PDA

View Full Version : Don't laugh - there is ACTUALLY a game in Age of Sigmar - and it might be interesting



Jind_Singh
08-07-2015, 06:15
Topic: Played my 1st game of Age of Sigmar today and after the game had ended, and after many hours later, my mind processed what I had taken part in and realized that there is actually a game to be had with AoS - and it's not the complete write off that I thought it was going to be. There could actually be a game that's going to be intriguing and perhaps even challenging...

About the Author: Played Warhammer for 28 years, only missing half of 5th Ed and all of 6th. Competitive player for most of 7th and half of 8th, played all Goblins - even placed highly at quite a few larger events. Also plays 40k and Lord of the Rings (aka The Hobbit). Collects LOTS of armies over the 28 years, and while entertained during the reading of The End Times was VERY sad when they blew the Old World up - even sadder when I read how Gobbla died, I felt Skarsnik's pain. Hated all the rules of AoS when I read them, nerd raged about some of the dumb things you have to do for some of the units (dance off anyone?), and really dreaded that my Gobbos always hit and wound EVERYTHING the same EVERY TIME.

The Age of Sigmar: OK - so played a game with roughly a 1,000pts of Tomb Kings (Tomb King, Khalida, 10 Horsemen, 30 Skeletons, 6 ushabti, Tomb Scorpion) vs roughly 1000pts of Brets - 10 Knights, Lord, BSB, Damsel, 30 Archers, 3 Pegasus Knights

We played the game - we rolled dice - we didn't really smile much - we didn't really enjoy it - we did have moments of fun here and there, but it wasn't what we were hoping for OR wanted.

What we didn't like...

- Combat phase: OH MAN! Skeletons hitting on 4's and wounding on 4s vs everything! But I was able to boost them to hit on 2s and it was horrific as that is not how I expected Skeletons to play! Seemed very dull almost in a lot of ways after playing 8th ed.

- Horses charging: Only way we could figure out to get more than a single horse to attack was to have the horses charge SIDEWAYS - this meant horses behind were within 2" of the fight - else the horse at the front is longer than 2" so none of his buddies can joint the fight.

- I can't stop magic AT all if I don't have any magicians in my army, and the magic phase in general seemed tacked on and lack luster.

So what has changed and why is there, then, a game to be had? Because at the end of the day the very nature of the WHFB game has changed - 8th was (and is, it's not gone!) all about the combat phase. That was the phase that determined the game more than any. Movement and positioning were negated to an extent by steadfast. Deathstar units were in the ascendancy and some even had little to no opposition. Running Ogre Death star was always a gamble as it only took purple suns (or similar) to wreck face. But not so for Elves for e.g.

Age of Sigmar isn't like that - my unit ran in and just deleted what it hit. In return it got deleted as he ran in and attacked it. There was no rhyme or reason!

But is that truly the case? NO - and this is where I think the game is.

- If I can land a unit between two enemy units I've now dictated their actions - either charge me, flee, or stand still. I can charge you, from a certain direction, and dictate that your unit must now close to me and therefore potentially allowing me to create openings in your battle line!

- Openings allow me to bust through with other units, I could fill that gap with my hard hitters and effectively cut your lines in two

- I can swing TWO of my units to converge on the one unit that's now exposed it's flanks and double up my chances to battle shock the crap out of you

- I can now try to hold back units and calculate when the best time is to send in my reserves to break through battle lines

- I can isolate and expose key enemy units and kill them with shooting or combat as you can't hide inside units anymore

- I can shoot you with missile fire - and as you advance have my warriors step forwards and prepare to take the charge (or counter charge)

- Units of Chaff will be golden, and taking out chaff is going to be key else you can dictate a lot of the game.

- I can choose which unit attacks but then the opponent does, so the order of attacks is HUGE!


The other part of todays game was that while this is being hyped as the small entry level game, the game won't really come into it's own until we hit around 2-2.5k of the old system as that's when we'll be able to really play out the tactics and scenarios I described above.

Conclusion: Is this my game? No. Did I like it? No! BUT I didn't like 8th ed when it came out - actually I HATED 8th as it wasn't my WHFB anymore (that was 7th) but after a few months break, and when a few books had come out, I was able to give it a 2nd shot and never looked back. Same goes for 6th and 7th ed 40k - hated them before I learned to love them.

Will I ever love Age of Sigmar? I hope so, that would be handy. But I'm not counting on it! !Instead I'm going to keep an open mind and see if I can find the game for what it really is, and hope that once I find it it'll keep me engaged.

But until then I'll sit back and relax - maybe work on a few projects here and there - but for sure I'll play some more games this week and see if I can unlock what hidden gems are to be had, and I genuinely hope that I can do so and that this game has some kind of future in store for me.

Cheers,

Jind

Tzar Boris
08-07-2015, 06:25
I like the charges going after shooting as well. Feels more fluid. If they hadn't borked the basics, it'd be good fun all round.

Erathil
08-07-2015, 06:26
That... is a very well thought out and reasonable post.

It's refreshing in the wake of all the doom and gloom surrounding Age of Sigmar.

I don't really know what to make of this game, and I'm missing the old world and armies something dire. I'm holding onto the hope that they'll build something worthwhile with the new approach and the new game... so right now, I'm just waiting.

dragonelf
08-07-2015, 07:33
For all the complaining, me included, I think most people want there to be a good game there somewhere. As a launch game it is woeful but it doesn't mean it isn't salvageable. I think a lot of people are in the wait and see camp. But they really should have grabbed people with the launch not have people saying this is bad but the game might improve later. Which is basically what you're saying.

Russell's teapot
08-07-2015, 08:17
Is this my game? No. Did I like it? No! BUT I didn't like 8th ed when it came out - actually I HATED 8th as it wasn't my WHFB anymore (that was 7th) but after a few months break, and when a few books had come out, I was able to give it a 2nd shot and never looked back. Same goes for 6th and 7th ed 40k - hated them before I learned to love them.

Sounds like you just want to give GW your money no matter what they put out there.

Nothing wrong with that.

Mawduce
08-07-2015, 08:31
heres the thing, you had point values. you had to look up old point values or you had make up your own. AoS doesn't have point values.

Ayin
08-07-2015, 08:59
Sounds like you just want to give GW your money no matter what they put out there.

Nothing wrong with that.

Brand Loyalty is a real thing. It keeps multi-million dollar companies afloat and moves huge amounts of product.

Jind_Singh
08-07-2015, 09:30
Sounds like you just want to give GW your money no matter what they put out there.

Nothing wrong with that.

That or, I don't know, maybe like normal people I just straight up just don't like change!

An article I read once in the Forbes magazine detailed the top reasons why we, as humans, hate change - change is not a state we entertain lightly.

Corporations spend a LOT of money and spend a lot of time to prepare their organizations for change, this was very true at my last place of employment at a Credit Union - as I was also on the Change Committee and it was staggering the lengths they went to - AND STILL THEY FACED CHANGE AVERSION BY A LARGE PORTION OF THE WORKFORCE!!!

