PDA

View Full Version : AOS Tactica



DeathlessDraich
17-08-2015, 17:28
Hi:)

Some Warseerites have read my previous Tacticas - Warhammer Tactica 7 and Warhammer Tactica 8. Quite a large number (1000 or so online downloads) downloaded my Tactica for 7th ed (about 300 pages) which was free.
About a dozen or so, Warseerites, amongst other purchasers, paid a nominal sum of £2 for the Tactica for 8th ed .
Most were very pleased. Some old version Kindle purchasers weren't happy with the format - quite rightly so unfortunately

The Tactica for AOS is released here in the hope of donations for a cancer charity.

I have also completed a Rules recommendations and a Points system which appear in Rules and General Forums respectively.

Please have a look as I am doing this for a cancer charity.
If you find any of these attachments to be useful and would like to contribute, the link to the cancer charity is shown below.

http://www.netpatientfoundation.org/

Moderators - Please consult with Wintermute if you have any doubts

Points system moved to GW Rules Development
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?412843-Maths-derived-Points-System&p=7522055#post7522055

Thanks:)
DD

BackseatGeneral
20-08-2015, 14:18
Interesting read, but I think you are misinterpreting the combat rules. In several places you talk about arranging a unit such that the models you don't want in combat are 3" away from the enemy unit(see your Diagram #3). However that doesn't actually take them out of combat. The 3" check is for the unit, not individual models. To use your Diagram #3 again, when the unit "E" activates in the combat phase, the models E2 and E3 will each get a 3" pile in toward the closest models. Then they can attack any unit with models within their weapon reach. So in that diagram, all you are really doing is depriving yourself of the attacks of B1 and B2 since E2 and E3 will still get to attack the unit in response.

While absolutely correct in the idea that you want to maximize the attacks you get while minimizing the attacks coming back at you, you have to account for the enemy's ability to pile in on their activation. The way to do that is to manage your formation to control how their models must pile in, since they have to move toward the closest enemy model. Controlling the 3" check seems most useful in multi-unit fights where you can remove casualties in such a way as to remove an un-activated enemy unit from the combat before it can activate or to remove your own unit from combat in preparation for moving/charging in it's next turn.

Spiney Norman
20-08-2015, 18:03
I'm not convinced that we're approaching AoS tactics from the right direction, in the games I've watched or been involved in the tactics that have the most impact on the game are those used during deployment.

The order in which you deploy units, how early you reveal your hand to your opponent, misdirectional deployments and who chooses to stop deploying first are all crucial to stacking the balance of the game in your favour.

DeathlessDraich
20-08-2015, 20:47
Interesting read, but I think you are misinterpreting the combat rules. In several places you talk about arranging a unit such that the models you don't want in combat are 3" away from the enemy unit(see your Diagram #3). However that doesn't actually take them out of combat. The 3" check is for the unit, not individual models. To use your Diagram #3 again, when the unit "E" activates in the combat phase, the models E2 and E3 will each get a 3" pile in toward the closest models. Then they can attack any unit with models within their weapon reach. So in that diagram, all you are really doing is depriving yourself of the attacks of B1 and B2 since E2 and E3 will still get to attack the unit in response..

Yes thank you. :)You are right of course. Uploaded a corrected version.

Here's something you can help me with
How does your group interpret the effective model size problem - this is important e.g. for Piling-in as, using Diag 3, E2 and E3 both lose about 1" of their 3" Piling In distance because of obstructing models
But
That is according to my interpretation of assigning a 1" diameter for 'effective' model size.




While absolutely correct in the idea that you want to maximize the attacks you get while minimizing the attacks coming back at you, you have to account for the enemy's ability to pile in on their activation. The way to do that is to manage your formation to control how their models must pile in, since they have to move toward the closest enemy model. Controlling the 3" check seems most useful in multi-unit fights where you can remove casualties in such a way as to remove an un-activated enemy unit from the combat before it can activate or to remove your own unit from combat in preparation for moving/charging in it's next turn.

Yes as I mentioned under the sections on Removing Models and Piling_in Tactically and Disengaging from Combat.
Diagrams below from Defensive Charge and Disengaging from Combat.:)

DeathlessDraich
20-08-2015, 20:48
I'm not convinced that we're approaching AoS tactics from the right direction, in the games I've watched or been involved in the tactics that have the most impact on the game are those used during deployment.

The order in which you deploy units, how early you reveal your hand to your opponent, misdirectional deployments and who chooses to stop deploying first are all crucial to stacking the balance of the game in your favour.

Yes, deployment is important:)

RTBloodsucker
15-09-2015, 14:42
This was interesting - perhaps some of those who think AoS has no tactics should have a read?

