PDA

View Full Version : My First Age of Sigmar Battle: Wood Elves vs Beastmen



Shifte
16-08-2015, 11:41
Hi all,

My friend and I agreed to play a game of AoS, to give it a proper try. We agreed to use '100 wounds' as a vague balancing concept, since it was proving difficult to work out what was appropriate. We decided to play as close to RAW as we could, to give the game a fair attempt. Please enjoy:

The Armies:

The Defenders of Athel Loren!

Orion, the King in the Woods
Glade Lord on Great Stag
Glade Lord with Spear and Sword
Spellweaver

9 Waywatchers
9 Waywatchers
20 Glade Guard
25 Wildwood Rangers

1 (Sylvaneth :( ) Treelord


The Roving Beast Herd (from what I recall)

1 Gorebull
1 Beast Lord
1 BSB
1 Bray Shaman

3 Minotaurs
2 Chariots

10 Gors
10 Gors
10 Gors
10 Ungors
15 Bestigors

The Report

The game was an absolute shambles.

1) The WE got turn one, moved to maximum range (20") and killed a few Beastmen (7 or so). This, plus two 6 rolls for Battleshock, wiped out a unit of Gors and Ungors. The WW Rangers moved towards the Minotaurs.

2) The Beastmen turn involved all of the Beastmen getting a 3" boost to their movement and being able to charge after running. The Minotaurs were in charge range even without this bonus (they didn't qualify for it or the charge-after-run) and hit into the Wildwood Rangers alongside a chariot. The Gors were a few inches out of range so I was fortunately spared my Waywatchers being charged in Turn 1. The Wildwood Rangers obliterated the Minotaurs in combat and almost killed the chariot, suffering very few casualties in return.

3) The Beastmen won the roll off for second turn, so were able to charge all of my ranged units. "This is a bit meh," thought I, "how is a soft ranged army supposed to handle that?". The Doombull charged the surprisingly motionless Orion, the Beastlord charged my stationary Glade Lord on Great Stag, 10 Gors charged my 16 remaining Glade Guard, the 15 Bestigors and a chariot charged my 9 Waywatchers and Glade Lord and 10 Gors charged my other 9 Waywatchers.

The combat phase was horrible. He attacked with the Doombull, which meant attacking back with Orion may as well have been left til last. We bounced around from combat to combat, using dice to keep track of who hadn't fought yet, and it felt really messy and unintuitive. By the end of this Disco of Disaster the Beastmen were utterly broken after having lost out on what essentially felt like 50-50 roll offs. Most unharmed Beastmen units then lost loads of guys to Battle Shock.

4) My second turn saw the Wood Elves finishing off the wounded. A few archers shot from combat, Orion killed the second chariot, and I had taken very few casualties. My opponent had only his Bray Shaman left and we called it at that.


Review

+ves:

1) Being able to use Orion, the Great Stag and a Glade Lord on foot was quite cool. I never used the King before as he was so awful, despite being cool. It was fun to be able to make use of him.

-ves:

1) I didn't like the fact that my Glade Guard were essentially put into the army because I'd have felt guilty if I didn't include basic troops. They're just worse Waywatchers. Is there a point in taking non-elites in Age of Sigmar?

2) I don't like how ranged combat works. Firstly, shooting from within combat is stupid. It felt wrong to do that. It felt even more wrong to move out of combat with my Great Stag, shoot three times and then get the charge bonus against the Beastlord. My army isWood Elves and when you lock me in combat I should be locked in combat. That's the whole point of fighting against this guerilla army.

3) I don't like how quickly it all descends into a big combat in the middle of the board. 16"-20" range ranged attacks, moving + charging and all sorts of boosts to movement basically mean that the game became a slugfest almost immediately. Despite sitting at maximum range with a LONGBOW I was engaged in melee before I got my second turn. On that note...

4) Being able to take two turns in a row isn't fun for your opponent. In this game I genuinely thought "well that's that then" when I was charged before my second turn. Which brings me to...

5) Why didn't I lose? The Beastmen engaged me, a Wood Elf mostly-archer army, before I had taken my second turn. I may hate the fact that he could do that so easily, but I also find it frustrating that this didn't pulverise me. One bad rule doesn't justify another and I can't help but feel that my Glade Guard and Waywatchers shouldn't be shrugging off charging Gors and Bestigors. It's really unintuitive.

6) Combat. It is just messy. The Doombull attacks Orion first so I leave Orion til last since no one else can hurt him and I want to weaken my opponent's other units first. It really takes me out of the game to watch combats bounce around the battlefield, only to return to the first one -last-.

In Summary

2/10 and not for me.

Mchagen
16-08-2015, 15:33
Seems accurate for an AoS battle. Though I'm not sure how you did this;


It felt even more wrong to move out of combat with my Great Stag, shoot three times and then get the charge bonus against the Beastlord.

When in the rules it states, 'Units starting the movement phase within 3" of an enemy unit can either remain stationary or retreat. If you choose to retreat, the unit must end its move more than 3" away from all enemy units. If a unit retreats, then it can't shoot or charge later that turn.'

Spiney Norman
16-08-2015, 17:21
This sounds pretty familiar, the criticisms of AoS as clunky, unintuitive and dull are all fairly well repeated across the boards and among those I talk to regularly. The whole thing is pretty ill conceived and lazily written.

Malagor
16-08-2015, 17:49
Yep, sounds like the fights I have seen and the ones I have played.

Shifte
16-08-2015, 19:10
Seems accurate for an AoS battle. Though I'm not sure how you did this;



When in the rules it states, 'Units starting the movement phase within 3" of an enemy unit can either remain stationary or retreat. If you choose to retreat, the unit must end its move more than 3" away from all enemy units. If a unit retreats, then it can't shoot or charge later that turn.'

Ahh, that was a mistake on our part. Only came up in the last/second turn though and wouldn't have changed anything.