Loss of control, excess uncertainty, the element of surprise, everything seems different, loss of face, concerns about competence, fear of doing more work, fearing the ripple effects, past resentments, and sometimes it's because the threat is real!

Those are all real and legitimate concerns for fearing change.

Being a GW Fan Boy isn't the reason I dislike changes between editions but still stick with them regardless. It's called giving some a fair go.

Brand loyalty also plays a part too why I will persist and try to see if I will eventually like the new direction. This is a hobby that's been part of my life for over 28 years - and since I'm 38 you can do the math, close to 75% of my life. I have met and kept lifelong friends as a result of the hobby.

The hobby has provided countless thousands of hours of entertainment for me on a daily basis.

The stores provided a haven for a young, socially awkward, kid - and even after growing into a fully confident and outgoing man I still cherish the early years of friendship I found at the store.

As an old man close to his 4th decade I appreciate the good stuff my local store does to promote and support the hobby - and to provide a safe haven for those who experiencing their awkward social years, as the store has always been a place of acceptance and tolerance.

Through the wider circle of the gamers we run 2-3 events a year to fund raise - last year alone we raised $4,700 at one event - and the money went to the local food bank - and I was proud to be both a supporter and promoter for the event. That event is in it's 4th year, not to mention the others we run.

So yes, call me a Fan Boy if that is what it makes me, I will wear that badge with pride.

The bearded one
08-07-2015, 11:23
I quite like the idea of 'trapping' enemy units by getting within 3" to dictate their options (retreat, stand, or fight), but I am a little confused about something - and I was confused about it when I read the ruleset:

How do you move models to within 3" of an enemy? The movement phase explicitely forbids you from coming to within 3". The next paragraph talks about 'if you start within 3" of an enemy, these are your options' but it doesn't say how that's possible in the first place. The only way I can think of to do that is if it happens during pile-in moves and the like in a nearby combat, or if those two units were in combat to start with.

logan054
08-07-2015, 11:47
Those are all real and legitimate concerns for fearing change.

Being a GW Fan Boy isn't the reason I dislike changes between editions but still stick with them regardless. It's called giving some a fair go.

Brand loyalty also plays a part too why I will persist and try to see if I will eventually like the new direction. This is a hobby that's been part of my life for over 28 years - and since I'm 38 you can do the math, close to 75% of my life. I have met and kept lifelong friends as a result of the hobby.

Well if you enjoy the game and your happy with it more power to you. The flip side of this is of course not wanting to try a product doesn't instantly translate into being a hater and being scared of change (unless perhaps if you gave up wargaming all together). Sadly I don't think brand loyalty is rewarded by a company like GW, I think I've been playing 22-23 years now, I may not have seen as many changes as yourself but I have seen a fair few, very few actually inspire any kind of customer loyalty. I honestly think, much like myself in the past with my chaos, you've invested a lot into the hobby and gotten a lot out, because of this you keep coming back regardless of what they do and how it effects your collection. I totally get that, I've been trying to enjoy playing games with a mono-khorne army which pretty much worked fine for me until the WoC book came out.

Problem is, the company that you (and many of use remember) no longer exists, GW is very much get the money and get them out the door kinda business. It doesn't do what it once did to actually expand it player base and now they really do just push any kind of product on people. The world is full of new wargames popping up, some of which actually want to try and earn your business, what was the last thing as a company GW did to actually attract you to spend. If you didn't have all those years of good will would you actually buy into GW these days? I mean if any other company released AoS, would you buy it?

It's not like if you buy into the new game your keeping warhammer alive, warhammer is finished, AoS is something very different. If you really enjoy the game for what it is without the GW nostalgia attached then good luck with your hobby time and I hope you continue to enjoy it.

HelloKitty
08-07-2015, 12:51
Good post. there is indeed a game to be found, and that is why I've spent a lot of time trying to come up with some kind of composition for our campaigns because I feel thats really the only thing holding it back.

There's a post in the rules dev forum for it, and a few others doing the same thing.

http://www.louisvillewargaming.com/Files/AzyrComp.pdf

Spiney Norman
08-07-2015, 13:07
I quite like the idea of 'trapping' enemy units by getting within 3" to dictate their options (retreat, stand, or fight), but I am a little confused about something - and I was confused about it when I read the ruleset:

How do you move models to within 3" of an enemy? The movement phase explicitely forbids you from coming to within 3". The next paragraph talks about 'if you start within 3" of an enemy, these are your options' but it doesn't say how that's possible in the first place. The only way I can think of to do that is if it happens during pile-in moves and the like in a nearby combat, or if those two units were in combat to start with.

The only way to move from 'over 3" away' to within 3" is to declare a charge in the charge phase, you can only ever pile in if at least one model from your unit is already within 3" of an enemy model.

Tomb swarms are especially awesome for restricting movement because you can throw them in the way, keep shooting with your casket, catapults and archers and have your priests summon a new layer of swarms behind the first to impede the enemy advance.

DVeight
08-07-2015, 14:35
Even with these four pages of rules I get stumped. You say that only way to end up within 3 inches of an enemy is in the charge phase and I assume that is due to a result of failing the charge. That is, you didn't get within of half an inch to the enemy unit to have successfully charged. This is where I get confused in the rules which state -

"The first model you move must finish within half an inch of an enemy model. If that's impossible, the charge has failed and no models in the charging unit can move in this phase."

To me that reads as if a failure to connect with the enemy results in no models being able to move. I understand your perspective and would much rather that as it could create some nice complexities. I must be interpreting the rules very differently.

Dan_Miner
08-07-2015, 14:57
No you're right failed chargers don't move. The only way to get into 3" of a unit is with a successful charge or a pile in. So you can't pin a unit down without being in combat with it. In fact in the combat phase units within 3" pile in and fight, so pinning down is the same as being in combat anyways, but when you are dictating what you're fighting and they for the most part can only retreat or keep fighting, it seems not so bad.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Bede19025
08-07-2015, 15:12
Only the people who haven't tried the game (i.e. 95% of the people who post) have "concluded" that there is no game in AoS.

Mr_Foulscumm
08-07-2015, 15:19
Sorry to hear that they stole all you 8th ed books Jind :(

logan054
08-07-2015, 15:36
Only the people who haven't tried the game (i.e. 95% of the people who post) have "concluded" that there is no game in AoS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYoNhQevx08

Clearly :rolleyes:

Agrimax
08-07-2015, 15:51
People embrace change (or at least begrudgingly accept it) when it objectively or subjectively provides some improvement or benefit. It's hard to see what those benefits are with AoS for an existing Warhammer player - or at least any benefits are heavily outweighed by the negatives.

Maybe somewhere at it's core there is a good game, if you put in enough work to get to that point. The real question is, other than blind loyalty to the brand, why you'd bother when there's a plethora of games out there that are already exceptional without all that extra effort.

