament play? GW gives a ton of support for narrative players. If you choose to ignore that that's on you.

Yeah well put - it’s those pseudo rpg elements that make your army ‘yours’ and really flesh out your games with more background meaning. I get attached to my characters and units after enough games precisely for this reason!

I don't think TOW or Heresy will go the same way. I think GW views them as hitting different niches in the hobby - 40K and AoS are aimed at a younger, more competitive play crowd, TOW and HH are aimed at an older more wargame/narrative play crowd.

This is an excellent comment. I definitely agree you can make the ‘main’ game systems what you want them to be. I am mulling doing the same thing as you mention with scenarios for 40K at some point in the distant future (no pun intended) - you can make any game tell a story if you put a bit of thought into it!

@The_Captain40k I hope you are right but GW seems to listen to the tournament community far more than the narrative community. Primarily because the tournament players appear to be far more vocal within the GW hobby than anyone else. As long as I can pull out what I want from the game and it's lore I'm not too bothered.