PDA

View Full Version : My Experience with Age of Sigmar



Kurai Chi
13-07-2015, 05:18
So yesterday I went to the release party at my local GW for Age of Sigmar. After watching a couple guys play a ridiculously large battle for awhile and having a nice conversation about painting techniques, I found someone to play my first game of AoS with, my Nurgle/Khorne Daemons versus his Slaanesh/Tzeentch Chaos warriors (they never can stop fighting, can they?)

I had two units of 10 Bloodletters, a unit of 20 Plaguebearers, five Flesh Hounds, a Soul Grinder of Nurgle, a Skull Cannon and a Great Unclean one. Truthfully, I don't know what all of his models were but he had some kind of massive cannon, three huge Chaos Warrior cavalry units, a mounted Chaos Lord, Sigvald, and a host of Chaos Warriors on foot. We figured I had a good amount more models than him, so he got the Seize Ground Sudden Death condition.

He set up his cannon on a far edge of the table and consolidated the rest of his forces near the other end in essentially a large block. I had my forces more spread across the board, with all but the hounds and a unit of bloodletters who had been assigned to take out the cannon ready to meet his force.

We battled, and even though I had gotten extraordinarily lucky with my Soul Grinder's Hellforged Claw ability (twice!) and took out Sigvald in one blow, I had overestimated how difficult it would be to take out his cannon and was unable to provide support to my main force in time to stop him from taking his Sudden Death victory by holding the ruined tower in the center of the board.

Overall, AoS is obviously less in depth than Fantasy, but I still had a very fun time. As for the problem it seems everyone has been experiencing as far as balance, it didn't seem to be a problem in this particular game. I did end up buying the box set (that Lord of Khorne was just too great to pass up) and I do plan on continuing to play AoS. Also, I'm very excited for the apparently upcoming release for the Guardians of Sylvaneth because tree people are awesome.

Now tell my why I'm wrong :P

stegadonshepherd
13-07-2015, 07:40
To add my two cents ...
I've played two games of AoS so far, and had a blast in both of them.
I haven't met anyone so far who didn't like the game once they played it.
It's not, however in any case made for tournament/competitive play. And that's fine by me.
So far i'm having a better time with Age of Sigmar than i had with 8th, and i liked 8th a lot.

What i enjoyed the most is that almost everything can be useful and playable, and there are no more unkillable heroes no longer.
It's fun, and simple and can be as short as you like, which is a good thing if you are running around with work.
If this brings in more new players who will be more interested to the hobby, i'm all for it. I for one won't miss the competitive players one bit.

Shandor
13-07-2015, 09:54
Just play it for a month and report back. I would love to have some feedback if you made more then a few Games :)

leonseeo
13-07-2015, 13:41
I have played a couple of games where I deliberately took a smaller army of ogres (skrag/8xgorgers) against brets (1000,000+ pegasus knights/40,000 questing knights/lady of whatever/etc etc).

I didn't die immediately - it took until nearly turn 3 on both occasions. Also, we played it wrong so the PKs just kept on taking their turn to beat up my gorgers, instead of me taking a turn inbetween. Doh!

Anyway, I wanted to win (as you do), so I have been thinking about what, if anything I could take that could take on a unit with 42 automatic hits and +3 saves (after buffs)! Oh and +3 to hit, making average of 28 saves to make; most ogres have appalling armour saves too! Gorgers for example will take on average about 23 wounds per attack phase against them! I split them up as they only have 5 wounds each, meaning 4 dead each turn and another wounded.

So I suppose long story short, the game has me thinking about strategies - I need to tie up those flying PKs so they don't charge me as I am pretty much dead instantly; rinse & repeat for each of my units and with 16" movement and roll 4 dice to charge, that won't take long!

Does this count as strategic, if you have to think about things like this? I never actually played 8th, just spent ages learning it before it got axed. It may be very child like in comparison, I just don't know, but it seems to take a bit of thought from my part and I am not a stupid person! Don't!!