HelloKitty
08-07-2015, 15:55
The plethora of games out there are not fantasy. Or mass battles. Or one has invested many years dollars and time in collecting an army that one doesnt want that to go to waste.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agrimax
08-07-2015, 16:13
The plethora of games out there are not fantasy. Or mass battles. Or one has invested many years dollars and time in collecting an army that one doesnt want that to go to waste.


Rather depends on how tight your definition of fantasy is. If your mean tolkien-esque maybe not, but then considering the AoS starter is basically marines vs chaos, I'm not really seeing that any longer anyway. Who is calling AoS a mass battle game? Seems fairly evidently skirmish based. It's also pretty hard to see any long term support for old armies either (although in any case that is using the sunk cost fallacy to justify playing a bad game)

Greavous
08-07-2015, 16:13
i keep seeing people go no about other games and many other brands around, but i think one of the main and biggest reasons is simply that no one plays them. why go buy 100 worth of stuff for a game you know no one else plays.
hope that you can show people and they will buy it? or try and force it onto your local group?
warhammer is gone and AoS is the replacement GW are pretty much saying either play our new game or go buy something else, but many companies do this and people still buy the product.
like at my local group a couple of people have bought the star wars minatures game and are trying to get everyone else to play it but not alot seem interested so they effectivly wasted there money.
the brand loyalty does come into it when people go in and say "wheres warhammer gone?" staff "oh its been replaced, we play AoS now" so you just accept it and buy a box because you've always shopped there.

maybe im just too ignorant or not-in-the-know about stuff but everyone going on about the quality and the company just want money now etc etc well i always thought they were just a 'miniatures company' they make some rules craft some models you like it you buy it simple.

HelloKitty
08-07-2015, 16:39
Rather depends on how tight your definition of fantasy is. If your mean tolkien-esque maybe not, but then considering the AoS starter is basically marines vs chaos, I'm not really seeing that any longer anyway. Who is calling AoS a mass battle game? Seems fairly evidently skirmish based. It's also pretty hard to see any long term support for old armies either (although in any case that is using the sunk cost fallacy to justify playing a bad game)

We can split hairs on what is and is not fantasy. Point blank I'll just speak from my own experience.

Warhammer Fantasy was JRR tolkien style fantasy. Thats what I'm interested in. THats why I started playing Warhammer fantasy.

So addressing "just move to another game thats better" - there are very very few games like this.

So I've already got a very narrow set of potential replacements. Warmahordes is steam punk fantasy so that's excluded. All of the sci fi games like infinity etc are excluded. XWing and Armada are not even army games they are starship games so that's excluded. Etc.

Next we look at mass battles. Mass battles / skirmish. This to me is simply model count. I want a game that has at least 50 - 80 or so models on the table.

There we have eliminated all of my already thin replacements with Kings of War.

I have Kings of War on pre order.

Long term support of old armies - we have rules for our old armies. They don't need updated rules when we have rules, so thats a matter of personal preference.

Based on all of the above, I want to continue using my collection so its not blind loyalty to GW, its that I can continue using my old collection, put some additional effort in, and continue enjoying my hobby with Kings of War as an alternate without binning my models and just starting somewhere else (because A) there are no settings out there I care about and B) i'm not tossing my vast collection). If I have to bin my models, I'm out of the hobby for good.

Why won't Kings of War, my real only primary alternate, work? Because no one in my area will pick it up and give it a go, so I am likely to just have a game I play with myself in my garage... vs Age of Sigmar where I will have at least some people to play with.

Now we also have Hail Caesar which is a close representation of Fantasy. Why won't that work? No one will pick it up.

Lord of the Rings is also a great game. Again - no one will pick it up.

I have a book shelf with 27 game systems on it that no one will pick up that I have tried pushing. Thats how the gaming community works - they are going to go where the players are, regardless of the rules quality, and they are going to go with the games that intrigue them. Star wars fans are in love with xwing and armada for good reason. You can't tell a star wars fan to pick up Infinity if what they are after is star wars even though they are both sci-fi... they are two totally different things beyond that.

And there you have why I will support Age of Sigmar until the community abandons it and why I am not just jumping ship to another game.

logan054
08-07-2015, 16:45
The plethora of games out there are not fantasy. Or mass battles. Or one has invested many years dollars and time in collecting an army that one doesnt want that to go to waste.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


So why are you still playing warhammer then? I think everything suggests that any new rules we get will promote the sale of new/more recent models, I think this is pretty evident in the warpscrolls when we compare the models from the old armies to the ones made for AoS. If you're going to proxie stuff, why don't you proxy them for a game with slightly better rules? The amount of posts on this forum about how to make the game work really display the underlining problem with the system. While it's a starter set, this is the first edition I've played that hasn't come with a proper (well for GW) balancing mechanic. When ever they've had such a reboot they've had something. When I started 40k back in 2nd ed it actually had very basic armylists in the box, 6th had Ravening hordes.

With all this effort everyone is putting into try and fix this mess they could go out and find a ruleset that actually works with the collection they have start giving that company it's money. Who knows, maybe if people made GW work a bit harer for it's money (like the rest of us) they might come back with better effort on a warhammer reboot.

HelloKitty
08-07-2015, 16:50
If there was a ruleset that was good and a solid replacement for whfb id be all for it. Kings if war is the only one and if my community wont touch it then i have no game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

logan054
08-07-2015, 17:01
Avatars of war is in english now, Felix is happy to playtest converted list from other games and put them on the website if they are balanced. He has the right attitude, use what you want, if we make the model then please buy our version of it. I prefer it to kings of war, the way orders work is very interesting.

HelloKitty
08-07-2015, 17:10
I will check it out


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

rob451
08-07-2015, 17:36
Only the people who haven't tried the game (i.e. 95% of the people who post) have "concluded" that there is no game in AoS.

You have absolutely no evidence for this statement. I suspect there are more people posting who have tried the game and found it lacking than those that haven't but unfortunately as I have exactly as much insight into the personal lives and activities of people on the Internet as you do I have just as much evidence to back up that statement. None.

I'd prefer it if both sides stopped slinging mud and making baseless accusations about who has and hasn't played the game but this is the internet and without mud slinging and baseless accusations it'd get awfully quiet around here awfully quick.

I HAVE played the game. I did not enjoy it because it is boring with little to no strategic or tactical depth. What little tactical depth people claim in the system aren't so much tactics as exploits of the loosely worded and badly written rules.

For example the deployment phase is not tactical. Each player deploys their smallest units one after another because as soon as one player plunks down a unit which pushes them more than a third over the other in model count the other player will put down a single model and declare their done and pick a sudden death objective. It's no more tactical than ticktacktoe.

Charging has no tactical benefit because with entirely random charge ranges you aren't going to be sure if all your units will make it in and even if they do they may not survive to fight anyway. Maintaining a static battle line with multiple supporting units within 3" of each other is superior so if one gets charged the others can all pile in and punish your opponent. Yet again it's who blinks first.