Bede19025
17-08-2015, 02:52
The unit special rules are the heart of the game really. It takes some time and experience to become familiar with them and that opens up different ways to play. But, whatever, you've all made up your minds. So maybe you'll all stop repeating the same complaints and shove off to talk about 8th Edition/KoW/whatever somewhere else.

Mchagen
17-08-2015, 03:50
The unit special rules are the heart of the game really. It takes some time and experience to become familiar with them and that opens up different ways to play. But, whatever, you've all made up your minds. So maybe you'll all stop repeating the same complaints and shove off to talk about 8th Edition/KoW/whatever somewhere else.

Maybe you'll shove off? You seem to have made up your mind more so than anyone else posting here. But yeah, I'd love to hear these myriad ways to play AoS from unit special rules.

Shifte
17-08-2015, 07:57
The unit special rules are the heart of the game really. It takes some time and experience to become familiar with them and that opens up different ways to play. But, whatever, you've all made up your minds. So maybe you'll all stop repeating the same complaints and shove off to talk about 8th Edition/KoW/whatever somewhere else.

Nope. More experience with unit special rules would not have made this a fun battle. It was atrocious. I've listed several reasons in the OP. The ranged combat rules, the ability to get two turns in a row and how quickly it decends into a big melee are huge issues. This isn't me theorising, either. I played my first game and decided to share my findings. I was vocally against AoS before but that was without having given it a go. So no, I won't shove off from Warseer because my opinion offends you.

Bede19025
17-08-2015, 13:43
Look, likes and dislikes are subjective. My objection is to the implication that having tried the game you've now got "proof" that it's no good. Going into an experiment with a closed mind, looking to confirm your opinion, is hardly a good test of anything.

But let me address the points you raised.

1. How quickly it descends into a big melee.

This is going to be the case with any ancient/medieval wargame where close combat is decisive. The best tactic is to keep your units together, supporting each other, so they can't be surrounded and overwhelmed.

But you know, it was the same with WFB. Every game of WFB I played the infantry stayed together in the middle and ultimately a big scrum would result. The only difference is that in WFB people would keep their mobile units on the flanks to try to get a flank attack.

In WFB the rules artificially boosted the effectiveness of a flank attack. That doesn't exist in AoS, but that doesn't mean using your mobile units to swing around an enemy's flank or rear doesn't have a benefit. That benefit is getting more models into contact.

One other point on this. When the only objective in the game is to kill the enemy, instead of a territorial objective for example, there is no reason for units to spread out.

But it was the same in WFB.

2. The Ranged Combat Rules. --

The Ranged Combat rules unquestionably make shooting more effective. But in WFB it really wasn't effective at all. And the major thing you criticize- being able to retreat from combat, shoot, and charge again, you played wrong. You can't retreat and then shoot or charge (actually, there are some units that have this ability, but as a general rule it's not allowed).

3. The Ability to Get a Double Turn

This can be very powerful, and so you need to plan for that potential in the way you play. I come from a historical wargaming backround where its common to have command and control mechanisms that limit your complete freedom to do everything you want with each unit every turn, so it doesn't bother me.

I happen to like the tension that it creates.

4. Only Elite Units are worth Taking--

That was the case in WFB too. No one would have used rank and file troops if they weren't mandated by the rules. If you want to include rank and file units in WFB, just agree with your opponent on the limits you want.


5. The Order of Combats

You don't like the fact that in AoS the sides alternate in choosing which combat to resolve.

In WFB units that charged attacked first, but the order of which combat was resolved was chosen by the player whose turn it was, right? These just aren't that different.


6. The Beastmen weren't that effective in Combat vs. the Elves

I'm not sure why this should be except bad luck. Since the to hit and to wound rolls are the same regardless of the target, there's no explanation for this other than luck. Are you sure your opponent took advantage of the special rules for each of the units on the Warscrolls?


In sum, if you don't like AoS, that's fine. But don't try to make it out that there's some sort of objective basis for your opinion.

Captain Idaho
17-08-2015, 14:16
Yeah pretty much what I'm seeing whenever people play. It's point and click Warhammer. People try and defend it but if this game is here by next year I'd be surprised. It's just awful.

Bede19025
17-08-2015, 14:24
Yeah pretty much what I'm seeing whenever people play. It's point and click Warhammer. People try and defend it but if this game is here by next year I'd be surprised. It's just awful.

"It's point and click Warhammer".

So dumb........

Shifte
17-08-2015, 14:50
Look, likes and dislikes are subjective. My objection is to the implication that having tried the game you've now got "proof" that it's no good. Going into an experiment with a closed mind, looking to confirm your opinion, is hardly a good test of anything.

I didn't go into it with a closed mind. It just so happened that it was terribly unfun and I identified a lot of problems through play with aligned with my preconceptions. Some of them were new problems that I hadn't thought of (alternating combats, f.ex., and how quickly the game ended).


But let me address the points you raised.

1. How quickly it descends into a big melee.

This is going to be the case with any ancient/medieval wargame where close combat is decisive. The best tactic is to keep your units together, supporting each other, so they can't be surrounded and overwhelmed.

This wasn't the case in 6th, 7th or 8th edition. Wood Elves have never had to worry about infantry being able to charge them from maximum range (which is now 20", rather than 30", and units can now move before charging). It's a most definite change and I flat out disagree with you.


But you know, it was the same with WFB. Every game of WFB I played the infantry stayed together in the middle and ultimately a big scrum would result. The only difference is that in WFB people would keep their mobile units on the flanks to try to get a flank attack.

That isn't the case for me at all. I don't play WFB with huge blocks of infantry trundling towards each other. None of my armies or my games have ever been so boring. If you think that this is an accurate description of how a WE v Beastmen game would go in 6th, 7th or 8th then you have had a very different experience of Warhammer than the one I have had.