Sorry if hijacking this thread, just thought I would chip in with a different point of view for balance...

Bylak
13-07-2015, 16:18
So a friend of mine and I decided to split the AoS starter set to see what the hub bub was all about. We played the first four campaigns in the starter set and I thought I'd offer my thoughts on the game! This thread seemed as good as any to post in =)

A little about my gaming background - right now I'm primarily playing Warmachine/Hordes. I've been playing that for about three years now or so and have been fairly active in the local tournament meta. Before that I played 40k (primarily Orks and Necrons) and never really got into Fantasy. Loved the setting but maybe ever played one, two games tops.

From what I've read the battlebox and AoS are aimed generally at more casual or less experienced players than I suppose I am so my friend and I were trying to play the game mainly at face value. I chose the Khorne portion of the box and he picked up the Sigmahreens. We ended up getting through the first four scenarios in about two and a half, three hours or so and ended up having a pretty fun time of it! Even with the limited ruleset there were some things we forgot (one terrain rule in the book and we forgot to apply Cover to anything . . .) or there were some rules that were a little ambiguous (re-rolls, do you re-roll once? Continually re-roll?) but didn't really take away from the experience at all. It was fun at one point throwing 26 models down against his 8 and thinking to ourselves "it's like GW finally gets to put the fluff of a small handful of Space Marines against hordes of dudes on the tabletop! Except in the wrong setting". The scenarios were probably the most fun bit of the experience. We didn't have to worry about the lack of point values for models - we had our objectives, the scenario dictated how we deployed and what was deployed. Battle shock really helped balance that out for my opponent too. It really did kind of emphasize the fact that if you want to take cheap dudes you'd better take them in a block of 20+ models otherwise you're going to have a bad time. I also really do like the fact that other than saving throws all of the stats are available on your end of the Battle Scrolls. It doesn't matter what my guys are fighting, it doesn't matter if they're fighting two different units at a time, I'm almost always going to need X to hit and Y to damage. WS, BS and T values from Fantasy/40k are aspects of the games I was never super fond of for whatever reason and this takes any aversion to those stats that I used to have right out of the equation.

There were a few negative aspects though that I took away from the afternoon and AoS. While I've never played Fantasy, I know that if Privateer Press did this kind of total revamp of the rules in Warmachine from points based lists and a really tight ruleset to "bring what you want, here's 4 pages of rules!" I would be furious. I can totally, 100% understand why Fantasy players hate this from the outside looking in. If you're a 40k player however I imagine you'll probably like AoS; to me it felt like I was playing a stripped down fantasy version of 40k the entire time. While I like the battle system of you and your opponent each getting a battle phase, the random variable of who goes first in a round makes keeping track of who's turn it actually is confusing at times. We actually wanted to start using a counter or some other kind of token so for future games we would know who's turn it was when we were at the top or bottom of various rounds.

The biggest negative factor for me however is outside of the battlebox or specific scenarios where army lists are pre-determined I don't see myself ever actually playing pick up games of AoS. If a player from any of the old world factions were to come up to me and ask me for a game I would tell them no because neither of us have any way of knowing if we'll be playing balanced matchups. For the scenario games my friend and I were able to give the matchups the benefit of the doubt and trust that the scenario we were playing would balance out the two forces. In a generic pickup game unless my opponent and I are both using warbands or whatever the formation rules are in AoS I can't trust that we're actually playing a fair matchup. I know there are Sudden Death victory clauses and whatever but even with those in play I don't think I'd be able to get over the thought of whether I was cheesing my opponent with my list or if my opponent was cheesing me with his. I've never been a fan of the unbound rules or game type in Warmachine, I enjoy working within specific variables for army composition. If the scenario isn't going to be the balancing factor in a game then the list composition has to be IMO.