I was unsure about your approach to shooting. You advise:

"...If the unit is a mixture of combat and shooting models or if the models can shoot and engage in combat more or less equally than it should always shoot at the unit it is in combat with. There are obvious exceptions to this of course.

The models (or units) chosen to shoot should always be behind the line of combat units or models as illustrated in Diagram 7."

Is this written on the assumption that a model that can shoot AND melee cannot shoot in the shooting phase and fight in the combat phase if it is in range of anyone?

I had understood that models can shoot AND fight

DeathlessDraich
16-09-2015, 14:58
This was interesting - perhaps some of those who think AoS has no tactics should have a read?

I was unsure about your approach to shooting. You advise:

"...If the unit is a mixture of combat and shooting models or if the models can shoot and engage in combat more or less equally than it should always shoot at the unit it is in combat with. There are obvious exceptions to this of course.

The models (or units) chosen to shoot should always be behind the line of combat units or models as illustrated in Diagram 7."

Is this written on the assumption that a model that can shoot AND melee cannot shoot in the shooting phase and fight in the combat phase if it is in range of anyone?

I had understood that models can shoot AND fight

Hi, :)
Thank you for your interest. The statements are correct as far as I can see but possibly a little ambiguous plus a typo?.

"...If the unit is a mixture of combat and shooting models or if the models can shoot and engage in combat more or less equally then (typo) it should always shoot at the unit it is in combat with. There are obvious exceptions to this of course"



Easiest to clarify this using the diag. below
Using the diagram below:
Unit S1 has both missile and combat weapons;
and is in combat with E1.

Lets say the range of S1's missile weapons enable it to shoot at E1 or E2 and both combat and missile weapons are 3 To Hit and To Wound(i.e. "engage in combat more or less equally".
It is then preferable for S1 to shoot at E1 and not E2 ( "shoot at the unit it is in combat with"). - maybe 'against' is a better word than 'with'
The advantages of this are:

1. E1's Battleshock test becomes more difficult to pass - Battleshock applies to wounds during the turn and not just combat - A fundamental change from previous editions which I'm sure you're already aware of.
2. E1 will be depleted in numbers more sizeably.

One exception to this is, if S1 can inflict more wounds on E2 instead of E1 and is predicted to survive Battle shock, then E2 is a better target

Second statement pertains to protecting shooting units or models by making sure they do not engage in unnecessary combat or combat deemed to be undesirable.
It's better to have the combat units engaging in combat while enabling shooting units to shoot without suffering wounds from combat.
"The models (or units) chosen to shoot should always be behind the line of combat units or models as illustrated in Diagram 7."

2 comments on the changes that AOS have brought to Shooting:

1) A unit could have a some number of models armed with combat weapons only and others are armed exclusively with missile weapons. - Could only happens assuming a Points system is used of course.
Without a points system, every model will be armed with all the weapon upgrades while simultaneously being a Musician, Standard Bearer and Champion all rolled into 1! - since there is no actual points 'cost'.

2)The shooting phase has been elevated to one of the most important, if not the most important phase in AOS mainly because
a) A shooting unit (with sufficient long range) could inflict wounds on the enemy in every turn whereas combat units can only fight when they have moved into charging range and then are in 'base contact' with the enemy unit.
b) A shooting unit (with sufficient range) will shoot with all its models while only models of a combat unit within 3" of an enemy model can inflict wounds.


I'll be interested to know if you have used the tactica effectively in a game and whether you use a points system.

Thanks
:)

RTBloodsucker
22-09-2015, 23:48
Hi

Thanks for taking the time to provide such a full reply! I see the point now.

I haven't tried to use the tactica in a game yet. When I do you will bethe first to hear!

Lissė-Prime
27-09-2015, 15:56
Great article. This leads me to think deeper about formation in play. I've never though of this before as I only played Warhammer Fantasy and not familiar with skirmish tactics.

Some though on this post.

1. In close combat, since the opponent can always make charge move in their Charge Phase, there is no point to break the combat unless you're sure that you will get the next turn or you want to draw enemy to your plan of some sort. Making defensive charge will only let you attack less. The opponent can make pile in move anytime they make an attack thus ruin your plan to break. So unless you plan deep strategy, you should almost never make defensive charge.

2. Shooting has more advantage than mentioned above because it can shoot into and out of combat! This can make heavy shooting unit heart of the battle. In 8th Ed I always avoid heavy shooting units by trying to charge and engage in close combat so that my unit is not subjected to shooting. But this cannot be done anymore. Shooting unit can also shoot the opponents that is engaging with them which mean they can attack twice to the same enemy unit in 1 turn, with missile weapon in shooting phase and melee weapon in combat phase. The way the unit pile in would ensure every models of that unit can shoot the engaging unit. This can make one think twice if you are about to charge a unit of 120 bowmen.

Aezeal
27-09-2015, 20:35
a unit of 120 bowmen would be a problem in most cases even with 8th edition rules :D

Retreating will not be very usefull in most cases I think except
1. if you are much faster and run and hope the enemy will fail the charge.
2. hoping to draw the enemy in (but then... why did you advance in he first place... but I suppose this could happen if a plan doesn't go as planned).

akai
24-11-2015, 05:04
I appreciate the time you put into writing 20+ pages pertaining to tactics with diagrams! I have been thinking on and off for a while on how to best analyze/compare strength of competing forces which can help me choose the best action for each circumstance. A critical read of your document will give me a foundation to work with.

Semper fi
24-11-2015, 09:34
Hi,

It is not my point to make yet another AoS-rant, other people do that much better than me. I am just curious, what is really the point of a tactica for a game with rules that is all about making your game balanced? Would not such a tactica break the whole point of freedom from a point-system, and so on. If AoS is not meant for any kind of competative play, why then bother with tactics?

And again, this is not meant as a rant, so I hope someone seriously could try to answere me. I just don`t get it, and therefore I do not at all get the point with AoS.

Semper fi

akai
24-11-2015, 14:27
I am just curious, what is really the point of a tactica for a game with rules that is all about making your game balanced?

Semper fi, do you mean to say a game with rules that is all about making your game not balanced?

Points-system, at least what I think you are talking about, is a way to set limits such that the competing players will have a fairer match with somewhat balanced forces. Tactics is what you can use or do within a game's system. You do not need a "points-system" to have tactics/strategy within a game. You do not need balanced forces to have tactics/strategy within a game. Age of Sigmar is a game where players compete against each other. It is by definition is a competitive game. So yeah, I think it is meant for competitive play. The AoS game as is, however, is not suited for tournament play.

An analogy of some sort...playing basketball. You can play basketball with "comp-restrictions" such as men only, women only, by age groups, etc. An intention to restrict those competing from each other is to have a "fairer" match. You absolutely can play basketball without those comp-restrictions. Removing comp-restrictions does not remove the need or use of tactics in those non-restricted basketball games. Fake shot, block screen, etc etc. It might not be "fairer" or more "balance" match, but a child can still beat an adult in basketball, a women can still beat a man in basketball, and vice versa. The underdog can still beat the favorite. Not likely, maybe, but it is absolutely possible.

If that does not make sense to you and want to continue talking about "what is the point of having discussions of tactics in AoS", maybe it is better to make a new thread in General's forum section.

HelloKitty
24-11-2015, 15:22
Not having points does not mean there are no tactics. A tactica can exist in a system with no points. Many wargames had no points until the mid 90s or so when points became a mandatory thing, but you still had tactics in those wargames that did not have them.

Denny
24-11-2015, 15:23
As akai has stated, you don't need balance to have tactics.

A simple way of viewing it would be: We decide to play 8th edition but, as you are a much better player than me, you decide to play with 10% less points than me.
Does this decision now exclude either of us from employing tactics in the game?

Semper fi
25-11-2015, 12:58
As akai has stated, you don't need balance to have tactics.

A simple way of viewing it would be: We decide to play 8th edition but, as you are a much better player than me, you decide to play with 10% less points than me.
Does this decision now exclude either of us from employing tactics in the game?

No, obviously not. It does not exclude it, but I just think it makes it a lot less meaningful. Lets put it this way: We play 8th ed, and I decide to play with 10% less, ending with an quite even game. Then I study some more tactics, and the next time I table you easy, even with 10% less points. Should I then start with 20% less points the next time? And, if so, why should I continue to learn tactics and play better, if that just means that we continues to reduce my points so that the game ends quite even. Why don`t we just drop the tactics and throw the models out there?

Lets use Chess as an example. Chess is as balanced as you get a strategical game, both players starts with the same "units" (pieces) in the same place. Tactics is very important and say Magnus Carlsen would table me 100 of 100 times. But then, what if the rules allowed me to change my two bishops and my two knights for four rocks? Would he still beat me? Maybe, but why would anyone use years sudding the tactics of such a game? I would never know if I won because I was a better tactician than my opponent or if the game was hopelessly unbalanced from the start.

Well, sorry for hijacking the discussion. I have read your answers and even though I do not think you quite understand what I mean, your answers have made me a wiser man!

Semper fi