Why do people hate AOS?

[Vibrid]

I don't know much about it as I've always been more of 40k person, but I really enjoy the aesthetic of AOS. Even if Aos is lame does that automatically mean the game will suck? Do these devs have a bad history or something?

[Varivox]

People are still salty about the way WHFB ended. They rushed the End Times lore, gave a bunch of important characters stupid decisions. For example, Grimgor, the chosen of Gork (or Mork), was randomly teleported to fight Archaeon and rather easily won... but then he didn't because reasons. Other characters literally just got a "and that guy that's been around for 20 years? Well he sailed off and I guess he did a thing" as their send off. So they ended up angering a LOT of people.

Then, there was AoS 1.0 that was already facing an uphill battle in terms of having to start in the shadow of a 30 year old lore/game, and it wasn't a very popular ruleset (I literally do not know a single person who played it and liked it). Furthermore, the game was super new and there just wasn't any lore to get attached to, so it felt like the 30 year old lore that people loved for decades was abandoned for nothing.

Finally, a lot of people saw the posterchild of the setting, the Stormcast Eternals, and realized they were very similar in design to Space Marines from 40k and thus the "Sigmarines" joke started.

However, anymore, the only people I see that still hate AoS are fewer and fewer and mostly just people who haven't given it a chance. AoS is now much more popular than FB ever was and the 2.0 rule set (people guessing we are soon to see 3.0) fixed a lot of the problems the old 1.0 rules had. Then, we've had a chance to see GW expand the lore. A lot of the haters just haven't tried to look into the game since it isn't FB or it doesn't officially support their 20 year old Tomb Kings models.

[Vibrid]

Originally posted by Varivox:

People are still salty about the way WHFB ended. They rushed the End Times lore, gave a bunch of important characters stupid decisions. For example, Grimgor, the chosen of Gork (or Mork), was randomly teleported to fight Archaeon and rather easily won... but then he didn't because reasons. Other characters literally just got a "and that guy that's been around for 20 years? Well he sailed off and I guess he did a thing" as their send off. So they ended up angering a LOT of people.

Then, there was AoS 1.0 that was already facing an uphill battle in terms of having to start in the shadow of a 30 year old lore/game, and it wasn't a very popular ruleset (I literally do not know a single person who played it and liked it). Furthermore, the game was super new and there just wasn't any lore to get attached to, so it felt like the 30 year old lore that people loved for decades was abandoned for nothing.

Finally, a lot of people saw the posterchild of the setting, the Stormcast Eternals, and realized they were very similar in design to Space Marines from 40k and thus the "Sigmarines" joke started.

However, anymore, the only people I see that still hate AoS are fewer and fewer and mostly just people who haven't given it a chance. AoS is now much more popular than FB ever was and the 2.0 rule set (people guessing we are soon to see 3.0) fixed a lot of the problems the old 1.0 rules had. Then, we've had a chance to see GW expand the lore. A lot of the haters just haven't tried to look into the game since it isn't FB or it doesn't officially support their 20 year old Tomb Kings models. :sealdeal:

Wow, thanks for the detailed explanation!

[JDPUK]

I can't wait for this game, I love WH and TBS games, this is a great setting, AoS to me is the preferred setting.

[Unknown Traveller]

@Vibrid There can be no two opinions here. The source of all hatred in human history is ignorance and envy. Ignorance - intolerance to everything new and interesting, as well as unwillingness to use your brain to obtain information.
And of course envy - there are enough of those who cannot live peacefully seeing how his neighbor is happy.

The fact that hatred has become viral is the Internet, here they believe in the noisier, to repeat and imitate like parrots and monkeys.

The other side is not really audible. Perhaps it’s simply the case that, with time for hobbies being a finite resource, some people spend it buying and painting miniatures and others spend it sitting on the internet ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.

You know, there were 40k video games before DoW1. And not so bad, I must say.
But the "masses" were pretty contemptuous about Warhammer anyway. "Toy Soldiers", a cliché - there were always those who said "why waste time on a boring setting about toy soldiers in space that no one knows" and "give us another WW2 or SW game, everyone loves that for sure".