Having said all of this I did enjoy my afternoon of AoS. The models themselves are AMAZING (and reminding me once again of why I was hesitant to get into Warmachine in the first place . . . oh look this unit of 10 guys has 10 unique sculpts in AoS! My 10 man unit in Warmachine has 4.) and assemble in a really creative way. With the number of models in the starter I could see army lists sicking that size in terms of model count or slightly higher. The possibility of playing of a 4x4 as opposed to a 6x4 is appealing to me as well (How do you not waste like half the board playing on a 6x4 with the starter contents?!). I'm willing to give the game the benefit of the doubt for the time being and I'm looking forward to getting some more games in against the Sigmarites! Long term however it really is going to boil down to how list construction is going to be handled as the main determining factor for whether or not I end up sticking with the hobby or selling off my half of the starter set. To me the game also seems like it's going to be balanced based off of future releases rather than the previous releases, so maybe for future models something like using wound count to make up army lists will make more sense as opposed to the argument now that I see where not all wounds are valued equally.

Shandor
13-07-2015, 16:45
Bylak i really like your Post. It seems really Neutral. Thank you. was a good read.

mhsellwood
15-07-2015, 01:31
Very interesting post Bylak and Kurai Chi - thank you both for taking the time to type that all up.

Your point Bylak about not doing pick-up games due to the fact that you have to trust the scenario to provide balance, and you can't just trust that what you both deploy is relatively balanced outside of this framework. I am interested in seeing how the new book and the scenarios included may respond to the fact that at the moment there is not exactly a wide range of GW designed scenarios, and a good scenario will do a lot to provide both replayability and balance.

There is a wide range of work being done by fans mostly around providing this kind of army list framework rather than scenario balancing. I think over time we will see a few of these being used more or less widely and then if there is an active gaming group it would be reasonable to agree on one to use. As an example a friend's group all use Swedish Comp. This is not mandated by GW but they find it works for them. My group does not use any comp but we are all pretty casual so it works for us. I would think that something similar will develop in AoS - the rules on army deployment are currently very clear and unambiguous. If you are not happy with them you have the option of scenario play, or you can agree on an army construction methodology that works for your group.

DonkeyMan
15-07-2015, 08:37
@Kurai Chi & Bylak

Thanks guys for the interesting reads.
When the End Times started I was quite opposed towards the End Times and even more opposed towards AoS when the first rumours hit us.
But the more info I gather on AoS, the more positive I get about it. Still not 100% convinced but AoS seems to be a decent base of a game that has good options to be expanded on.

Kherith
15-07-2015, 08:55
I've tried a couple of games so far. One with the starter set and one with my Dark Elves against Tomb Kings.

The game with the starter set was fun but I wasn't fully engaged because I've got no connection to the Sigmarines I was using and was unsure how to use them so taking a lot of advice as I went.

Second game with Dark Elves i really enjoyed I used block infantry and skirmish cavalry plus a couple of characters.

The first part of the game did seem simplistic with ot being pretty much a mad rush for the two battlements to engage.

What struck me though was that my experience of the mid table "mash" was quite positive my battleline hit his and for three turns I was engrossed in the ebb and flow of the line and how best to use the pile in move to turn the tide and plugging holes with my cavalry. I thought it was great!

I don't entirely buy that AOS is not tactical I'm pretty sure my army was equal or maybe stronger than his and he crushed me because he was managing his line better than me, at least that's what I thought after the game.

I'm no tactical genius and got regularly crushed in 6th 7th and 8th but what I've seen so far of AOS is a fun game that does have some tactical depth.

It really grates on me that I can't construct an xxxxpts list and know that the sides are equal or close to equal, but so far it hasn't actually caused an issue for me in playing games.

Spiney Norman
15-07-2015, 11:45
My impression after five games is that the game does have some tactical depth, it's absolutely not just a 'run forward and mash in the middle' fest, but my concern is that everything in the game is so similar at this point that every game feels pretty samey and the tactics you need to win are always the same. Terrain can help somewhat, but given the severely limited variation in stats and the extremely basic core rules and special rule interractions (almost every special rule at this point just grants rerolls of either hit/wound/save or charge). Maybe we will get some variety as the new material emerges, but after less than half a dozen games so far it's all starting to feel a bit samey.