Basing balance on model count or wounds is ridiculous because not all models or wounds are equal. An Ogre is better than a Orc but both are one model. An Ogre with 4 wounds is worth more than 4 1 wound Orcs because a unit of Ogres loses no attacks for the first 3 wounds it suffers while an Orc unit would lose 3. That's before the special rules for Ogres make them just flat out better than 4 Orcs and the Ogre fits into a smaller space for better force concentration.

If people are finding that their games of Age of Sigmar appear more balanced and "Close" than those they played in 8th the main reason is because in AoS player skill doesn't matter. All fights come down to dice rolling and who has the more efficient wounds/models:damage ratio. If you lost alot of games or got steam rolled all the time in 8th the reason was because your opponent was better than you at the game at list building and strategy not because they were lucky or owned the most expensive models.

MAYBE the scenario books will turn the game into something worth playing as they introduce objectives beyond "Kill them all!" and tell you what you can take. But right now? As a Pick up game to be played in your local store against people you don't know? No. Not by a long shot.

Agrimax
08-07-2015, 17:37
And there you have why I will support Age of Sigmar until the community abandons it and why I am not just jumping ship to another game.

So what you're actually saying is you'll be playing AoS as the only game others in your group will pick up that's very roughly aligned with your preferences - Not an absolute lack of alternatives, rather a lack of alternatives that are played locally?

That's a fair enough conclusion to reach, but shouldn't (I don't think anyway) be dressed up as AoS being a natural successor to WHFB that actually really fulfills the criteria you've set out. I'm sorry you're stuck in that situation.

willowdark
08-07-2015, 17:38
I basically agree with everything the OP os saying. What I've seen so far is players deliberately piling up in the middle of the board and then complaining that there are no tactics. It's really not the case.

Hang back in your deployment, deny flanks, use cheap and/or fast units to create diversions and run interference, think ahead a few turns and use the run rules to out position your opponent and you should finding yourself winning on skill as often as not.

And while you're at it, invest in shooting. Shooting is amazing in this edition, and missile troops can potentially be pivotal, well before becoming broken or cheesy.

I've hardly seen any shooting in the games I've watched. Everyone is taking 1 shooter, 2 infantry and 2 cav, or some combo of that. Don't assume this only works as a small game. Take your full compliment of missile troops and watch how much planning ahead it takes to get into the right combats that favor you and lead to a win.

Venthrac
08-07-2015, 17:50
As has been said, the rules we have thus far are a framework. I think that to reach their full potential, we need objectives, scenarios, or just something to make the game more varied in general. I like Warhammer 40,000 because of its rules to control objectives, and I love the new tactical objective cards. I find the game to be pretty dull if you just like up armies and play until one side tables the other.

For me, the tactics, the drama and the thrill of victory comes from using my forces wisely to accomplish specific, clear goals while preventing my opponent from doing the same. I think once we get some of that stuff in AoS, it will improve the experience. This is why I agree with the people saying we only have half a game.

Jind_Singh
08-07-2015, 18:33
A reply I payed on a FB group when someone kept pissing on the players who are upset:

Ah because they are all well within their rights to rage - here is why:

1) Some players (me for eg) have been invested for close ton3 decades into what was essentially the same kind of game, new rules every few eds, but at the heart STILL Warhammer
2) The history and setting of the Old world was incredibly detailed and we have been reading for close to 3 decades
3) A lot of people, me included, ONLY collected an army based on a set of stories and poured our heart & soul into converting and painting that army, and the reason for that armies existence has been killed off
3) We have invested considerable $$$ into the hobby AND time - and now if the game is no longer to our liking where does that leave us?
4) let's say the new game is rejected by over half our current gaming group - what's the future of that group that I really looked forwards to hanging out with every Sunday/weekend?

So that's why it's important to realize that EVERY change in the edition has had polarizing effects on the emotional state of gamers - and when 8th came out we lost 25% of the players, despite any efforts to help them see the new game for what it is - because at the end of the day of you enjoy something and that something is transformed to anti what thing - are we correct in asking you to enjoy the new thing?

We have to respect people's feelings and thoughts - especially with the drastic change that was whfb to AoS

My review shows - I wasn't happy after my 1st game, close to hates it

BUT upon reflection of the game i played I think I see the potential for a new kind of WARHAMMER game that might be interesting

My journey now is to see if I can discover that gMe for myself - and if so more power to me as I own approx over 36,000pts of Warhamner models!!!

DeathGlam
08-07-2015, 18:42
Fair point, i agree respect needs to be shown but both ways too, i feel sorry for some posters who are looking to discuss, enjoy and explore the new AoS but get called everything from GW apologists, to the game they like being retarded or purely for children.

People need to realise nobody has more right to Warhammer then anyone else, we all have different tastes, hey they might have just killed off my favourite Chaos god but i still have all my content from the last 15 to 20 years to still enjoy, i will deal with that disappointment about Slaanesh(if true) but i wont deal with it by feeling the need to belittle or insult other hobbyists from behind my keyboard like is currently happening from both sides of the debate.

Anyway this post was off topic, sorry about that.

Ayin
08-07-2015, 19:03
Brand loyalty also plays a part too why I will persist and try to see if I will eventually like the new direction. This is a hobby that's been part of my life for over 28 years - and since I'm 38 you can do the math, close to 75% of my life. I have met and kept lifelong friends as a result of the hobby.

That's cool. Lots of people buy new games and products from GW without needing to know about the rules, how the game actually plays, if it will be supported, ect., based on having always done that in the past. It's a not-small percentage of their customer base.

You should edit the "hobby" part of your post though. If the "hobby" of wargaming was part of your life for decades, then connection to a certain branded game line would be significantly less important than continued enjoyment of the hobby as a whole. This is really a company that has been part of ect ect., and so in your case they've built up a significant amount of good-faith with you, the consumer, which influences your current decisions.

ewar
08-07-2015, 19:46
Hang back in your deployment, deny flanks, use cheap and/or fast units to create diversions and run interference, think ahead a few turns and use the run rules to out position your opponent and you should finding yourself winning on skill as often as not.


Cheap units are a slight oxymoron in a game without costs. I drafted a tomb king list with 2 x 30 archers, 50 skeleton warriors, 50 tomb guard, bunch of single unit models like tomb princes, scorpions and sphinxes, with Arkhan mortarch to lead them (as why not?). The multipliers for big units are INSANE in a game where you don't pay extra points for those abilities. It is literally a CASH purchase for better in game abilities.

I'm also interested in why you would worry about your flanks? Just setup in a corner and outshoot them whilst summoning units.

NB I will freely admit to not having played a game of this yet, so I might be completely and utterly wrong, but the list above would essentially play itself, it just boils down to target priority and keeping all of your archer units covered with close combat monsters in 3" to counter any attackers.

willowdark
08-07-2015, 19:58
Haha yeah I guess by cheap I really mean small. It's an ild habit.