Then DoW1 happened and the world changed forever.

It just needs one or two really good quality video games like TW: Age of Sigmar or Vermintide 3 in Cursed City.

In time it will be, I'm sure.

[ParatrooperGR]

I think anyone who does not take this entirely too personally, can both understand the appeal of AoS as an easier, more approachable (less effort/time/minis required) tabletop system AND acknowledge how poor and contrived the "lore"/universe is. The former created its commercial tabletop success, despite the latter. It is no coincidence that, although it has been 6 years since its release, the AoS IP has not created any meaningful success as a lore/universe basis. Nobody in their right mind would throw significant investment to build any game (computer, roleplaying, you name it) on an incoherent, paper thin universe. "Bonus points" for the ludicrous name changes, to create content whose every inch can be copywritten. For a small development, for a "dime-a-dozen" game, AoS may well fly. After all, all it needs is "Warhammer" in its title to get some Steam clicks and it comes with ready, "off the shelf" design visuals. It may still be a great game (as some Old World-based games have been perfectly capable of being naff). The game will be judged on its merits.

[ParatrooperGR]

Originally posted by Varivox:

People are still salty about the way WHFB ended. They rushed the End Times lore, gave a bunch of important characters stupid decisions. For example, Grimgor, the chosen of Gork (or Mork), was randomly teleported to fight Archaeon and rather easily won... but then he didn't because reasons. Other characters literally just got a "and that guy that's been around for 20 years? Well he sailed off and I guess he did a thing" as their send off. So they ended up angering a LOT of people.

Then, there was AoS 1.0 that was already facing an uphill battle in terms of having to start in the shadow of a 30 year old lore/game, and it wasn't a very popular ruleset (I literally do not know a single person who played it and liked it). Furthermore, the game was super new and there just wasn't any lore to get attached to, so it felt like the 30 year old lore that people loved for decades was abandoned for nothing.

Finally, a lot of people saw the posterchild of the setting, the Stormcast Eternals, and realized they were very similar in design to Space Marines from 40k and thus the "Sigmarines" joke started.

However, anymore, the only people I see that still hate AoS are fewer and fewer and mostly just people who haven't given it a chance. AoS is now much more popular than FB ever was and the 2.0 rule set (people guessing we are soon to see 3.0) fixed a lot of the problems the old 1.0 rules had. Then, we've had a chance to see GW expand the lore. A lot of the haters just haven't tried to look into the game since it isn't FB or it doesn't officially support their 20 year old Tomb Kings models. :sealdeal:

I think this is a fair assessment. The "ending" of the Old World setting was indeed as contrived and poor, from a story telling perspective, as AoS "promised" to be - and was (and has been). I would also freely grant that the AoS tabletop system has merits. Not to my taste, but that's neither here nor there. I preferred the "grand armies" of WFB but I would also freely concede that THAT system had its own flaws (some of them quite dramatic, especially in certain editions). An extra brownie point to you, sir, for the effort and tone of the answer.

[Unknown Traveller]

Nobody in their right mind would throw significant investment to build any game (computer, roleplaying, you name it) on an incoherent, paper thin universe.

Of course, this is not true. This is a very interesting setting in which events are happening, and not stagnant. And it develops. New races and new characters come, old characters return.

Absolutely amazing are two audiodramas "Realmslayer" about the new adventures of Gotrek Gurnisson in the Mortal Realms. (Voiced by the talented Brian Blessed, who later voiced DLC for TW).

Besides, there are already tabletop roleplaying game Warhammer Age of Sigmar: Soulbound from Cubicle 7 Entertainment (developers of WFRP 4th Edition). Which is of very quality and new adventures are constantly coming out.

Everything is there, it is enough to rise above toxicity, not to repeat the cliché and have eyes open.

[ParatrooperGR]

Originally posted by Unknown Traveller:

Nobody in their right mind would throw significant investment to build any game (computer, roleplaying, you name it) on an incoherent, paper thin universe.