EagleWarrior
15-07-2015, 11:59
Interesting data. I'll admit I haven't got round to trying it yet, but the rules don't look too terrible as long as you don't think of it as Warhammer.

My opinion on the fluff, however, is rather less charitable.

Shandor
15-07-2015, 12:59
My impression after five games is that the game does have some tactical depth, it's absolutely not just a 'run forward and mash in the middle' fest, but my concern is that everything in the game is so similar at this point that every game feels pretty samey and the tactics you need to win are always the same. Terrain can help somewhat, but given the severely limited variation in stats and the extremely basic core rules and special rule interractions (almost every special rule at this point just grants rerolls of either hit/wound/save or charge). Maybe we will get some variety as the new material emerges, but after less than half a dozen games so far it's all starting to feel a bit samey.

That is what i keep saying after i played 10 Games. AoS is great fun for a Testgame and maybe some few more. But as a long term game it falls short. Thats the reson of my reply up there.. "Come back in a month and tell us what you think about AoS."

Wesser
15-07-2015, 13:07
My impression after five games is that the game does have some tactical depth, it's absolutely not just a 'run forward and mash in the middle' fest, but my concern is that everything in the game is so similar at this point that every game feels pretty samey and the tactics you need to win are always the same. Terrain can help somewhat, but given the severely limited variation in stats and the extremely basic core rules and special rule interractions (almost every special rule at this point just grants rerolls of either hit/wound/save or charge). Maybe we will get some variety as the new material emerges, but after less than half a dozen games so far it's all starting to feel a bit samey.

That was one of my thoughts as well. Since it seems like strategy like gunline, avoidance, magic-batteries, character walls etc. for better or worse or worse are out the window it seems it'll always end decided with a brawl in the middle, where victory likely goes to the one who piles in the best with a nod to how the players have managed shooting/magic.

The problem with the limited interaction between profile here is that you are likely to use a chaos warrior, zombie and halberdier in the largely the same manner.


This is the part of AoS I'm not sure I understand.

- Is there any reason to take a Marauder over a Chaos Warrior with no points system?
- I get that special rules, Rend etc. means that models may still mean that some models are still better suited to fighting certain models than others.... so while each model essentially plays the same it's all about managing optimal Pile In?


Is that vaguely correct?

Spiney Norman
15-07-2015, 13:13
That was one of my thoughts as well. Since it seems like strategy like gunline, avoidance, magic-batteries, character walls etc. for better or worse or worse are out the window it seems it'll always end decided with a brawl in the middle, where victory likely goes to the one who piles in the best with a nod to how the players have managed shooting/magic.

The problem with the limited interaction between profile here is that you are likely to use a chaos warrior, zombie and halberdier in the largely the same manner.


This is the part of AoS I'm not sure I understand.

- Is there any reason to take a Marauder over a Chaos Warrior with no points system?
- I get that special rules, Rend etc. means that models may still mean that some models are still better suited to fighting certain models than others.... so while each model essentially plays the same it's all about managing optimal Pile In?


Is that vaguely correct?

My impression so far is that multi-Attack, multi-wound elites are inherently superior, not just because there is no mechanic in the game capable of balancing numbers other than the ridiculous instant death rule, but also because cheap horde units (such as the starter set blood Reavers) suffer in combat because they struggle to get enough models into range to actually affect the combat to balance up against a more elite enemy.

So for example a squad of 20 blood Reavers charges five Stormcast liberators, I get 7-8 of the blood Reavers into range to Attack, but the storm casts fight with twice as many attacks per model and have double the number of wounds, so even though I outnumber them four to one, I can't bring enough Attacks to bear to even equal their output.

Kherith
15-07-2015, 13:35
That was one of my thoughts as well. Since it seems like strategy like gunline, avoidance, magic-batteries, character walls etc. for better or worse or worse are out the window it seems it'll always end decided with a brawl in the middle, where victory likely goes to the one who piles in the best with a nod to how the players have managed shooting/magic.

The problem with the limited interaction between profile here is that you are likely to use a chaos warrior, zombie and halberdier in the largely the same manner.


This is the part of AoS I'm not sure I understand.

- Is there any reason to take a Marauder over a Chaos Warrior with no points system?
- I get that special rules, Rend etc. means that models may still mean that some models are still better suited to fighting certain models than others.... so while each model essentially plays the same it's all about managing optimal Pile In?


Is that vaguely correct?

I'm not sure yet we went with all combat in my two games so far so I could try and get a handle on the game before trying to add in other tactics.

There's certainly advantages to taking black guard or executioners over bleak swords or dread spears, and I was by far the most aggressive with my executioners when piling in and but this was partly due to where they were (attacking a flank with cold ones lurking ready to exploit gaps in the line).

I do think if the models are similar the game at combat level boils down to pile in and combat order, but it might change when using different abilities, adding in shooting magic etc.

I haven't played enough to make a sensible judgement yet but I'm having fun at the moment.

logan054
15-07-2015, 13:53
Is there any reason to take a Marauder over a Chaos Warrior with no points system?

I would imagine the answer is unless you play a scenario that calls for them then no, I don't think it's the kind of game that you can just turn up with a bunch of models and hope for the best. It very seems like to enjoy the game you will have to buy the campaign packs they release and buy the models GW tells you to buy for those campaigns and then write your own scenarios which you will probably be limited to playing with close friends. It seems like the community that sticks with this will all segregate into it's own little bubbles making it less a hobby about actually meeting new people.

Kherith
15-07-2015, 14:16
I would imagine the answer is unless you play a scenario that calls for them then no, I don't think it's the kind of game that you can just turn up with a bunch of models and hope for the best. It very seems like to enjoy the game you will have to buy the campaign packs they release and buy the models GW tells you to buy for those campaigns and then write your own scenarios which you will probably be limited to playing with close friends. It seems like the community that sticks with this will all segregate into it's own little bubbles making it less a hobby about actually meeting new people.

I agree that the scenarios appear to be the best way to play but I don't see a need to use the models they suggest.

If they suggest chaos Lord, 2 units of marauders and chaos knights I'd just sub in a dreadlord, 2 units of corsairs and cold ones to play with my Dark Elves as a one off.

I don't see gaming groups splitting up to play bubble campaigns when there's no need to.

I'm guessing that the campaign book will spawn a lot of modified summer campaigns.

GrandmasterWang
15-07-2015, 14:31
My impression so far is that multi-Attack, multi-wound elites are inherently superior, not just because there is no mechanic in the game capable of balancing numbers other than the ridiculous instant death rule, but also because cheap horde units (such as the starter set blood Reavers) suffer in combat because they struggle to get enough models into range to actually affect the combat to balance up against a more elite enemy.

So for example a squad of 20 blood Reavers charges five Stormcast liberators, I get 7-8 of the blood Reavers into range to Attack, but the storm casts fight with twice as many attacks per model and have double the number of wounds, so even though I outnumber them four to one, I can't bring enough Attacks to bear to even equal their output.

Indeed.

I think it's telling that the box set listd the 20 Reavers vs 3 of the flying Sigmarites as an even battle (a scenario)

Given that Battleshock tests are purely on casualties and not wounds lost the multi would elites have a much larger advantage over general infantry in AOS than they did in 8th WHFB

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Red Skullz
15-07-2015, 14:41
Great read, thanks all for the constructive thoughts. I've only played one game so far but it was very enjoyable. I'll take note of several things here for my next game.

logan054
15-07-2015, 14:49
If they suggest chaos Lord, 2 units of marauders and chaos knights I'd just sub in a dreadlord, 2 units of corsairs and cold ones to play with my Dark Elves as a one off.

Adn you've probably just unbalanced the scenario. Shooting is very good, your list is pumping out a hell of a lot of damage that the enemy list isn't designed to fight against. The cold ones seem very durable in combat with rerolling saves on a 1 or a 2). Why not a sorcerer? I'm sure plenty of people would include one instead of the dreadlord. Then would you swap these models on a one for one basis? equal amount of wounds?