You can have your 30 archers, but most things in this new game move fast enough to cross the board and get to your archers before they weather too many shooting phases. I'd want a couple smaller auxiliary units to run interference on their advance to guarantee more rounds of shooting.

I haven't played yet either, but I speculate that you can use tight flank maneuvers to single out units and avoid those ugly middle board pile ups. With fast units complimented by good shooting it should be possible to take out enemy units one at a time. I hope so at least.

Venthrac
08-07-2015, 21:55
Fair point, i agree respect needs to be shown but both ways too, i feel sorry for some posters who are looking to discuss, enjoy and explore the new AoS but get called everything from GW apologists, to the game they like being retarded or purely for children.

People need to realise nobody has more right to Warhammer then anyone else, we all have different tastes, hey they might have just killed off my favourite Chaos god but i still have all my content from the last 15 to 20 years to still enjoy, i will deal with that disappointment about Slaanesh(if true) but i wont deal with it by feeling the need to belittle or insult other hobbyists from behind my keyboard like is currently happening from both sides of the debate.

Anyway this post was off topic, sorry about that.

Well said!

Urgat
08-07-2015, 22:07
Avatars of war is in english now, Felix is happy to playtest converted list from other games and put them on the website if they are balanced. He has the right attitude, use what you want, if we make the model then please buy our version of it. I prefer it to kings of war, the way orders work is very interesting.
Good thing you can use whatever you want, because if you have to wait two years to get any unit from them, you aren't going to play much :p

Flipmode
08-07-2015, 22:54
Cheap units are a slight oxymoron in a game without costs. I drafted a tomb king list with 2 x 30 archers, 50 skeleton warriors, 50 tomb guard, bunch of single unit models like tomb princes, scorpions and sphinxes, with Arkhan mortarch to lead them (as why not?). The multipliers for big units are INSANE in a game where you don't pay extra points for those abilities. It is literally a CASH purchase for better in game abilities.

I'm also interested in why you would worry about your flanks? Just setup in a corner and outshoot them whilst summoning units.

NB I will freely admit to not having played a game of this yet, so I might be completely and utterly wrong, but the list above would essentially play itself, it just boils down to target priority and keeping all of your archer units covered with close combat monsters in 3" to counter any attackers.

Cheap hordes needed a bonus. Multi-wound units had a massive advantage as their power is concentrated, before even thinking about Sudden Death.

Of course, nothing is balanced unless you do it yourself, but at least with those bonuses you don't need 200 troops to take on a tough opponent, 'just' 40 ;)

fishound7
08-07-2015, 23:06
I've played about 5 games so far. I think this game is FAR more tactical then 8th was and i'm still working on learning the game. Experience is king always. Theory means nothing until you try it a bunch of times and get repeated results.

GET OUT OF GROUP THINK

Try the game out at a low model count. Start with a 10 man unit, wizard, and a general. Slowly start expanding from there. READ about mystic shielding it stacks!!!! When you retreat you retreat with your full movement charactoristic. Chaff is still strong. Dice rolls of 1's are not auto fails anymore. Learn the game. Play the game with rules as written. Don't approach the game like 8.5. Think about strategy and synergy within the faction warscroll you pick. Read the Warscrolls carefully. Play like 10 to 20 games with people that are willing to learn the game and not just bash on it because it is not 8th edition or what you hoped it would be.

Take your time and think about your deployments. After the game discuss with your opponent what he was thinking. Hell you could just run deployments and not even start the game and ask your opponent afterwards why he was choosing to do what he was doing just to get a better understanding of whats going on. You should be counter deploying or going for a battalion formation. The opposing player can stop you from going battalion formation by stopping early. Figure out your easy sudden death wins for your faction.

People are playing their 8th edition 100+ model list or their ENTIRE COLLECTION as their first interaction with the game and then making judgments.... Wow...

The game goes insane loppsided because people haven't learned about the game synergy and are not willing to put thought into how the game is different and should be approached differently.

Hoffa
08-07-2015, 23:32
Perhaps experienced gamers expect to be able to play the game as advertised, rules mentions 100 models per side for an evening of gaming so from that a reasonable assumption would be to either start with about 50 models for an evening or 100 models if you have a whole day especially since there is only 4 pages of rules to learn.

I hope you are aware that playing rules as written you should spam the board with every model you can and make sure to protect your self from any sudden death or try to exploit sudden death by putting down really as strong models as possible. As soon as the opponent stops you have two choices, add models up to just under the sudden death threshold and have a nice advantage or just cram everything you own on the table. (Sorry I just can not take any advice of playing the rules as written seriously, everyone knows by now that the game is completely unplayable with out some serious balance mods)

RollofTheDice
08-07-2015, 23:45
A reply I payed on a FB group when someone kept pissing on the players who are upset:

Ah because they are all well within their rights to rage - here is why:

1) Some players (me for eg) have been invested for close ton3 decades into what was essentially the same kind of game, new rules every few eds, but at the heart STILL Warhammer
2) The history and setting of the Old world was incredibly detailed and we have been reading for close to 3 decades
3) A lot of people, me included, ONLY collected an army based on a set of stories and poured our heart & soul into converting and painting that army, and the reason for that armies existence has been killed off
3) We have invested considerable $$$ into the hobby AND time - and now if the game is no longer to our liking where does that leave us?
4) let's say the new game is rejected by over half our current gaming group - what's the future of that group that I really looked forwards to hanging out with every Sunday/weekend?

So that's why it's important to realize that EVERY change in the edition has had polarizing effects on the emotional state of gamers - and when 8th came out we lost 25% of the players, despite any efforts to help them see the new game for what it is - because at the end of the day of you enjoy something and that something is transformed to anti what thing - are we correct in asking you to enjoy the new thing?

We have to respect people's feelings and thoughts - especially with the drastic change that was whfb to AoS

My review shows - I wasn't happy after my 1st game, close to hates it

BUT upon reflection of the game i played I think I see the potential for a new kind of WARHAMMER game that might be interesting

My journey now is to see if I can discover that gMe for myself - and if so more power to me as I own approx over 36,000pts of Warhamner models!!!

Polarizing effects on the emotional state of gamers huh? :rolleyes:
Are you an adult?

If you have a large ammount of terrain and miniatures for a game system that has now ended the nature of your hobby will have changed to an extent. However you can still continue to enjoy it, granted some things have changed, you'll be purchasing second-hand items only. Be creative, develop custom campaigns prior to the end-times or even a grand campaign the leads up to it. You can create new terrain and buildings or purhcase them from other companies.

Search for new players who want to continue playing Warhammer Fantasy, years from now there will be new players interested to get involved and forced to search for second-hand armies and units. You can begin to proxy miniatures from other companies and further flesh out the universe of Warhammer in your own way if you wish. Imagine the grand battles that will be fought, you should already be too pre-occupied fighting battles and drawing up campaigns to worry about this.

The whole point is collect an army, and use said army to play wargames with. You've reached the end. If you need Games Workshop to continue to feed you additional content you should never get involved in this hobby, it's a stupid move to think like that and you don't need that to bring life to it, that should come from your own passion otherwise why are you involved in this?

Consider Star Wars or Lord of The Rings for example. Return of the Jedi and the Return of the King both concluded their conflicts, yet people still collect forces for them, still fight battles of Hoth and now we have a fleet game out to repeat the same battles? Lord of The Rings is in the same boat, how many times can you fight Helms Deep? It's the passion and enjoyment people have that interests them in the settings, despite their finite nature.

At least with Warhammer you have decades upon decades of timelines to jump in to, lore that allows you to create your own conflicts etc.

If you are suffering emotional issues over a hobby you need to stop. Sure you can rage, but why any adult would rage over this is beyond me.

willowdark
09-07-2015, 00:03
A little self awareness can go a long way. If you're abusing the lack of comp to put the ugliest list you can think of on the board, you're going to teach yourself to hate the game. In terms of whether or not you enjoy your game, it's entirely possible to set yourself up for failure - or success, for that matter, if your goal is to prove it's a broken rule set. There are lots of ways to approach force comp that won't break the game and will lead to very challenging and rewarding encounters.

That being said, I do feel like the intention here is to provide the freedom to double down on things that work well together, without feeling like you have to sacrifice other synergies that can also work. It's a fine line, but it's walkable.

I will probably field an Empire list with a lot of wizards on foot to buff my units, as well as wizards on Griffins as mobile platforms for unbinding. I honestly don't see this as abusive, though I'd agree that it's erring on the aggressive side of list building within the RAW. But so far what I'm seeing in the issue with summoning suggests that summoning builds will be easy to counter if done the right way, so I feel this will eventually lead to balance with the RAW.

And I'll probably buy a ton of $25 cannon and hellblasters just to show my opponents that I have the option to brake my list as much as they want to brake theirs, but that maybe we could agree to something a little more friendly. Or not. Either way, a balance will eventually be struck naturally in each gaming group, which will eventually scale up to the tournament level, as long as we are all reasonable about our expectations.

DVeight
09-07-2015, 00:24
As has been said, the rules we have thus far are a framework. I think that to reach their full potential, we need objectives, scenarios, or just something to make the game more varied in general. I like Warhammer 40,000 because of its rules to control objectives, and I love the new tactical objective cards. I find the game to be pretty dull if you just like up armies and play until one side tables the other.

For me, the tactics, the drama and the thrill of victory comes from using my forces wisely to accomplish specific, clear goals while preventing my opponent from doing the same. I think once we get some of that stuff in AoS, it will improve the experience. This is why I agree with the people saying we only have half a game.

I am in agreement with you Venthrac. My opinion is that there will be more to come which will be the meat on the skeleton that is the four page rules. I really enjoy the 40k rules now with the objective control mechanic. The games have become so much more challenging. Do that here and you have a winner on your hands.

Commissar von Toussaint
09-07-2015, 00:34
People embrace change (or at least begrudgingly accept it) when it objectively or subjectively provides some improvement or benefit. It's hard to see what those benefits are with AoS for an existing Warhammer player - or at least any benefits are heavily outweighed by the negatives.

Maybe somewhere at it's core there is a good game, if you put in enough work to get to that point. The real question is, other than blind loyalty to the brand, why you'd bother when there's a plethora of games out there that are already exceptional without all that extra effort.

Other than the original post, I think this is probably the best thought on this thread and cuts to the core of the debate (or the debate over the debate) regarding AoS.

The issue isn't really change per se. Gamers in particularly are often interested in trying new things, expanding on the existing design, so to speak. The boards on this site are full of inventive variants and house rules.

The issue is the sense that one has to give up the old game in favor of the new. Obviously, I'm one of those stubborn types that is willing to play an out of print game, but there is no question that sticking with an unsupported system makes finding opponents a lot harder.

Having surveyed the reactions, I think it really comes down to this: "Yes, we'd love to see a new game but not at the price of giving up the one we already like."

The negative reviews are therefore heightened by this sense of loss. "Wait, my armies got rendered obsolete for this???"

Under the circumstances, it is difficult for players to take an objective look at the system (such as it is).

magicallypuzzled
09-07-2015, 00:57
the problem I have with the time invested argument is that unless you just spent money on an entirely new army, you were expecting to work a certain way and now find that it doesn't in fact work that way, you have already gotten paid in enjoyment for the money you have spent. you spent 30 years playing and a lot of money spent playing a different game and want to know where that leaves you with 30 of what I would assume were enjoyable years. I have a hard time seeing where the rage is coming from but than I don't really agree that spending hundreds of dollars even as recently as one year ago should have any effect on how happy you are today.

mweaver
09-07-2015, 03:06
Interesting post, Jind. Thanks.

-Michael

Jind_Singh
09-07-2015, 03:46
Polarizing effects on the emotional state of gamers huh? :rolleyes:
Are you an adult?



I don't know - are you?

I think I am, for the most part, and not understanding why showing emphaty for those folks who have been distraught about the changes makes me any less an adult.

Or why someone who is distraught by the changes is any less an adult.

What do you think? Because it's technically a "game" any negative feelings are then an indication of childishness?

Isn't foorball/soccer a game? Ever seen their bat **** crazy fans? (Granted not all, but a fair whack!)

Anything you like is easily afforded emotions - and therefore it's only fine for folks to be having negative reactions to the changes in AoS

I doubt those folks are killing, self-mutilating, sacrificing their work, etc, Etc - but bet your pants they are raging in forums/gaming groups, etc

I think your somehow missing the whole point why this discussion was started in the 1st place

(Reading carefully avoids confusion by the way!)

My point was:

- wasn't happy to hear about the changes
- didn't like my 1st game
- later on had an lightbulb moment and figured put what I think the games about
- excited to see how that journey of discovery turns out (was in the store again today delving into the game)
- at the same time asking folks to not brush off other players feelings who have been genuinely upset by the changes

Kapish?

DVeight
09-07-2015, 04:50
Keep on posting Jind. You're the voice of measured reason.

GrandmasterWang
09-07-2015, 07:25
Another big up for you Jind... I always liked your style.... and your love of Greenskins

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Kherith
09-07-2015, 09:20
I haven't played AOS yet and don't have the experience of as many editions having only played fantasy from 6th, but having read through the rules and spent some time discussing with my local store manager and other gamers I'm inclined to agree with the op.

The 3" pile in move and combat order is massive and has the potential to be a very fluid and deep tactical mechanic based on some very simple rules.

I miss points because as a hobbyist I'm a list builder and collector first and a gamer second. Admittedly this probably doesn't make me a great judge of the rules but I'm not going to miss flicking back and forth between a BRB and army book for special rules and spells.

I'm playing a couple of games this weekend to see how I get on with AOS and I'm trying to keep an open mind.

I also think that folks might want to bear in mind when talking about the death of fantasy that new players are probably going to outnumber any of us who decide to leave.