In WFB the rules artificially boosted the effectiveness of a flank attack. That doesn't exist in AoS, but that doesn't mean using your mobile units to swing around an enemy's flank or rear doesn't have a benefit. That benefit is getting more models into contact.

One other point on this. When the only objective in the game is to kill the enemy, instead of a territorial objective for example, there is no reason for units to spread out.

But it was the same in WFB.

When I say it 'becomes a big slugfest' I mean that by turn 2 the game is just a series of melee fights across the board. It would appear to have gotten rid of mobility, ranged combat, long ranged weapons and kiting.


2. The Ranged Combat Rules. --

The Ranged Combat rules unquestionably make shooting more effective. But in WFB it really wasn't effective at all.

I complained about how short ranged it they are/how you can be charged when at maximum longbow range/how you can shoot from within close combat. It is not about being "effective" it is about being intuitive. A "longbow" shouldn't be a "shoot once then get charged" weapon. My Glade Guard shouldn't be able to shoot at a Doombull fighting against Orion whilst they are also fighting in melee against a unit of Gors.

But FYI, ranged combat was fine in WFB. My 8e Wood Elves were sick and could wipe the floor with almost every army it came up against. Gunlines could reign supreme in 6e and 7e, too. I'd challenge anyone to ignore an Organ Gun in 8e.


And the major thing you criticize- being able to retreat from combat, shoot, and charge again, you played wrong. You can't retreat and then shoot or charge (actually, there are some units that have this ability, but as a general rule it's not allowed).

Yeah, as pointed out above we did that wrong. It didn't change the game fortunately as it was the only time it came up. I am glad that this isn't correct. It was the second last "mopping up" fight in the last (and 2nd) turn.


3. The Ability to Get a Double Turn

This can be very powerful, and so you need to plan for that potential in the way you play. I come from a historical wargaming backround where its common to have command and control mechanisms that limit your complete freedom to do everything you want with each unit every turn, so it doesn't bother me.

I happen to like the tension that it creates.

It didn't create any tension. My opponent had a 1/2 chance of getting to charge me after I'd only had one turn with my army of archers. It is something that would come up every time I play a Wood Elf army and wasn't interesting. He wasn't particularly enamoured with what we, at the time, thought was a 'free win'. In fact it only served to highlight how silly ranged weapons were and how messed up the game balance is because, despite being charged, my units of Glade Guard and Waywatchers still killed all of the Beastmen in melee range during my following turn.

There is also no way to plan around this, save for buying melee troops to stand over 3" in front of my already pitifully short ranged longbowmen. Something which would 1) miss the point of a Wood Elf army 2) cost more money 3) turn my faction from the most manoeuvrable army in the game to a barely mobile bunker. It isn't what I signed up for when I bought my Wood Elves in May 2014 when they had literally just been released.

A good rule of thumb says that you want to get as many shots off as you can so you move your archers to the maximum range of your weapons and shoot - barring exceptional circumstances or contrary objectives, of course. You do this so that the opponent has to waste as much time as possible getting to you so that you can get as many turns of shooting as possible. In this case that can STILL be as low as one. The fact that being at maximum range doesn't take me out of charge range (given the ability to get two turns in a row, to get easy movement boosts such as the Beastmen special rules which lets them +3", run and charge in a single turn, etc) is a huge and ugly problem.


4. Only Elite Units are worth Taking--

That was the case in WFB too. No one would have used rank and file troops if they weren't mandated by the rules. If you want to include rank and file units in WFB, just agree with your opponent on the limits you want.

Wrong. I used lots of Glade Guard in WFB. They were the core of my army.


5. The Order of Combats

You don't like the fact that in AoS the sides alternate in choosing which combat to resolve.

In WFB units that charged attacked first, but the order of which combat was resolved was chosen by the player whose turn it was, right? These just aren't that different.

No, I don't like that Orion didn't immediately attack back against the Doombull because I am encouraged by the game mechanics to leave him until the end since everyone in range for him to attack (aka the Doombull) had already attacked. You alternate between separate combats because you want to weaken certain units before the other player chooses to attack with them. It is a tactical decision which unit you will choose, but it is unintuitive and messy.


6. The Beastmen weren't that effective in Combat vs. the Elves

I'm not sure why this should be except bad luck. Since the to hit and to wound rolls are the same regardless of the target, there's no explanation for this other than luck. Are you sure your opponent took advantage of the special rules for each of the units on the Warscrolls?

Yes, but because my 18 Waywatchers and 20 Glade Guard could shoot as well as strike in melee they were at a supreme level of advantage. Moreover, the numbers involved in the rolls are all very similar (3+/4+) with only the Glade Guard being particularly bad at melee. For example, my Waywatchers have 5+ armour saves and dual wield. They are also kick ass archers. They are so much better than Glade Guard that there is almost no reason to take the latter. They are good enough in melee that they took out the Bestigors and Gors respectively. The 16 Archers attacked before the charging Gors, too, and killed enough to survive and finish them off with arrowfire.


In sum, if you don't like AoS, that's fine. But don't try to make it out that there's some sort of objective basis for your opinion.

? I'm literally talking about -my- experience playing a game with -my- army. It is a subjective review and nothing suggests otherwise. I even included "2/10 not for me", which whilst a light hearted summary highlights the fact that it is a personal review. I also re-iterated the fact that it was my opinion in the post above in which you responded to. You're the one trying to turn this into an objective analysis which ignores the context of my battle and my faction. Hell, half of your points seem to ignore the fact that I am a Wood Elf* player, what actually happened in my game and that my army is literally supposed to play as a guerilla force of mostly archers.

*Which, by the way, was released in May 2014. It was only a year old when Age of Sigmar hit, so don't give me any nonsense about 'old wood elves'. I spent several hundred pounds on that army so I am well within my rights to expect the game to accommodate me.

Captain Idaho
17-08-2015, 15:30
"It's point and click Warhammer".

So dumb........


Me?

Point and click is an analogy with video games for a particularly thoughtless and simple experience.