Kherith
15-07-2015, 16:18
Adn you've probably just unbalanced the scenario. Shooting is very good, your list is pumping out a hell of a lot of damage that the enemy list isn't designed to fight against. The cold ones seem very durable in combat with rerolling saves on a 1 or a 2). Why not a sorcerer? I'm sure plenty of people would include one instead of the dreadlord. Then would you swap these models on a one for one basis? equal amount of wounds?

I take your point but I wasn't saying the game would be perfectly balanced it was just a way of cribbing the published rules to use my collection the same as the other player could do with their suggested units.

Also from what I gather some scenarios are designed to be one sided in the first place.

I don't remember scenarios specifying numbers of wounds but I'd try to be sensible about it. I doubt the difference between a chaos knight and a cold one knight is game breaking so I'd go one for one I guess and corsairs are better than marauders so I'd give it a go with 12/15 corsairs instead of 20 marauders.

Dreadlord just seemed a closer like for like replacement for chaos Lord but I guess you could use a sorceress instead to change the dynamic and add in magic.

My point was that the scenarios could form a good starting framework for people to setup their games

roperpg
15-07-2015, 23:39
This is the part of AoS I'm not sure I understand.

- Is there any reason to take a Marauder over a Chaos Warrior with no points system?
- I get that special rules, Rend etc. means that models may still mean that some models are still better suited to fighting certain models than others.... so while each model essentially plays the same it's all about managing optimal Pile In?


Is that vaguely correct?
Almost/sort of.
Using Chaos as the example for 'which unit to pick...?'
Sudden death is based on models, so when you're deploying you want to be looking at what your opponent deploys and ask what's the most bang for buck you will get against it with the least models.
Chosen, for example, have no optimal unit size - they are damage dealers, and buff units around them; they're your best option for ye olde 40mm base types, but they will go down against a swarm unit or a decent big Beastie, especially if they don't attack first.
Chaos Warriors on the other hand get a bonus to save rolls if there are more than 20 of them, have lower damage output than Chosen, but can take Chaos Runeshields. These guys are invaluable against big stuff and elite units that rely on mortal wounds as they can grind them down over a couple of turns, not so hot against stuff that simply chucks out lots of rending attacks; but you took Chosen to hit them, didn't you?

Marauders get better the more there are; the old 'horde' mechanic from WFB morphed into a certain units getting exponentially better. Fully upgraded and numbering 20+, there's a 2 in 3 chance that their attacks are at least as effective as a Chaos Warriors, and although they have a lower save and only 1 wound, they're there to die in droves but sell themselves dearly. They will grind anything down eventually, but their weakspot is shooting and dealing with multiple high damage units like Chosen - they need to be in combat before they are whittled down.

I think people haven't quite got that 'planning' for an AoS game is pretty much making sure you've got everything you *might* need, then deciding if you'll deploy it while you're deploying.

So yeah, you'll always take 5 Chaos Warriors over 5 Marauders. You might think about whether you want 15 Chosen or 15 Chaos Warriors to deal with *that* unit. But if you need to put 40 models down in one go, it'll always be Marauders.

Wesser
16-07-2015, 11:57
So yeah, you'll always take 5 Chaos Warriors over 5 Marauders. You might think about whether you want 15 Chosen or 15 Chaos Warriors to deal with *that* unit. But if you need to put 40 models down in one go, it'll always be Marauders.

Why not 40 Chaos Warriors instead of 40 Marauders?

roperpg
16-07-2015, 12:49
Why not 40 Chaos Warriors instead of 40 Marauders?
This is where the issue of old v new is.
Marauders are a cheap mob unit for Chaos in WFB, which doesn't really translate at the moment - they're a sub-elite unit.
The more models you put down, the greater the chance your opponent can opt for sudden death.
However, while Marauders are less survivable than Chaos Warriors they are faster so will bring numbers to bear more quickly. They only do 1 attack but in large numbers these individual attacks are likely to be at least as effective as a Chaos Warrior's; add in a sorceror/Khorne lord or a warshrine and it only amplifies this effect.
Or taking the Marauders' battle formation.
You need to assess the right tool for the job, and make sure it does it.