With the free rules you can now buy a couple of small units and a general for 50-60 and start playing which, is what I paid for one end times book (yes I feel like a mug)!
Heck it cost 40 for 2nd ed 40k in 1994!

Kherith
09-07-2015, 09:21
Damn double post!

Galain
09-07-2015, 10:02
You have absolutely no evidence for this statement. I suspect there are more people posting who have tried the game and found it lacking than those that haven't but unfortunately as I have exactly as much insight into the personal lives and activities of people on the Internet as you do I have just as much evidence to back up that statement. None.

I'd prefer it if both sides stopped slinging mud and making baseless accusations about who has and hasn't played the game but this is the internet and without mud slinging and baseless accusations it'd get awfully quiet around here awfully quick.

I HAVE played the game. I did not enjoy it because it is boring with little to no strategic or tactical depth. What little tactical depth people claim in the system aren't so much tactics as exploits of the loosely worded and badly written rules.

For example the deployment phase is not tactical. Each player deploys their smallest units one after another because as soon as one player plunks down a unit which pushes them more than a third over the other in model count the other player will put down a single model and declare their done and pick a sudden death objective. It's no more tactical than ticktacktoe.

Charging has no tactical benefit because with entirely random charge ranges you aren't going to be sure if all your units will make it in and even if they do they may not survive to fight anyway. Maintaining a static battle line with multiple supporting units within 3" of each other is superior so if one gets charged the others can all pile in and punish your opponent. Yet again it's who blinks first.

Basing balance on model count or wounds is ridiculous because not all models or wounds are equal. An Ogre is better than a Orc but both are one model. An Ogre with 4 wounds is worth more than 4 1 wound Orcs because a unit of Ogres loses no attacks for the first 3 wounds it suffers while an Orc unit would lose 3. That's before the special rules for Ogres make them just flat out better than 4 Orcs and the Ogre fits into a smaller space for better force concentration.

If people are finding that their games of Age of Sigmar appear more balanced and "Close" than those they played in 8th the main reason is because in AoS player skill doesn't matter. All fights come down to dice rolling and who has the more efficient wounds/models:damage ratio. If you lost alot of games or got steam rolled all the time in 8th the reason was because your opponent was better than you at the game at list building and strategy not because they were lucky or owned the most expensive models.

MAYBE the scenario books will turn the game into something worth playing as they introduce objectives beyond "Kill them all!" and tell you what you can take. But right now? As a Pick up game to be played in your local store against people you don't know? No. Not by a long shot.

This is a fantastic summary.

roperpg
09-07-2015, 11:29
I quite like the idea of 'trapping' enemy units by getting within 3" to dictate their options (retreat, stand, or fight), but I am a little confused about something - and I was confused about it when I read the ruleset:

How do you move models to within 3" of an enemy? The movement phase explicitely forbids you from coming to within 3". The next paragraph talks about 'if you start within 3" of an enemy, these are your options' but it doesn't say how that's possible in the first place. The only way I can think of to do that is if it happens during pile-in moves and the like in a nearby combat, or if those two units were in combat to start with.
You can 'slingshot' during a charge.
The 3" only counts during the *movement* phase, not the charge phase.
So let's say you have a unit of 20 Chaos warriors 5 inches away from a skink unit and 10 inches away from a mage priest. (Say 2 o'clock and 12 o'clock respectively).
You want the Slann.
Your warriors are within 12" of an enemy unit, so can declare a charge.
*You don't have to nominate the unit you are charging*
You roll the dice. You get 9. This isn't enough to get you within a half inch of the Slann, but you can easily hit the skinks.
You don't have to move closest to closest, but you can move up to 9", and it doesn't have to be a straight line.
So you run your unit toward the Slann. As long as a) 1 warrior is within 1/2" of the skinks and b) your warrior unit maintains coherency, the charge is legal, you now have models within 3" of the Slann, and in the combat phase you can pile models into the Slann and still count as charging (because the unit made a successful charge move).

The only thing to bear in mind is that pile-in moves must be toward the closest model and the unit must maintain coherency. So it's possible with canny positioning to get the bulk of your unit into your preferred target rather than wasting attacks on the slingshot unit.

It's not exactly the same as the example given, but it's an example of how you can use the movement rules to do something that on face value (because of how WFB used to work) looks like you can't.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

The_Real_Chris
09-07-2015, 11:36
I still think the title of this thread looks like one of those clickbait articles on webpages :)

memitchell747
09-07-2015, 13:01
"canny positioning"

The boring, gamey, non-immersive BS disguised as "tactics" that led me to quit 40K. I would pray the alternative to an AoS scrum in the middle is NOT canny positioning. Just shoot me.

HelloKitty
09-07-2015, 13:05
8th edition fantasy was for a year or two just that. Two mega blob death stars running to the center of the table to slap bellies until one fled. It evolved from there.

roperpg
09-07-2015, 14:07
"canny positioning"

The boring, gamey, non-immersive BS disguised as "tactics" that led me to quit 40K. I would pray the alternative to an AoS scrum in the middle is NOT canny positioning. Just shoot me.
If you're suggesting that proper use of manoeuvring isn't valid as "tactics", please do explain to me what is? Because you've pretty much just written off a large chunk of WFB players as " gamey".

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

The bearded one
09-07-2015, 16:20
That seems rather on the edge of abusing poorly written movement rules - which seem to be written to be as short as possible, rather than be 20 pages long to prevent people from doing unintended things.

I doubt "charge one enemy and then stretch your models out in a congaline in order to reach another unit that you couldn't reach with your charge" is what was intended.

roperpg
09-07-2015, 17:03
That seems rather on the edge of abusing poorly written movement rules - which seem to be written to be as short as possible, rather than be 20 pages long to prevent people from doing unintended things.

I doubt "charge one enemy and then stretch your models out in a congaline in order to reach another unit that you couldn't reach with your charge" is what was intended.
It's not like it isn't a factor in other systems - WMH in particular has situations where abuse of charges is almost expected, and WFB had the screen redirect that I've seen abused horribly.
RAW it's valid, if it's not RAI then that's what FAQ's are for.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

monkey10120
09-07-2015, 17:17
Every batrep I am watching consist of place models down, shuffle forward into combat, end on turn 2. Thats not a game, thats a script.

I already dislike 40k because its based on the similar "shuffle forward" gameplay. AoS is just an incredibly dumbed down version without focus on shooting which is the only thing 40k had going for it for me.

willowdark
09-07-2015, 17:49
Those games didn't have to play like that. Those gamers chose to play that way.

Maybe games shouldn't be played with just 4 or 5 units on each side. Maybe all games scale badly down. Maybe that's just boring.

If any of those gamers had deployed auxiliary units, second strike units - if they had made any effort to advance in waves or move laterally, or deploy screens to slow the enemy advance, or cavalry to get behind enemy lines, they probably would've had a lot more fun.