Bede19025
17-08-2015, 15:36
This wasn't the case in 6th, 7th or 8th edition. Wood Elves have never had to worry about infantry being able to charge them from maximum range (which is now 20", rather than 30", and units can now move before charging). It's a most definite change and I flat out disagree with you.

Ranges is shorter, but you also get to keep firing even when the enemy is in your face. The shooting is just as effective, it's just that you get only one shot before you can get hit back.

Sounds more like sour grapes about how your army now works.





That isn't the case for me at all. I don't play WFB with huge blocks of infantry trundling towards each other. None of my armies or my games have ever been so boring. If you think that this is an accurate description of how a WE v Beastmen game would go in 6th, 7th or 8th then you have had a very different experience of Warhammer than the one I have had.


Wood Elves aren't the typical WFB army.



When I say it 'becomes a big slugfest' I mean that by turn 2 the game is just a series of melee fights across the board. It would appear to have gotten rid of mobility, ranged combat, long ranged weapons and kiting.

Funny, I never associated WFB with "mobility". Most armies moved in ranked units that were very restricted in their movement.

Yes, the ranges aren't as long, but in compensation shooting units get to shoot more.

Did it occur to you that if you have two units, one behind the other, the unit that is charged can retreat from combat, through the rear unit, allowing the retreating unit a respite to shoot next turn? Sounds like you just sat there and fought instead of trying to play the game you wanted to play with the WE.




I complained about how short ranged it they are/how you can be charged when at maximum longbow range/how you can shoot from within close combat. It is not about being "effective" it is about being intuitive. A "longbow" shouldn't be a "shoot once then get charged" weapon. My Glade Guard shouldn't be able to shoot at a Doombull fighting against Orion whilst they are also fighting in melee against a unit of Gors.

Why not? Have you ever seen Lord of the Rings. Legolas uses his bow in close combat. The WE are expert bowmen. This is a fantasy game, not a recreation of Crecy or Agincourt.




But FYI, ranged combat was fine in WFB. My 8e Wood Elves were sick and could wipe the floor with almost every army it came up against. Gunlines could reign supreme in 6e and 7e, too. I'd challenge anyone to ignore an Organ Gun in 8e.

Didn't you win this game? With a shooty army?




It didn't create any tension. My opponent had a 1/2 chance of getting to charge me after I'd only had one turn with my army of archers. It is something that would come up every time I play a Wood Elf army and wasn't interesting. He wasn't particularly enamoured with what we, at the time, thought was a 'free win'. In fact it only served to highlight how silly ranged weapons were and how messed up the game balance is because, despite being charged, my units of Glade Guard and Waywatchers still killed all of the Beastmen in melee range during my following turn.



I can't figure out whether you're complaining shooting is too strong or it's not strong enough.



There is also no way to plan around this, save for buying melee troops to stand over 3" in front of my already pitifully short ranged longbowmen.


Or just have one unit of bowmen 4" behind the other. Why do you need to buy more infantry?




. It isn't what I signed up for when I bought my Wood Elves in May 2014 when they had literally just been released.

What does that have to do with whether AoS is "awful"?




The fact that being at maximum range doesn't take me out of charge range (given the ability to get two turns in a row, to get easy movement boosts such as the Beastmen special rules which lets them +3", run and charge in a single turn, etc) is a huge and ugly problem.

It's a "huge and ugly problem" because the WE v. Beastmen match-up doesn't allow you to get two shots against the Beastmen as they're coming in. A few sentences before you said shooting was OP. Seriously, you're really arguing it's no good because things don't work out exactly how you want them to.

Has it occurred to you it to try a different match up?








No, I don't like that Orion didn't immediately attack back against the Doombull because I am encouraged by the game mechanics to leave him until the end. You alternate between separate combats because you want to weaken certain units before the other player chooses to attack with them. It is a tactical decision which unit you will choose, but it is unintuitive and messy.



It's a tactical decision, as you point out. As for unintuitive and messy, um, ok.




Yes, but because my 18 Waywatchers and 25 Glade Guard could shoot as well as strike in melee they were at a supreme level of advantage.


I'm not sure how you were playing combat, but it's been my experience that its pretty hard to get all those models into range in combat. You've only got a 1" range with the Waywatcher's knives. If you surround a Minotaur completely you can get a maxium of 8 attacks I think.

But you're right about the shooting. But I thought you were complaining that because shooting range is smaller shooty armies took a hit?



Moreover, the numbers involved in the rolls are all very similar (3+/4+) with only the Glade Guard being particularly bad at melee.

Exactly the same as in WFB. To hit was based on BS - 7. To wound was based on S v. T., but most numbers were 4+




For example, my Waywatchers have 5+ armour saves and dual wield. They are also kick ass archers. They are so much better than Glade Guard that there is almost no reason to take the latter.



So why didn't you take GG in WFB? The answer is points and army restrictions. Yes, AoS doesn't have these. You have to reach a consensus with your opponent on things like that.





I spent several hundred pounds on that army so I am well within my rights to expect the game to accommodate my army.

I think the bottom line is you're pissed off because you think your army doesn't play the same way it did under WFB. I'm not sure that's the case and you might want to consider trying it again to see if there is a way to do things differently. Also try a different match up.

I still think you can achieve the same play style in AoS, but if you want to have a tantrum because the new rules don't play exactly like the old ones do, so be it. Just go back to playing WFB and you'll be happy.

Captain Idaho
17-08-2015, 15:52
You're so wrong I can't even be bothered to rip apart your post. Fantasy was mostly 4+ anyway? What game did you play? No maneuvering or mobility? You can't have had much of a grasp of strategy and tactical play in the game then. Hopefully someone else will, or else just ignore it.

Shifte
17-08-2015, 15:52
Yeah, he's asking questions that I've already answered or raising points that I pre-emptively addressed. It's good to know that there is no middle ground between Legolas and Agincourt, though. :D

Bede19025
17-08-2015, 16:02
You're so wrong I can't even be bothered to rip apart your post. Fantasy was mostly 4+ anyway? What game did you play? No maneuvering or mobility? You can't have had much of a grasp of strategy and tactical play in the game then. Hopefully someone else will, or else just ignore it.

Yea, those blocks of Chaos Warriors and Empire Halberdiers wheeled around like tops! And, I mean, they moved a whole 5" a turn.

The average characteristic for a man in WFB was 3. 90% of units --other than heros- had stats that were either 3 or 4. 3 vs. 3 or 4. vs. 4 needs a 4+ roll to succeed. The vast majority of rolls needed either a 3+ or 4+ to succeed.

But you geniuses keep on believing in whatever fantasy you'd like to believe in.

Bede19025
17-08-2015, 16:04
Yeah, he's asking questions that I've already answered or raising points that I pre-emptively addressed. It's good to know that there is no middle ground between Legolas and Agincourt, though. :D

Yes, you've figured it all out and that's the last word. Or will you treat everyone to your AoS critique ad nauseum?

Shifte
17-08-2015, 16:08
Yes, you've figured it all out and that's the last word. Or will you treat everyone to your AoS critique ad nauseum?

I beg your pardon? You're the one who started off this illuminating exchange with "shove off"! Lol.

Bede19025
17-08-2015, 16:34
I beg your pardon? You're the one who started off this illuminating exchange with "shove off"! Lol.

The "shove off" was about the hangers on who just chime in with "me too".

I have tried to address your points and offer some suggestions as to how you might enjoy AoS. Just answer two questions:

1. Is your contention that shooting is too powerful in AoS or not powerful enough?

2. During your game did you attempt to keep your WE units out of combat by deploying them one behind the other and then retreating out of combat through the unit in the rear?

Shifte
17-08-2015, 16:52
1) Neither.

I don't like how short range everything is and how easily you can be charged in a single turn whilst at maximum range with a longbow. That actually happened to me in this game, remember. Because of the Beastmen movement rules in particular he came within 1" of charging me in turn one, too, never mind him going first in the second turn. If he had rolled slightly better (average) he would've made contact in Turn 1 with at least a few units.

Whether or not it is powerful or weak is besides the point to me. It's the immersion breaking nature of it all that puts me off. Similarly, I don't care if being able to shoot from melee "makes this okay" or "makes ranged troops better" because I don't want to be able to shoot whilst in melee. Doubly so against units that I am not even in combat with in the first place. I actually think ranged troops are overpowered in Age of Sigmar, but that's just further bad design in my opinion and doesn't absolve either problem.

2) No, I wanted to shoot with every unit on turn 1. I moved all of my units 5" forwards (to get every model to 20/19" away and within longbow range) in order to shoot. If I had positioned them behind one another then they would not have been in range. I was then almost charged in turn 1 due to Beastmen being able to move +3 inches, run and charge with their special rules. I was then charged in Turn 2 because the Beastmen went first that turn anyway, which could basically happen with every army.

Captain Idaho
17-08-2015, 17:04
Yea, those blocks of Chaos Warriors and Empire Halberdiers wheeled around like tops! And, I mean, they moved a whole 5" a turn.

The average characteristic for a man in WFB was 3. 90% of units --other than heros- had stats that were either 3 or 4. 3 vs. 3 or 4. vs. 4 needs a 4+ roll to succeed. The vast majority of rolls needed either a 3+ or 4+ to succeed.

But you geniuses keep on believing in whatever fantasy you'd like to believe in.


Models marched double their movement, there were spells that effected movement, many models marched 12" or more, there were fliers and with facings and ranked combat, movement meant a lot.

And models often had differing strength values!

What experience did you have that missed Fantasy wholesale.

Gorthor21
17-08-2015, 17:20
though i support AOS as a positive change for the company to make, i have to say that the OP is entitled to post his opinions of his experience with the game. he gave it a fair chance despite reluctance and that must be taken into account.
i agree that the shooting really does need to be clarified in AoS and it really affects armies like the wood elves who rely on the misdirection to help them win. he makes valid points to defend his argument and you cant sway an opinion by simply asking the same questions over in an attempt to get a different answer from him.
at the end of thr day this game is still in its infancy and clearly hasn't taken into account all the issues that arise from shifting from a game of blocks to a game of loose squads.
on an aside i think the beastmen rules allowing them faster movement were an inward design that looked at other factions and decided they needed something to get them into combat alot quicker.
i played wood elves for many months before i stopped playing 8th and i have to say they were a potent ranged force whipping the floor with enemies that couldn't put shoot them or get up in their face to stop the shooting. the shooting mechanics in AoS need to be reworked for sure with one simple line forbidding shooting while in combat.

Bede19025
17-08-2015, 18:03
1) Neither.

I don't like how short range everything is and how easily you can be charged in a single turn whilst at maximum range with a longbow.

Longbow range is 20". Most infantry move 5" and most cavalry 10". AFAIK, only Beastmen can move, run and, charge, so they're the only infantry that can make contact from 20" on turn one. Cavalry could do it, but they'd need to roll a 10 or more on 2D6 to make it.

So, your statement that it's "easy" for a unit to contact a unit armed with a Longbow in one turn really isn't correct.



As for the immersion, I'd only point out that in WFB longbows shot 30", right? Here they shoot 20" Either distance is absurdly short considering the scale of the models. But yes, if it's a deal breaker that units can shoot into/out of combat then there's nothing to do for it.

I'm just pointing out that the EFFECT of the greater range in WFB may be equal to the effect of allowing more shooting in AoS. If anything, I think the greater opportunities to shoot make shooting armies more powerful, despite the shorter range, which you'd think would make WE players happier.

I wonder how the game would play if shooting into/out of combat wasn't allowed? Maybe you should try it.

Shifte
17-08-2015, 18:12
Longbow range is 20". Most infantry move 5" and most cavalry 10". AFAIK, only Beastmen can move, run and, charge, so they're the only infantry that can make contact from 20" on turn one. Cavalry could do it, but they'd need to roll a 10 or more on 2D6 to make it.

So, your statement that it's "easy" for a unit to contact a unit armed with a Longbow in one turn really isn't correct.

I mentioned that myself re: Beastmen rules, but as I pointed out the fact that you can get two turns in a row still means that half of the time other armies can make contact after I've only had one turn. Empire Halberdier has a 5" move + d6 run = 8.5 on average. Next turn they move 5" and charge 2d6 (average = 12 total). That's 20.5" movement on average and I will be about 19" away with my front-most models. Even if they roll under average on their charge they are still likely to be within half an inch, easily.


As for the immersion, I'd only point out that in WFB longbows shot 30", right? Here they shoot 20" Either distance is absurdly short considering the scale of the models. But yes, if it's a deal breaker that units can shoot into/out of combat then there's nothing to do for it.

I'm just pointing out that the EFFECT of the greater range in WFB may be equal to the effect of allowing more shooting in AoS. If anything, I think the greater opportunities to shoot make shooting armies more powerful, despite the shorter range, which you'd think would make WE players happier.

I wonder how the game would play if shooting into/out of combat wasn't allowed? Maybe you should try it.

It would look a lot better if you couldn't shoot from combat. That would require longer ranged shots however. 30" is a lot longer than 20" and it covers a decent bit of a 6x4 table. Plus maximum charge range in WHFB has never been 30". Chaos Warriors average 11, Ogres 13, Flyers 17. I've played enough games with my Wood Elves to have a good understanding of how to make use of distance. AOS has more or less removed that unfortunately for the reasons put forward in the first part of this post.

You might be right that this net effect means I get a similar amount of shots. I guess that just isn't important to me if it comes at the expense of being charged immediately and shooting from combat.

Bede19025
17-08-2015, 18:15
Models marched double their movement, there were spells that effected movement, many models marched 12" or more, there were fliers and with facings and ranked combat, movement meant a lot.

Right. So a block of Empire Infantry could march 10"-straight ahead. If they actually wanted to change direction they had to wheel, which mean they ended up moving only 5" forward anyway. I have a Dwarf army and it was worse for them. In essence, once you deployed, you could forget about making any significant change. That's not what I call maneuverable.

Movement meant a lot in WFB. Why? Because flank/rear attacks were so devastating. I movement is still important in AoS to try to get more models into combat.






And models often had differing strength values!


Come on, you're being purposefully obtuse. I know they had different stats. But are you really going to dispute that the overwhelming majority of models in WFB had either an S 3 or 4 and a T 3 or 4? And that means to hit most of the time required a 3+ or 4+ and to wound was the same. That's pretty much how it is in AoS.

Yes, in AoS your lowly Goblin can hit and wound the big bad hero with a 4+ instead of a 5+, but that just makes heros less powerful. I have no problem with that.

Bede19025
17-08-2015, 18:22
You might be right that this net effect means I get a similar amount of shots. I guess that just isn't important to me if it comes at the expense of being charged immediately and shooting from combat.

I'll confess that I don't understand your objection to being contacted earlier if at the end of the day the effect is the same as if you were contacted a turn later.

Fortunately you can still use your army to play WFB and if everyone is right about how unpopular AoS is you shouldn't lack for opponents who are in the same boat as you.

Bede19025
17-08-2015, 18:27
i agree that the shooting really does need to be clarified in AoS

I don't think anyone's claiming the rules aren't clear. They just don't like what they say.


and it really affects armies like the wood elves who rely on the misdirection to help them win.

You do realize that the WE player wiped the floor with the Beastmen in his game, right? His beef is that he doesn't like the way it looks for units to fire into/out of combat, even if that makes up for the reduced ranges of missile weapons.

Shifte
17-08-2015, 18:34
I'll confess that I don't understand your objection to being contacted earlier if at the end of the day the effect is the same as if you were contacted a turn later.

Fortunately you can still use your army to play WFB and if everyone is right about how unpopular AoS is you shouldn't lack for opponents who are in the same boat as you.

It's not how I imagine a battle being fought or how my army fights, basically. It's not even close. It takes me from being able to 'forge a narrative' to not being able to.

For example, I think you look at shooting from combat and think: "That's an interesting mechanic that means ranged troops can still be of use when they're locked in melee."

I on the other hand look at it and think: "That makes no sense. I don't want to be able to shoot in melee. My guys can't do that in the story and now I don't have a cinematic picture for what is going on on the battlefield."

Received wisdom says that AOS is better for narrative play than WFB was. I personally don't agree. YMMV but I really did give it an honest try. If you look at my post history you will see that before AOS rules were leaked I was one of the happy people saying the End Times were great and that I couldn't wait until AOS/9th.

It's the way it goes. I'm trying KoW this Saturday but I have some misgivings about that system too, so there is a chance I'll just not play fantasy wargames anymore. Which sucks, because I've done so for more than half of my life.

Captain Idaho
17-08-2015, 18:34
Right. So a block of Empire Infantry could march 10"-straight ahead. If they actually wanted to change direction they had to wheel, which mean they ended up moving only 5" forward anyway. I have a Dwarf army and it was worse for them. In essence, once you deployed, you could forget about making any significant change. That's not what I call maneuverable.

Movement meant a lot in WFB. Why? Because flank/rear attacks were so devastating. I movement is still important in AoS to try to get more models into combat.






Come on, you're being purposefully obtuse. I know they had different stats. But are you really going to dispute that the overwhelming majority of models in WFB had either an S 3 or 4 and a T 3 or 4? And that means to hit most of the time required a 3+ or 4+ and to wound was the same. That's pretty much how it is in AoS.

Yes, in AoS your lowly Goblin can hit and wound the big bad hero with a 4+ instead of a 5+, but that just makes heros less powerful. I have no problem with that.

No I'm not being obtuse. You seem to forget that most fighting units also had WEAPONS. Chaos Warriors had either Halberds or Great weapons. Swordmasters have Great weapons and 2 attacks at WS6. Cavalry have lances. Characters had magic weapons. Dragons, monsters and what have you. Spearmen have S3 vs T4 (that's a 5+) and the Chaos Warriors have S5 halberds against T3 (that's a 2+). This is a normal occurrence of variance throughout the game. Magic can change it too! Etc etc

If you're a dwarf player you might not have noticed, or perhaps you're just not a very good player, but movement changes the game. If you think models just stay in deployment formation and no one ever got flank and rear charges, or bait and feinted, or chaff blocked, then I'd say you are vastly inexperienced.

Bede19025
17-08-2015, 18:57
For example, I think you look at shooting from combat and think: "That's an interesting mechanic that means ranged troops can still be of use when they're locked in melee."

No, not really. I mean, ranged troops could always fight in combat so they were always of use. But now they're really of use because they can shoot every turn, not just the turns they're not in combat.

Also, keep in mind that in AoS line of sight is very liberal. As a practical matter, it's impossible to shield a unit from shooting unless its hidden behind a house or a hill.

So there is almost nothing you can do to keep your units from getting shot at beyond staying out of range of the shooter.


I on the other hand look at it and think: "That makes no sense. I don't want to be able to shoot in melee. My guys can't do that in the story and now I don't have a cinematic picture for what is going on on the battlefield."

It was jarring to me at first, but I've gotten used to it. Really, I think you can rationalize most things in a game and frankly we do it all the time.

For instance, in WFB it's always bothered me that a unit of 20 infantry in four ranks of five would charge a single model (character) and only the 3 models touching the character would fight. What the hell were the other 17 guys doing, taking a smoke break? Yes, i know the effect was made up for with rank bonus, outnumbering bonus, etc., but it still looks goofy.

See, I actually think AoS looks and makes more sense in that respect.




Received wisdom says that AOS is better for narrative play than WFB was. I personally don't agree. YMMV but I really did give it an honest try. If you look at my post history you will see that before AOS rules were leaked I was one of the happy people saying the End Times were great and that I couldn't wait until AOS/9th.

I agree, I don't know why one is "better" for narrative games. The only thing I can figure is that in AoS since you can take whatever you want without point constraint you can include more named heros, elite units, etc. that might forge your narrative.




It's the way it goes. I'm trying KoW this Saturday but I have some misgivings about that system too, so there is a chance I'll just not play fantasy wargames anymore. Which sucks, because I've done so for more than half of my life.

I've played KOW. It's a very tight, well written game. Unfortunately, I don't think it will scratch the itch many WFB players feel. It doesn't allow much customization of units and to me just felt "sterile" and lifeless. Admittedly subjective feelings. I hope you enjoy it though.

Spiney Norman
18-08-2015, 10:53
I'll only address the points here that I disagree with



2. The Ranged Combat Rules. --

The Ranged Combat rules unquestionably make shooting more effective. But in WFB it really wasn't effective at all. And the major thing you criticize- being able to retreat from combat, shoot, and charge again, you played wrong. You can't retreat and then shoot or charge (actually, there are some units that have this ability, but as a general rule it's not allowed).

This is bad design and frankly completely unintuitive, it goes without saying that you should not be able to reload and fire a gun/crossbow/war machine whilst simultaneously fighting tooth and nail in hand to hand combat, even with a weapon as relatively simple to reload as a regular bow this would be impossible without Legolas-style ninja skills.


5. The Order of Combats

You don't like the fact that in AoS the sides alternate in choosing which combat to resolve.

In WFB units that charged attacked first, but the order of which combat was resolved was chosen by the player whose turn it was, right? These just aren't that different.

I'm fairly sure wfb hasn't worked that way for a while, striking first on the charge went out with 6th or 7th edition as I recall. The problem with AoS is that the way resolving combat works is messy, confusing and unintuitive. It would be much more sensible to resolve combats completely before moving on to the next, but if for example there are three different combats taking place, the rules actually disincentivise me from finishing one combat before going to the next. You attack me in combat one then I have the choice of which unit to attack with next, picking my unit from combat 1 would be effectively a waste of my pick because that unit cannot take any more casualties because the unit is has fighting has already struck, the rules actually encourage me to begin a completely different combat (where my forces are still untouched) and come back to combat 1 at the end.

The result is that half way through the combat phase you can find yourself with five or six on going combats where one side has fought in each but the other side has yet to strike back. Keeping track of which unit has already fought is a complete nightmare in these situations.



6. The Beastmen weren't that effective in Combat vs. the Elves

I'm not sure why this should be except bad luck. Since the to hit and to wound rolls are the same regardless of the target, there's no explanation for this other than luck. Are you sure your opponent took advantage of the special rules for each of the units on the Warscrolls?


Are you actually falling into the trap of believing that every unit in the game is equally effective in all areas as every other unit in the game? That's totally bonkers, of course some units are going to be better at combat or shooting or magic than others, that's why different units have different rules, to make them DIFFERENT and vary the game.

This is the major failing of AoS, it doesn't take into account that some units are better than others and makes no attempt to balance the game anyway.

Bede19025
18-08-2015, 21:04
I'll only address the points here that I disagree with



This is bad design and frankly completely unintuitive, it goes without saying that you should not be able to reload and fire a gun/crossbow/war machine whilst simultaneously fighting tooth and nail in hand to hand combat, even with a weapon as relatively simple to reload as a regular bow this would be impossible without Legolas-style ninja skills.

You may not like it, but I don't see why that alone qualifies it as bad design. You could argue that it's good design. It makes shooting more effective-and thus missile troops more effective- without having to have longer ranges and without superimposing additional rules to make them more effective.

As for your comment that "it goes without saying" that missile troops shouldn't be able to shoot while in close proximity to the enemy, I'd suggest that there are other aspects of reality that games ignore for the sake of ease of play or just to make a game that's more fun. This is one that you just don't happen to like.

It's a game of fantastic combat, not a simulation of ancient or medieval warfare. I think it's pretty funny that you consider this a major problem with all the other wacky stuff that goes on on a fantasy battlefield.

But here's a question that would be interesting to discuss. Why do you think they did it the way it is? Is it the reasons I suggested? Do you have other ideas?




The problem with AoS is that the way resolving combat works is messy, confusing and unintuitive.

I'll grant you it's unintuitive. But in return the game forces the players to make an interesting tactical decision, that doesn't require additional special rules or unit stats

We haven't had any trouble keeping track of things. It's ironic that you're arguing that AoS is, in effect, too complicated when you consider what came before it.


It would be much more sensible to resolve combats completely before moving on to the next, but if for example there are three different combats taking place, the rules actually disincentivise me from finishing one combat before going to the next.

Why is it important to incentivize (sp) the player to fight both sides of the combat at the same time? Is there something particularly merit worthy in doing it that way? And, by the way, you're only talking about a 1 v 1 combat. There are many times when a unit can attack more than one enemy unit and so the enemy may want to carry on with that fight.

In any case, there simply isn't anything superior about fighting both sides of the combat before moving onto the next.


The result is that half way through the combat phase you can find yourself with five or six on going combats where one side has fought in each but the other side has yet to strike back. Keeping track of which unit has already fought is a complete nightmare in these situations.

We really haven't had any problem keeping track of who's fought. Are you fighting particularly big battles?








Are you actually falling into the trap of believing that every unit in the game is equally effective in all areas as every other unit in the game? That's totally bonkers, of course some units are going to be better at combat or shooting or magic than others, that's why different units have different rules, to make them DIFFERENT and vary the game.

No. My point to the OP was that a unit's ability to hit and wound the enemy is independent of the enemy its fighting. (The target's save value can effect things). So there is no reason a Beastman army should hit and wound a High Elf army any differenlty than any other army.


This is the major failing of AoS, it doesn't take into account that some units are better than others and makes no attempt to balance the game anyway.

If you mean AoS' major failing is that it doesn't have a points system, well that's been discussed to death. I don't happen to agree, but there's no need to rehash all that.

Spiney Norman
18-08-2015, 21:45
You may not like it, but I don't see why that alone qualifies it as bad design. You could argue that it's good design. It makes shooting more effective-and thus missile troops more effective- without having to have longer ranges and without superimposing additional rules to make them more effective.

So whilst praising AoS for being a narrative game you simultaneously excuse the mechanics that run counter to narrative realism? That seems a little inconsistent.


But here's a question that would be interesting to discuss. Why do you think they did it the way it is? Is it the reasons I suggested? Do you have other ideas?
I'd assume because it is more simplistic and takes up less space in their ultra-slimmed down rules



We haven't had any trouble keeping track of things. It's ironic that you're arguing that AoS is, in effect, too complicated when you consider what came before it.

Why is it important to incentivize (sp) the player to fight both sides of the combat at the same time? Is there something particularly merit worthy in doing it that way? And, by the way, you're only talking about a 1 v 1 combat. There are many times when a unit can attack more than one enemy unit and so the enemy may want to carry on with that fight.

In any case, there simply isn't anything superior about fighting both sides of the combat before moving onto the next.

The could simply do it by player A picks a fight and resolves his units attacks, player B resolves his units attacks (repeat until all units have attacked), then player B picks a different combat, resolves his units attacks etc. I just makes things easier to keep track of when you have half a dozen separate combats in progress.



We really haven't had any problem keeping track of who's fought. Are you fighting particularly big battles?

I don't know what you class as a 'big battle' by AoS standard, we are using round about the same amount of models you would find in a 2K wfb army, although that usually translates into more units because in AoS units tend to be 10-20 models in size rather than 50.



No. My point to the OP was that a unit's ability to hit and wound the enemy is independent of the enemy its fighting. (The target's save value can effect things). So there is no reason a Beastman army should hit and wound a High Elf army any differenlty than any other army.

I maybe misread the OP, I'm pretty sure he said the beastmen army was doing less damage in combat than the wood elf army it was facing, not doing less damage vs the wood elves than it had done to a different army in a previous game. Obviously saves make a huge difference and wood elves have a magic banner which gives every model within range an additional 5+ save (which can be taken against normal AND mortal wounds), so maybe that was the problem.

Bede19025
18-08-2015, 22:04
I didn't praise AoS for being especially suited for narrative games.

But if it is that has nothing to do with the versimilitude of the rules. It's because you're not tied to a force org chart and so can take whaever you want which presumably allows you to tailor your forces to your story.

you could do that in WFB too though. No one made you follow their army building rules

Vulgarsty
29-08-2015, 23:03
Bede - i have to take issue with defending some clear failings of the game with "its a fantasy game...." Yes we all know its an abstraction not a simulation, but it does aide us in suspending our disbelief if some of the obvious combat mechanics dont jar. 2 things in particular caught my attention. Shooting out of combat whilst in h2h - utterly absurd. I am genuinely surprised at anyone sticking their head above the parapet to defend that abomination. The other was your attempt to deflect this back on 8th by criticising the whole regiment not landing all its blows on a single enemy - equally applicable in aos and reality, i would say.

so yes it is a fantasy game not a simulator but we do our best which is why we dont arm everyone with rubber chickens and actually push little men about rather than bottle tops, but so much of aos design is not "doing its best". It is lightweight, lazily integrated bilge that will be dead within a year so i really wouldnt waste much effort sticking stuff on round bases if you want any longer term use out of your minis. Otherwise you will look like the amiga playing, mini disk hunting, betamax owning guy in years to come. This format war is already lost.