PDA

View Full Version : AoS Online Battle Reports are not AoS



LTERALUS
09-07-2015, 04:13
After playing three AoS games with three different house rules, I began to wonder what pure AoS is actually supposed to play like. So I went online, but in nearly all battle reports the players create armies based on wound counts, war scrolls, and crazy formulas I need a TI calculator for. I don't ever recall a game coming out that had innumerable house rules and was barely played in it's purest sense. Just when I was giving up hope, I found a battle report by Guerrilla Miniature Games that actually stayed true to AoS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zw_63NZ0D0
Oh boy! This was the first time I saw AoS as it was designed to be played.
Have you played a pure AoS game? By that I mean one where you took turns deploying units (of any kind) and as many as you wanted to (space allowing). A game where bases don't matter, and all measurements were made from the models. A game where you or your opponent summoned 30-man units (since there is no limit)?
Please share your experiences with a pure AoS game. Do NOT post if you used house rules to determine army size, point systems, limitations on war scrolls, hero abilities....... etc etc etc. Only if you played a TRUE 100% PURE game of AoS. What were your experiences? This is not meant to invite only negative comments. If you had a good experience with the pure rules, share it as well.
Thanks!

axamoto
09-07-2015, 04:46
But the rules specify yay two players can use any method they'd like to agree on army lists. So how is using wound counts or war scrolls or any other formula not playing rules as written?

Dosiere
09-07-2015, 04:52
Yes I've played a few games. The bottom line is the system is not meant to recreate WFB type games. It falls flat with the huge unwieldy units, lack of balance, and no mechanism for its battles other than sudden death. It usually is going to suck if you are trying to play WFB with AoS. Honestly, I was shocked when the Warscrolls not only allowed but encouraged 8th Ed sized units in this game.

Where it shows some promise though is in small skirmish games. Smaller units, objectives, scenarios, etc... If you play the forces and scenarios in the starter set I think you'll find it can be a better game than what is being experienced right now.

This is not WFB, and I think players trying to make it work as such are going to be let down however many house rules you try to make. Notice almost every negstive battle report has veteran players taking large forces that would not be out of place in a game of 8th. Do yourself a favor and try a much smaller game if you're trying to play AoS.

Basically AoS seems to suffer from exactly the opposite problems of WFB. It scales down but not up, and thrives on non pitched battle scenarios where WFB that's about what every battle was. Im going to enjoy playing small games with my son with scenarios and objectives. For my real Warhammer fix its either 8th or kings of war.

LTERALUS
09-07-2015, 04:54
But the rules specify yay two players can use any method they'd like to agree on army lists. So how is using wound counts or war scrolls or any other formula not playing rules as written?
From the rule book: "You can continue setting up units until you have set up all the units you want to fight in this battle, or have run out of space. This is your army."
At no point do the rules suggest that players base army selection on war scrolls, models or wounds (though it does state that 100 miniatures per side will last for about an evening). The system encourages players to be creative and set their own guidelines, and there is nothing wrong with that. I have no issues with house rules. I am simply curious about the experience players have had when they played the game as written.

Dosiere
09-07-2015, 05:12
Perhaps I should give some examples of what I am talking About, here's a rundown of 2 games I've played.

Game 1) two small armies, one using KoW skeletons and the other some high elves from the 8th Ed starter. Each side had 1 hero, and the skeletons had 2 units of 10 warriors and the elves 2 units of 5. Some terrain, but not much. The game set up easily, was played on a very small 2x4 area, was fast and simple and over in about 15 minutes. No real issues and it was fun if not satisfying as a veteran player. Used round bases since I had them or they came like that anyway.

Game 2) the whole shebang. 2 huge armies using the " put whatever the **** you want" on the table method. Units of 50 guys everywhere, cannons, Wizards.... It was a complete mess. Pile ins were stupid, shooting was OP since you could take whatever you wanted so could take some nasty combos to buff things like cannons with no downside. Even more unwieldy than 8th was in its own way. It was not really fun or satisfying and made me wonder what the heck was GW thinking encouraging players to play games like this. Pile in issues alone were enough to make me question if I wanted to play this game. Requiring round bases and just using the blessed base to measure from would be so much better.