I'm sorry to say it, because I'm sure these guys posting on YouTube were perfectly capable tacticians in 7th and 8th - and because I sincerely appreciate anyone who takes the time and effort to film a BatRep and put it out there for us. Chock it up to option paralysis.

Of course, 8th pretty much played the same way, except you could nuke units in the magic phase. But 8th games were usually just piles of units in the middle of the board too.

Jind_Singh
10-07-2015, 04:05
So played a few more games using more units and on a larger board

Actually starting to like some of the interactions and was even caught, upon occasion, having fun

I'm still worried about game balance as the Sigmar starter set is dominating the chaos set - clearly it's a way to demonstrate the potential of the new faction to warhammer

Saw a good you tube video that used an addition and multiplication of stats to calculate points - must try that out

Still a bit frustrated as I haven't had the chance to try to game out wth more units of Cav and chaff yet

Also not dabbled too deep with magi either - so much to do, so little time

mhsellwood
10-07-2015, 05:11
Careful Jind_Singh gaming is serious business and must never be fun :) Good to hear that you are having fun although I would expect in the base box the Stormcast to dominate - as you say sell the new faction.

Any reason you haven't tried out cavalry or chaff? I am interested in seeing whether disposable units will be able to lock units down. For example charging a close combat unit with a chaff unit, but only put one model up close - it should take them their turn to remove the unit, and in the interim they are not going anywhere.

Jind_Singh
10-07-2015, 07:17
Careful Jind_Singh gaming is serious business and must never be fun :) Good to hear that you are having fun although I would expect in the base box the Stormcast to dominate - as you say sell the new faction.

Any reason you haven't tried out cavalry or chaff? I am interested in seeing whether disposable units will be able to lock units down. For example charging a close combat unit with a chaff unit, but only put one model up close - it should take them their turn to remove the unit, and in the interim they are not going anywhere.

Well sadly space! Carrying the baby stroller in the car trunk (boot) takes up half the sapce, the box of required car accessories takes up a 1/4, rest is baby bags! I can squeeze a tiny case that holds 1-2 trays of models

But I'm playing 8th Ed game on Monday (2500pts) with my empire - after the game I'm playing age of sigmar with that collection!!!!-

Andy p
10-07-2015, 07:38
While I am still willing to try it out, the battle reports I've seen show me they have successfully created hold music for the eyes.

Keep playing Jind and tell us of the interesting parts.

ewar
11-07-2015, 01:57
If any of those gamers had deployed auxiliary units, second strike units - if they had made any effort to advance in waves or move laterally, or deploy screens to slow the enemy advance, or cavalry to get behind enemy lines, they probably would've had a lot more fun.


Why would they need to do any of that though?

It's all meaningless within the AOS framework. What is the point of flanking, breaking through with cav etc, your best option is always to get your hardest close combat unit into combat as fast as possible with a unit not notably stronger than them (and even then, with fixed hitting/wounding values that might not even be a big deal). A game centred on close combat needs some nuance to the movement rules, otherwise everyone just charges forward asap.

I have seen several batreps now and they all end the same way.

The bearded one
11-07-2015, 02:22
Why would they need to do any of that though?

It's all meaningless within the AOS framework. What is the point of flanking, breaking through with cav etc, your best option is always to get your hardest close combat unit into combat as fast as possible with a unit not notably stronger than them (and even then, with fixed hitting/wounding values that might not even be a big deal). A game centred on close combat needs some nuance to the movement rules, otherwise everyone just charges forward asap.

I have seen several batreps now and they all end the same way.

Or alternatively place a bunch of tiny blocking units in the way, and then pepper the everliving bejeezus out of the enemy with massed archers while your blocking guys keep getting in the way and then retreating from combats in the movement phase (denying the enemy a round of combat with them in your own combat phase, so that they remain alive for longer to keep blocking).

There's no particular reason to try and outmanoeuvre enemy units. Throw all your stuff at the enemy and clobber it to death asap with as much overhwelming force as possible. Don't hold back, throw everything on something at once. There is no need to restrain yourself, because it's not as if you can get drawn into an unfavourable position where you can get charged in the flank or rear or put at a disadvantage in some other manner due to your reckless brawling.


Also, if you ever think 'okay, I think I've deployed a big enough army now', go and add another character or 10 archers or something. Just slide in a handful more guys. No need to restrain yourself when it comes to armysize.

Jind_Singh
18-07-2015, 08:12
So today played a game with a larger collection:

Warrior Priest on foot, great weapon
Captain on foot, great weapon
Captain BSB on horse

2 units of 5 Pistoliers, champ, musician
12 Knights, full command
25 Halberdiers, full command
16 Archers, champ
Cannon
15 Flagellants, prophet

VS Dark Elves

Hag Sorceresses
Dark Elf Lord
Dark Elf Dread Lord

30 Corsairs, command
15 Cold One Knights, command
Kharibiss
5 Warlocks

Interesting experience - my opponent was my long-time 8th ed partner who hasn't played/read much about AoS but has heard plenty from our gaming buddies - he had VERY low expectations

We played two turns and called it - because my phone died which contained my battle scrolls AND we had to take the phone in for a repair but overall thoughts from today...

1) Shooting is powerful but not as strong as I initially thought, the reduced ranges on all missile weapons means that it's not long after before the forces engage, and they need a lot of protection. My Empire army had strong shooting but those same units were then weak in melee.
2) Magic was OK - but luckily the slightly higher casting values for the Dark Elves helped me out, although it didn't stop him from killing my BSB outright!
3) After seeing the lower casting values for summoning spells however that might not always be the case...
4) Combat was decent as we paid more attention to the sequence in which we conducted the fights, and the excitement was more about the agony of deciding which of my units wanted to attack 1st! Several times there were 2-3 critical combats and I really could have done with swinging 1st all the time...
5) Was able to set up my units in a way on the flank that he had no choice but to charge my pistoliers - who in turn were within 3" of my other unit so I knew that I could pile in to support them.
6) Cannons are still deadly, sadly I rolled dreadfully and took a grand total of 3 wounds off enemy models!
7) Cold One Knights are brutal...

The models that died within the 2-3 turns we played was significant, perhaps 50% of our armies, and we had combat from turn 2. Still wasn't happy with...

- Having to move my Halberdier unit skirmish formation (should have kept them on a tray)
- My understanding of how to move units and not strand other units (Poor BSB)
- Understanding how we determine a fair(ish) match up
- My lack of remembering about my own abilities/combos for various warscrolls

But the biggest take away...

My buddy, who I honestly thought would dislike the game, actually enjoyed it and said it wasn't as bad as he expected. It wasn't 8t ed good to him but there is a game in there that he liked, and the mechanics were not as bland as he was told it would be.

To this effect our journey of discovery and exploration marches on - and next time I'm printing my warscrolls so I'm not crippled when the phone dies!

Mateobard
18-07-2015, 08:17
Played again today against my friends orcs. After deployment it was abundantly clear I had too many units on the field. Game was over by turn 3. Sigh.