Of course, this is not true. This is a very interesting setting in which events are happening, and not stagnant. And it develops. New races and new characters come, old characters return.

Absolutely amazing are two audiodramas "Realmslayer" about the new adventures of Gotrek Gurnisson in the Mortal Realms. (Voiced by the talented Brian Blessed, who later voiced DLC for TW).

Besides, there are already tabletop roleplaying game Warhammer Age of Sigmar: Soulbound from Cubicle 7 Entertainment (developers of WFRP 4th Edition). Which is of very quality and new adventures are constantly coming out.

Everything is there, it is enough to rise above toxicity, not to repeat the cliché and have eyes open.

The fact that you can cite exactly one, obscure tabletop RPG game pretty much proves the exact opposite to the argument you are trying to make. I am, however, intrigued by the Gotrek story you mentioned and Brian Blessed is fantastic. So thank for that suggestion, I will keep an eye out for it.

[『Glory Days』]

Originally posted by ParatrooperGR:

The fact that you can cite exactly one, obscure tabletop RPG game pretty much proves the exact opposite to the argument you are trying to make.

This doesnt really make any sense. AoS has only been around just over half a decade and soulbound is made by the now premier warhammer rpg creators since fantasy flight lost the rights, its not obscure in any sense of the word.

Your assessments on the lore are fairly ignorant as well, while anyone can concede that fantasy was obviously more fleshed out, owing to its decades upon decades worth of growth(which i will add they did very little growth in past the historic timeline of the world.). AoS has done so much more with advancing the "current day" story line of AoS in a way that WHFB frankly failed to ever do with any attempt that was made fairly quickly retconned out and sweped under the rug.

[Kelset]

I like the rules, the combat and the extra stuff they put in it. I don't like the poor army choices, the Cities of Sigmar big mess, and everything else they took away from FB, the absence of siege engines and sieges in general, also the lore around it is too mythological for my taste, as I like more "classic fantasy" worlds as it was in FB, with "countries", cultures, proper armies compositions. I don't like of AoS how dwarves were butchered (or the lumineth...a mixture of Cows, ugly avatars and high elves, the only decent mini is Eltharion and some regular troops).
AoS has many good things, but one thing they terribly failed IMO is the armies (besides the lore that for me is not that great).
Can't wait for FB reboot to come out, and I can finally put AoS under the carpet and pretend it never happened.
The Stormcast Eternals are not a bad idea per se, even if they are ripped from 40k models of the 80s and they are basically Space Marines for all the intents and purposes, but It's fine and I can understand why they decided to have them as a good entry point for beginners and not that hard to paint (well they are still hard if you want, let's say more streamlined in the painting process than let's say...my Dark Elves army).

There are not that many armies in AoS with enough care in their composition or their warscrolls as the Stormcast Eternals, that is basically the only army that received the most care, second is, as you can see from the games coming out, Nighthaunts and Chaos in general, and that setting is already gone btw as AoS moved on in timeline a little bit, but still you get Stormcast and Nighthaunt mostly, Chaos not so much, and it should the main thing to fight, but I guess it's boring to some.

On a positive note for AoS is that the minis are great looking and WarCry is a great Skirmish game to play IMO. I have almost everything related to it and we have tons of fun.

[dothatshi]

I've been collecting these miniatures from Games Workshop and have played their systems for 12 years now, I can tell you right off the bat it's very popular nowadays among the Warhammer community to just bash AoS for the dumbest, most irrelevant, most minute and forgettable details. I've learned to ignore such people, I've learned to gather people that share the same passion and just ignore all the secondary fan opinions. Don't stress about why people don't like AoS. Focus on what makes AoS great and you'll learn to ignore all secondaries.