Philhelm
09-07-2015, 05:20
Game 2) the whole shebang. 2 huge armies using the " put whatever the **** you want" on the table method. Units of 50 guys everywhere, cannons, Wizards.... It was a complete mess. Pile ins were stupid, shooting was OP since you could take whatever you wanted so could take some nasty combos to buff things like cannons with no downside. Even more unwieldy than 8th was in its own way. It was not really fun or satisfying and made me wonder what the heck was GW thinking encouraging players to play games like this. Pile in issues alone were enough to make me question if I wanted to play this game. Requiring round bases and just using the blessed base to measure from would be so much better.

I played a game last weekend and fielded a unit of 40 State Troop spearmen, and I also thought that piling in was just awful, especially with square bases. Having played 40K before, it didn't seem nearly as annoying to mob other units with round based models. I was playing a game of Tetris with my spearmen just to get them into combat, and it was both slow and annoying. At the very least, a charging unit should get an additional three inches of movement during the charge. It's pointless to measure the charge range of 40 models, and then measure another three inches for the same 40 models in order to pile in.

LTERALUS
09-07-2015, 05:22
Thank you Dosiere for sharing that. I can see how the pile-in and shooting rules can make a big game messy. I will ask my next opponent to try out a smaller game. Granted being a pure AoS game, that could still mean anything.

GrandmasterWang
09-07-2015, 05:40
The best way to learn a new system is always to start small.

I have had 2 mini AOS games now using roughly 15 figures a side.

My guess is that most AOS battle reports uploaded so far have been an excuse for Vets to rag on the game rather than actually do a proper battle report.

I absolutely believe that with 100+ models a side the current AOS rules would be very unwieldy.

I basically see it like this. AOS is a cool intro game to get noobs into the hobby. Warscrolls are very simple and easy to follow and no more cross referencing is required. I have actually interested a couple of people in AOS due to the ease of picking it up.

For larger battles Chillhammer/8th is the way to go 100%.

The exception to this would be a pure monster off which while very fun in Chillhammer (say 3k points of monsters a side) would actually work ok in AOS (im guessing haven't tried it yet) with the monster wound depletion rules being really cool. In a large battle this would actually require Bookkeeping though aa the monsters lose wounds so go against the inherent simplicity of AOS.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Philhelm
09-07-2015, 06:03
For larger battles Chillhammer/8th is the way to go 100%.

I've seen the word "Chillhammer" pop up recently. What is it? Is it just (c)Oldhammer?

GrandmasterWang
09-07-2015, 06:37
Chillhammer is the word I use to describe my groups house ruled 8th Edition.

I call it Chillhammer to avoid confusion with RAW 8th Fantasy.

In our Chillhammer we use all different size bases and WAAC tournament players would hate the way we play.

WFB had I believe 14 armies.

We have around 20 in Chillhammer. Tyranids and Mercenaries/Dogs of War for example.

The biggest difference with Chillhammer to RAW 8th is in the magic phase. In Chillhammer in around 50% of games we skip the magic phase altogether as there are no wizards in our armies. While there are magic levels etc all spells are handled like Bound spells which we have found both massively speeds up and balances the game.

I still play RAW 8th in Games Workshop.

So for me I have a positive reception to AOS.

Chillhammer remains the same but with a possible new army/additions (Sigmarines)

8th is still supported, allowed and played in my local GW so no real loss there.

AOS a brand new game with new models, background etc that I can potentially get into.

So in a nutshell that is why I am in the 'positive' camp in relation to AOS.

Chillhammer is a term I coined for laid back, house ruled 8th Edition. There are certainly others on this forum who ppay their own equivalent of "Chillhammer" in their gaming groups.



Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

heavyheart
09-07-2015, 11:22
GW wanted people to buy big armies but now people are wrong to want use those armies they spent time and money on?

Well known sites like miniwargaming have declared AoS unplayable without a points system, they make their money from people watching their battle reports not from making people mad.

I know some people think GW can do no wrong but what they released isn't a game, people are not trolling they are genuinely upset.