PDA

View Full Version : AoS first impressions and thoughts



Turgol
05-07-2015, 02:29
So, even if I just took a 15 hours flight, managed to see the scrolls and pick a couple of small battles with my bros. I was quite impressed with how it ended up, but we did have to discuss balancing and auto-faq a bit.

First scrolls. Much better than I thought. After my flight I got today into the internet and see massive outrage and thought: oh, maybe they suck. But then took time to analiza my compendiums and read the reasons of the outrage, and appart from lack of points (known for a week already), I could not find anything. Most scrolls feel like their old units, although with some nice surprises and simplified effects. They were much better than I expected. Even laugh with some the jokes. It is funny indeed. I saw posts last week saying: oh, what I dont like about AoS is that GW seems to have lost its legendary humour. And then they include jokes and they say: this is just contempt, inacceptable!

Game: nice to try with a huge number of things I could not check at all. There are some house rules, in general common sense, that we had to apply:
-base or model measure is fine, as long as no player abuses this. No stacking, obviously. We went with base to base measuring and model to model once each, and both worked fine.
-unless you want to play a purposely unbalanced game, stay out of sudden death
-no fire into combat not in combat. We also decided that shooting and charging should not take place, unlike 40k, cause non automatic firing takes concentration
-we used several method to balance and they turned nice: battalions, number of wounds, chance to check oponents list before game to objective something that might seem unbalanced. So we went: ok, this is a battle with a battalion +x scrolls, no more than x wounds, but a final check before playing. Also we classified some scrolls as Lord of war (Nagash, glottkin, bloodthirster) and decided to leave those out for now.

It worked marverously. 1 hour got us almost two fun games.

Balance can be achieved by players, but requires good faith final revision. Without more rules, this is game not to be played with power gamers not negative people, because it is designes in a way which is purposely not anti-exploitation.
But maybe that is the point: getting of radical power gamers and negative players.

Katastrophe
05-07-2015, 02:54
So in other words, if players agree to not take advantage of the rules and not to play competitively, the game works perfectly. Great.

Darnok
05-07-2015, 03:01
No offense intended, but I don't trust the opinion of anybody after a 15 hours flight. :p

And in all seriousness: by some of your other current posts I suggest you get some sleep. Like... now.

Turgol
05-07-2015, 03:02
No offense intended, but I don't trust the opinion of anybody after a 15 hours flight. :p
Lol, havent slept like in 30 hours!

Turgol
05-07-2015, 03:03
So in other words, if players agree to not take advantage of the rules and not to play competitively, the game works perfectly. Great.
Yes and no respectively.

Darnok
05-07-2015, 03:03
Lol, havent slept like in 30 hours!

Indeed, see my edited post then. ;)

some_scrub
05-07-2015, 03:40
It's interesting to read your thoughts after your first games, since my playgroup and I got together for our first games of AoS today and had some similar issues but also some very different reactions to them.

First of all, I want to say I am generally excited about AoS and the launch of a bunch of new material for Warhammer, and am keeping an open mind. Also, my game was fairly 'fun' and the most of the fundamentals of the system seemed sound.

That said, there were a number of very serious problems with the game that were obvious on the first play.

The most obvious was that base sizes are a huge problem. As we saw it, there are basically 3 choices for how to play this:

1) Measure model to model. Models cannot move such that their bases overlap the bases of other models. In this case, there are lots of times that models that are in base contact just can't attack one another. That's dumb.
2) Measure model to model. Models can move such that their bases overlap (ie. are on top of) the bases of other models. This is very strange and I definitely wouldn't want to do this with painted and based models. In terms of gameplay, it works fine though.
3) Measure base to base. This is also fine gameplay wise, but it directly contradicts the rules and means that there's a very big different between the combat effectiveness of your models and my models depending on how we based them. This isn't just a case of modeling for advantage, either. Do ogres go on 40mm round or 50mm round?

For now, we just sort of played that you could attack with whatever and just tried to ignore it. I'm surprised this worked well for you. Did you mostly play with models on smallish bases? If you have any monsters or anything, model to model without overlapping is just an unmitigated disaster.

Second obvious problem was the fact that there was no way to know how to know whether a game was at all balanced. For our first game, we just threw down a high elf force against a ogre force and the high elf force had 10 cavalry (silver helms and reavers ), 30 elite infantry (phoenix guard and shadow warriors), 2 eagles and a prince against a 20 model ogre force that included ironguts, leadbelchers, and 4 maneaters plus a tyrant. We just sort of eyeballed it and both players and both spectators thought it seemed like it would be a close enough. Turns out it wasn't close at all. The ogres absolutely obliterated the high elves and lost 2 or 3 models total. After that we sort of didn't know what to do next; everyone involved wanted to play another game and have it be close this time, but we had no way to know what went wrong. Was the high elf player playing poorly? Rolling badly? Or did the high elf forces need more models? If so how many more? How would we know? We were just totally lost without anything to benchmark our armies. Obviously we could have kept playing and developed an intuition for relative balance after a few more missteps, but why should we have to do that? The key point here is that everyone wanted a balanced game and we constructed each other's armies collaboratively and in good faith. We still couldn't figure out how to make it work.

The final major point of confusion was how shooting/Line of Sight worked. We didn't play the way you did; we allowed shooting and charging in the same turn, since there didn't seem to be any rule against that. We couldn't figure out how shooting into /out of combat worked / didn't work, especially in light of the fact that the Reavers had an ability that seems to say 'if you're not engaged in combat, you get more shots.'