In smaller games, there isn't really much to pick between them, but in larger games there are situations where they outperform.

But you do need to bear in mind that the current AoS warscrolls are to shoehorn existing army construction and roles into a system where their old strengths don't necessarily translate.

Whether Marauders are a 'better' choice than warriors boils down to whether you can afford the greater model count, the terrain on the board, what you plan to do with them and what other units you and your opponent have.

Deciding whether to take Chosen or Chaos Warriors, for example, is far more clear cut because they have very different roles.
If you're playing Dwarfs, your opponent will thank you for taking Chosen instead of Chaos Warriors.

But against Ogres, Chosen should be one of the first units you put down.

Bylak
17-07-2015, 04:16
RE: Community list systems

The more I've seen of the Warscrolls the more I'm beginning to think those are what are going to replace army lists and point values. You throw down a Warscroll and if you end up using more models in that scroll than your opponents that's where the Sudden Death rules will come into play. For larger games I guess it would be something like choose two Warscrolls and take those. I'll totally be okay using those as frameworks for pick up games!

I've seen a lot of different variant systems being developed by the community and while I applaud their work these kind of community driven projects don't really appeal to me. I don't want to run into an issue where I prefer one system but my opponent prefers another. Or more to the point why should the community have to come up with rules like this? I really enjoy the list dojo aspect of tabletop gaming so if a consensus does end up coming down where people choose different community based list formats over using Warscrolls I'll probably end up backing out of AoS.

Chicago Slim
19-07-2015, 17:42
Yeah, I'm thinking that my AoS Wood Elves list looks like this:

Orion, King in the Woods
Glade Lord on Forest Dragon
Glade Lord on Forest Dragon
Glade Lord on Forest Dragon
Treeman
Treeman
Treeman
10 Wild Riders
Spellweaver.

That's a tight 18 models (all of which I already own), so I should be getting the option to choose a Sudden Death pretty much every game, right?

explorator
19-07-2015, 18:37
Given that Battleshock tests are purely on casualties and not wounds lost the multi would elites have a much larger advantage over general infantry in AOS than they did in 8th WHFB

Not such an advantage when failing the Battleshock test causes you to lose one model for each point you roll over your Bravery. So a unit of minotaurs failing a Bravery test by 2 would potentially lose '8 wounds' with those two models.

Flipmode
19-07-2015, 19:37
Yeah, I'm thinking that my AoS Wood Elves list looks like this:

Orion, King in the Woods
Glade Lord on Forest Dragon
Glade Lord on Forest Dragon
Glade Lord on Forest Dragon
Treeman
Treeman
Treeman
10 Wild Riders
Spellweaver.

That's a tight 18 models (all of which I already own), so I should be getting the option to choose a Sudden Death pretty much every game, right?

Yes. You'll probably win one game with that.

big squig
19-07-2015, 19:59
Why not 40 Chaos Warriors instead of 40 Marauders?

Because marauders are the participants of this battle and not warriors. You are telling a story of a battle with your miniatures. If warriors aren't characters in this story, they wouldn't be on the table.

Moirdryd
19-07-2015, 20:26
Krasting's Maruaders were all Chaos Warriors and I do believe there were 40 of them....

Sanguinary Guardsmen
19-07-2015, 22:42
IMO the Warscroll compendiums covering the old 8th edition armies are a bust. Do not use them, do not play with them. This is a game purpose built around the box set and scenarios they will be putting out, as well as any new models they release. Eventually they'll get around to other factions as well. Its obvious given how well balanced the Stormcast Eternals and Goretide are against each other. The warscrolls are a toss out to fill the gap, not be the decisive end-all for those armies. There will be more made in the future -- probably about the time they start phasing out the older models.