Best miniatures. Best system. Best sales so far. Best aesthetics. AoS is the best and it will be forever, whilst Old World and secondaries won't be.

p.s The greek guy in this thread is what we call a hobby grognard. Hobby grognards are incredibly un-fun people with very poor social skills to boot. I'm not saying he's stupid, he's smart, but his opinions are corrupted and dangerous to all. He's probably a WAACfagh (WIN AT ALL COSTS) and he's also an Old World secondary fan. Why listen to him? He's corrupted to the core and also passive aggressive af, so f that guy lol, either that or he's a poor, desensitized, soul that doesn't have friends or anyone to play this hobby with. To him, the hobby is like pornography, he just can't get enough of it and wants more, he's probably buying miniatures stuff on pre-order, probably doesn't even have 80% of his collection painted and nothing will ever satisfy him, truly. So just ignore him. I've seen dozens of people like him and they're not the type of people you want to talk about things because they're so argumentative and contrarian, just for the sake of their own petty satisfaction.

TL;DR Ignore these threads. Secondaries and grognards are to be avoided at all costs. Watch yourselves!

[Gisborne]

Originally posted by ParatrooperGR:

I think anyone who does not take this entirely too personally, can both understand the appeal of AoS as an easier, more approachable (less effort/time/minis required) tabletop system AND acknowledge how poor and contrived the "lore"/universe is. The former created its commercial tabletop success, despite the latter. It is no coincidence that, although it has been 6 years since its release, the AoS IP has not created any meaningful success as a lore/universe basis. Nobody in their right mind would throw significant investment to build any game (computer, roleplaying, you name it) on an incoherent, paper thin universe. "Bonus points" for the ludicrous name changes, to create content whose every inch can be copywritten. For a small development, for a "dime-a-dozen" game, AoS may well fly. After all, all it needs is "Warhammer" in its title to get some Steam clicks and it comes with ready, "off the shelf" design visuals. It may still be a great game (as some Old World-based games have been perfectly capable of being naff). The game will be judged on its merits.

The AoS universe lore is not paper thin... tjay was the rant 6 years ago now there's somuch lore and realms its like 20 worlds of fantasy in 1.

[Onlysane1]

There's also the fact that when AoS was first released, they went a year or two where they didn't even have points for armies. The rule was "bring what you want". Not even a maximum number of models for most units. Even the few dedicated army books didn't have points. There were several fan-made point systems that got popular before GW released official points.

[Gisborne]

Originally posted by Onlysane1:

There's also the fact that when AoS was first released, they went a year or two where they didn't even have points for armies. The rule was "bring what you want". Not even a maximum number of models for most units. Even the few dedicated army books didn't have points. There were several fan-made point systems that got popular before GW released official points.

Yea AOS launch was a bit of a ♥♥♥♥ up. i wonder tho if they wanted to see how popular or didnt expect it to be as vastly popular as it is today and once it did they took the competative side seriously. i just nipped to GW today to buy a new brush and stormshield pot and i was talking to one of the staff about underworlds and warcry. these seem popular and offer a smaller skirmish or board game style to AOS. im tempted to start both especially now lumineth my army i'm collecting and painting now is in all 3 games.

I used to love 40k but ive just not been as interested in it since it went all childish looking anime space marines and that new logo urgh... i think sigmar now is the best they offer and as they are pumping out tons and tons of new models and armys far faster than 40k. lumineth version 2 just pretty much doubles its entire unit roster.

[strike478]

It was due to nasty combo at release:
1. Lore "end" for FB was bad. It felt rushed.
2. Many armies were removed. Bretonny for instance.
3. It had bad too simplified rules during 1st edition.
4. Volume and direction of changes made this game bad in role of FB's sequel. AT least typical sequel.

Who it is now? Well. Form 3/10 it became 8/10. or more.
It developed better lore, added huge amount of amazing armies, rules are very close in quality to FB now.

What didnt improved? Still its one of sequels which are great change. Peoples who loved FB arent guaranted to enlove AOS. In other hand through being atypical sequel it didnt fallen into trap of repetitiveness and mimicking its predecessor.


Conclusion? AoS were terrible at launch but its great now. Worth of giving chance even by peoples who disliked FB (although on the other hand peoples who were finding FB perfect might not be satisfied).