Overall though, I think game would be fine with a few more pages of 'advanced rules' that describe how to build an relatively balanced armies, give guidelines for base sizes and clarify some of the weaker points. At least that's what I'm hoping for.

de Selby
05-07-2015, 04:08
The basing thing seems like the first thing that will have to be houseruled, even with the most open mind towards AoS rules.



Second obvious problem was the fact that there was no way to know how to know whether a game was at all balanced. For our first game, we just threw down a high elf force against a ogre force and the high elf force had 10 cavalry (silver helms and reavers ), 30 elite infantry (phoenix guard and shadow warriors), 2 eagles and a prince against a 20 model ogre force that included ironguts, leadbelchers, and 4 maneaters plus a tyrant. We just sort of eyeballed it and both players and both spectators thought it seemed like it would be a close enough. Turns out it wasn't close at all. The ogres absolutely obliterated the high elves and lost 2 or 3 models total. After that we sort of didn't know what to do next; everyone involved wanted to play another game and have it be close this time, but we had no way to know what went wrong.

What would the points values of those forces have been in the last edition? About the same? Seems like flanking is irrelevant now so there may be a built in bias towards straightforward brawlers.

some_scrub
05-07-2015, 04:28
The basing thing seems like the first thing that will have to be houseruled, even with the most open mind towards AoS rules.



What would the points values of those forces have been in the last edition? About the same? Seems like flanking is irrelevant now so there may be a built in bias towards straightforward brawlers.

Yeah, they would have been pretty close, I think. We didn't have our 8th ed books or try to add anything up, though. I think the main things we learned are that Ironguts just have incredible offensive output now and the Tyrant's Command action is pretty bonkers.

taurus-marstein
05-07-2015, 04:48
with my LIMITED knowledge, at this point, I think Ogres are the best RAW. Why? The small model count, the INSANE number of multi wound attacks (you kill chaos warriors as fast as gobbos), and the large wound counts on everyone. So you get the sudden death objective and proceed to smash everyones face in.

I think this game seems fun, I cant wait to try it, but I know it wont be the same experience as WFB.

Chikout
05-07-2015, 04:50
Looking at the scrolls, the high elves had a total of 63 wounds, while the ogres had 88. A unit of 25 archers to pincushion the ogres before they got into combat might even things up.

some_scrub
05-07-2015, 05:59
Looking at the scrolls, the high elves had a total of 63 wounds, while the ogres had 88. A unit of 25 archers to pincushion the ogres before they got into combat might even things up.

Yeah. Wounds are a probably a reasonable proxy for having evenly matched armies except for the fact that there are some units that are clearly much better than others. For example, a phoenix guard is much better than a spearman (within the same army). When we were coming up with the armies for the game, we were trying to keep that in mind. Since the high elf army only consisted of units which were significantly better than the worst high elf models (per wound) we figured it was ok that they were down a bit on wounds.

If we had played according to the printed rules, the ogres actually would have had the option for a Sudden Death objective which is sort of hilarious given how lopsided things ended up being.

Mudkip
05-07-2015, 06:04
"It's a good game but we had to houserule a whole bunch of core concepts" I mean, maybe it's not a good game, then?

Kyriakin
05-07-2015, 07:30
Yeah, they would have been pretty close, I think. We didn't have our 8th ed books or try to add anything up, though. I think the main things we learned are that Ironguts just have incredible offensive output now and the Tyrant's Command action is pretty bonkers.
In the Guerrila Youtube AoS battle report, the Ironguts were completely dominating as well IIRC...

Whirlwind
05-07-2015, 07:59
Yes unfortunately any high wound high damage output unit is going to dominate, especially in close combat. Even a small unit of 3 ironguts has the potential to cause 27 wounds in one round of combat. Against 1 wound units it's devastating. Even one or two unsaved wound is trebled to 3-6 wounds (which is the same number of models). Because of the melee rules if you are lucky you could get 15 or so models in base near enough to return attack; however you would need at least four of these to take one model down. Hence then battles massively favours the ogre units. Against any mortal unit if you are losing 6 casualties then battle shock will take down on average about 4 more. If the ogre gets lucky and gets maximum wounds you will lose 27 models to attacks and about the same number to battle shock regardless of where they are in the unit. That's like a potential of 50 models in one turn. Now the other units has the potential to kill 3 models which means for battle shock any roll of 4 or less means no additional casualties. Then repeat this as the ironguts step up and you can see where the problem is.

Hoffa
05-07-2015, 08:17
What is actually written in this thread is that if you want AoS to work you must ignore a lot of the written rules and make up you own instead.

valdrog
05-07-2015, 08:49
With only 4 pages of rules, im pretty sure we can come up with something better.

Hoffa
05-07-2015, 09:24
Sort of my point. Why bother with the official "rules".

Flipmode
05-07-2015, 09:25
What is actually written in this thread is that if you want AoS to work you must ignore a lot of the written rules and make up you own instead.

The only one most people are saying must be houseruled is measuring from base. Everyone knows this is there to suggest people can use existing models. If you measure by base people can base for advantage in a different way, it doesn't solve all problems.

Other than that, just a matter of familiarity as far as I can tell. Yes you can shoot in combat, but almost all ranged units we've seen are better stationary and out of combat.

GrandmasterWang
05-07-2015, 14:10
I haven't played it yet but when I went into my local GW the other day the reaction from the people playing and who had played it was very positive.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk