PDA

View Full Version : Strategies you can exploit in AOS and how to counter it



akai
25-11-2015, 07:18
The no restrictions to what you can bring into a game of AoS can lead to some really lopsided matches, especially when the two people playing against each other have different intentions. So if you are the on wrong side of that match up, and your opponent is kind enough to allow you a rematch after you lost (he/she plays the same army and allow you to adjust your army to counter theirs)...how do you try to counter it? The goal of this thread is to discuss possible ways to counter exploitable strategies.

I will start with an example that inspired me to make this topic:

Wrong. You don't need more stuff to win AoS. You actually need less stuff. I played three games and won all three. How? Take like five or six cannons, you are now outnumbered. Sudden death kicks in. Cannon spam the **** out of his general or a unit and autowin! Yay for turn 2 kills! You can do the same thing with any other attacks heavy or high damage dealing unit. Here endeth my guide.

Battleplan: Default
Strategy: Deploy a small number of models that deal high damage to allow sudden death win conditions blunt or assassinate. In andyv2k14 example, five to six Cannons were used.

Possible Counter #1: 1) Save one large unit of troops, a second unit of troops, a general and up to six wizards to deploy after opponent finishes deploying his five to six cannons. 2) Place those units on the battlefield where they are the furthest away from the cannons. Large unit of troops should be deployed to block line of sight of the second unit of troops plus retinue of wizards/heroes. 3) Wizards spam mystic shields to 1+ Save the unit blocking line of sight. :cheese:

Possible Counter #2: 1) save one unit of troops and a hero, and bring scenery warscroll(s) (for example ophidian archways) to deploy after opponent finsihes deplying his five to six cannons. 2) Place those units within the ophidian archways so that it blocks line of sights from those cannons :cheese:

Commodus Leitdorf
26-11-2015, 01:23
Well it would really depend on what you are taking (like many things in this game).

For instance if I were taking a Thunderstrike Brotherhood Warscroll Battalion I can pretty much keep my army off the field and lightning strike in. If I lose first turn, that's one less turn for my opponent to shoot at me. Then I can just Lighting Strike in and surround those canons with Stormcast. I have to stay 9" away, but I could potentially long bomb a charge in. That is much more likely for Prosecutors as they at least charge with 3d6.

Rolsheen
26-11-2015, 08:13
OK I'll give you a list that is running about 95% win to loss ratio and you lot come up with ideas to beat it.

Nagash
Coven Throne
Blood Knights x10
Spirit Hosts x12
Vampire Lords with Wings x4
Cairn Wraiths x4
Banshee x2
Necromancer

Leave off the Spirit Hosts, Cairn Wraiths and Banshees for summoning, have Nagash summon the Spirit Hosts, 2 Banshees and 2 Cairn Wraiths in first turn. Put two Mystic shields on Nagash, Coven Throne and Spirit Hosts and repeat casting shield every turn. Hold the Blood Knights and Vampire Lords for charge against annoying/dangerous unit, usually decimated opponent in two turns. Sometimes I'll add a Dreadstone Blight to the list to boost the Spirit Hosts attacks.

akai
26-11-2015, 17:56
Rolsheen - I will have to look at those warscrolls more carefully...but based on what has been written so far...I would choose to deploy no more than 12 models to get sudden death victory option; choose endure or seize ground winning condition; have magic users with summoning ability.

A question about Nagash summoning Spirit Hosts, 2 Banshees, and 2 Cairn Wraiths...I don't think that is legal. I read his warscroll and the rules and I interpret is as Nagash able to cast 8 different spells and not just 8 spells. Of course with 7 magic users you can easily get those 5 units out on first turn.

Rolsheen
26-11-2015, 20:53
Yes Nagash can cast 8 spells, so three different summoning spells would get you 6 Spirit Hosts, a Banshee and a Cairn Wraith which are then doubled because of Nagash's ability (Death Magic Incarnate).

Commodus Leitdorf
27-11-2015, 15:30
The only real way deal with something like that would be trying to block as many spells as you can while doing everything possible to drop Nagash fast. Thorek with his assistant to try and dispel those attempts. Another Wizard or two to assist as well, probably a Celestant prime thrown in but keeping him off the field to power up before you Thunder Strike him in close to Nagash. His ability to modify at least one die to whatever he likes means that even if you are forced to keep 9" away the odds are good you can get him into combat quickly and potentially take out Nagash fast.

akai
27-11-2015, 16:03
Yes Nagash can cast 8 spells, so three different summoning spells would get you 6 Spirit Hosts, a Banshee and a Cairn Wraith which are then doubled because of Nagash's ability (Death Magic Incarnate).

Yup, I had to read the warscrolls more carefully! Lots of summoning wizards, lots of flyers, lots of ignore rends...not entirely sure how good of a counter this is (trying to pick different units from you), but here goes! The all-powerful Nagash is too great..so the great heroes from the other races have banded together to deal with this threat! :P

- Try to win by using sudden death victory condition: Endure. One of the original deployed units must survived at the end of turn 6. Always engage enemies with the summoning units before having to put original deployed troops at risk
- Deploy the furthest away from the enemy as possible in what would look like a cone formation. Because of flyers, tightly packed army formation where the wizard heroes' backs is to the border of the corner of the gameboard. The monsters and doombull are tightly packed around the wizard heroes. Then have the summoned units tightly packed on the outside as the first line of fodder. This way the enemies only way to get to the original troops, is just from the outside.

Deployed Forces
1x Teclis (mainly for Defense/Healing duty, inner half of the army cone formation)
1x Alarielle (mainly for Defense/Healing duty, inner half of the army cone formation)
1x Lord Kroak (mainly for summoning duty, inner half of the army cone formation)
1x Slann-Mage Priest (summoning duty, inner half of the army cone formation)
1x Thundertusk (range mortal wounds, second defender. outer half of the army cone formation)
2x Ghorgon (melee, first defenders, outer half of the army cone formation))
4x Cygors (range, anti-wizards, third defenders, outer half of the army cone formation)
1x Doombull (general, warherd buffer, fourth defender, outer half of the army cone formation)

Summoning Units (Lord Kroak and Slann-Mage Priest Duty - maximum of 7 unit summoning per turn)
1x Starseer/Tetto' Ekko (Skink Heroes for Arcane Vassel ability of Slann-Mage Priest)
1x Starpriest (Skink Heroes for Arcane Vassel ability of Slann-Mage Priest)
2x Skink Priest (Skink Heroes for Arcane Vassel ability of Slann-Mage Priest)
10x to 20x Saurus Warriors (front troop fodder)
10x to 20x Skinks (kroxigor boosters, front troop fodder)
3x to 6x Kroxigors (support melee defenders)

Vladyhell
27-11-2015, 18:36
As an undead player who plays against WoC regularly the following would give the above Nagash list a good fight.

Chaos Warband:
Chaos Lord
Sorcerer Lord
15 Chaos warriors with great weapons x2
10 Chosen
5 Chaos Knights

Go undivided.
Set up defensively
Go 1st(drop the warband as one drop).
1st turn try use the Lord ability and bring a unit of Chosen as close to Nagash as possible and charge him. Sorcerer trys to summon Tzeentch DP or Greater Deamon who in turn does the same(models permitting)
Anything summoned that attacks the Warband will be most likely be murdered so you can boon up.Boon up a few times and the Chosen and warriors become near unbeatable.

malisteen
03-12-2015, 06:33
Based on the nagash forces description of including the wraiths, banshes, and hosts, but leaving them aside to summon, it seems safe to assume that their player group is running with the sensible interpretation that any units you wish to summon are included in your 'army' and must be specifically placed in reserve, so summoning is essentially an alternate deployment method, not a means of upscaling your army size post deployment. Playing in such an environment would make spammed summons from chaos lords/tzeentch sorcerers non-functional as a response. Then again, you wouldn't have to worry about Naggash summoning literally armies every turn that way.

Lord Dan
03-12-2015, 15:36
OK I'll give you a list that is running about 95% win to loss ratio and you lot come up with ideas to beat it.

Nagash
Coven Throne
Blood Knights x10
Spirit Hosts x12
Vampire Lords with Wings x4
Cairn Wraiths x4
Banshee x2
Necromancer

Leave off the Spirit Hosts, Cairn Wraiths and Banshees for summoning, have Nagash summon the Spirit Hosts, 2 Banshees and 2 Cairn Wraiths in first turn. Put two Mystic shields on Nagash, Coven Throne and Spirit Hosts and repeat casting shield every turn. Hold the Blood Knights and Vampire Lords for charge against annoying/dangerous unit, usually decimated opponent in two turns. Sometimes I'll add a Dreadstone Blight to the list to boost the Spirit Hosts attacks.

Well, I can mathematically fit 836 Bloodthirsters in a deployment zone, so...beat that?

Vladyhell
03-12-2015, 17:25
Based on the nagash forces description of including the wraiths, banshes, and hosts, but leaving them aside to summon, it seems safe to assume that their player group is running with the sensible interpretation that any units you wish to summon are included in your 'army' and must be specifically placed in reserve, so summoning is essentially an alternate deployment method, not a means of upscaling your army size post deployment. Playing in such an environment would make spammed summons from chaos lords/tzeentch sorcerers non-functional as a response. Then again, you wouldn't have to worry about Naggash summoning literally armies every turn that way.

Ah ok. Still without summoning that list would give it a good fight.I'd probably reduce the warrior units by 1 or 2 models each and add more Heroes.


Well, I can mathematically fit 836 Bloodthirsters in a deployment zone, so...beat that?

Really? Totally no need for that post and just shows that no thread is safe from AoS hate...even from a so called Mod. Warseer really is a breeding ground for all the AoS/GW hate :(

Folomo
03-12-2015, 18:32
Just deploy what your enemy did + 1?
That should beat any exploit.

Lord Dan
03-12-2015, 18:55
Totally no need for that post and just shows that no thread is safe from AoS hate...even from a so called Mod. Warseer really is a breeding ground for all the AoS/GW hate :(
AOS hate? He gave his broken, perfectly legal army combination and challenged us to beat it. I gave mine.

Vladyhell
03-12-2015, 18:57
AOS hate? He gave his broken, perfectly legal army combination and challenged us to beat it. I gave mine.

His army isn't broken tho but whatever your still trolling

Zywus
03-12-2015, 19:54
Isn't this thread all about exploiting the extremely loose AoS army construction rules?
(Hint; The title is "Strategies you can exploit in AOS and how to counter it")

And still someone has to complain about AoS hate. Is AoS fans the most thin skinned individuals in the world?
The thread is pretty ridiculous from the get go as the way of playing Akai demonstrate in the OP is already totally against the semi- or completely co-opeative mindset needed for AoS to work somewhat. As soon as you begin to optimize armies, the only natural progression ends in the kind of armies Lord Dan gives an example of.

Since Lord Dan can only fit 836 Bloodthirsters in his deployment zone I'll bring my horde of 1111 bloodthirsters (using the smaller 3th ed. sculpt of course since it's much smaller)
http://solegends.com/citcat1991b/cat1991bp246rcbloodthirster-00.htm

Since bases don't count in AoS I have of course balanced them on small pieces of extremely heavy metal and mounted them with flight stands on various heights, allowing me to fit them all in my deployment zone.

Vazalaar
03-12-2015, 20:03
Removed my own post. It was not my finest post. :shifty:

SimaoSegunda
03-12-2015, 21:53
OK I'll give you a list that is running about 95% win to loss ratio and you lot come up with ideas to beat it.

Nagash
Coven Throne
Blood Knights x10
Spirit Hosts x12
Vampire Lords with Wings x4
Cairn Wraiths x4
Banshee x2
Necromancer

Leave off the Spirit Hosts, Cairn Wraiths and Banshees for summoning, have Nagash summon the Spirit Hosts, 2 Banshees and 2 Cairn Wraiths in first turn. Put two Mystic shields on Nagash, Coven Throne and Spirit Hosts and repeat casting shield every turn. Hold the Blood Knights and Vampire Lords for charge against annoying/dangerous unit, usually decimated opponent in two turns. Sometimes I'll add a Dreadstone Blight to the list to boost the Spirit Hosts attacks.

My standard hardcore list (I've not used it much recently cos I've been playing smaller games with bloodbound) has taken down a similar list before. The core is:

Treelord Ancient
Treelord
Durthu
Wood Elf Standard Bearer
6 wardancers
Glade Lord on Eagle
10 Dryads
Glade Lord
Branchwraith
5 Empire Knights
Witch Hunter
Wood Elf Wizard
Empire Wizard

I'd back that against your Nagash list. In fact, it took on a Mannfred/Nagash-led Undead list recently and won, with the kill shot coming from the Witch Hunters pistol.

Lord Dan
03-12-2015, 22:25
His army isn't broken tho but whatever your still trolling

An army which wins 95% of the time is, by definition, broken. I'm reasonably certain that's why he shared that build in the thread about overcoming exploitable strategies. Like it or not under the existing ruleset it's perfectly legal to place 800+ Bloodthirsters in your deployment zone, just as it is for Rolsheen to take his same list with another 18 Coven Thrones. My example was obviously hyperbolic, but we're talking about the exact same issue.

So how do you overcome 800 - or, more realistically, 20 - Bloodthirsters? Because that's a legal, exploitable strategy someone might need to overcome and, I should remind you, is the entire point of this thread.

Unless I've missed the point and we're talking about something else?

akai
03-12-2015, 23:52
Well, I can mathematically fit 836 Bloodthirsters in a deployment zone, so...beat that?

To be perfectly honest, I think your 836 Bloodthirsters still have a chance to lose though--against constant summoning + sudden death victory conditions. If not, the amount of time to legally deploy your 836 bloodthirsters, it might be time to go home in the evening before completing turn one! :D


Just deploy what your enemy did + 1?
That should beat any exploit.

Yup, I was trying to be a little bit more creative though with counters


Isn't this thread all about exploiting the extremely loose AoS army construction rules?
(Hint; The title is "Strategies you can exploit in AOS and how to counter it")

And still someone has to complain about AoS hate. Is AoS fans the most thin skinned individuals in the world?
The thread is pretty ridiculous from the get go as the way of playing Akai demonstrate in the OP is already totally against the semi- or completely co-opeative mindset needed for AoS to work somewhat. As soon as you begin to optimize armies, the only natural progression ends in the kind of armies Lord Dan gives an example of.

I don't think Lord Dan's example is the only natural progression of armies when playing broken/exploitable/over-powered in AoS. You also don't need a cooperative mindset for AoS to work at all. A cooperative mindset would likely make the game more enjoyable for both players though. There is a big difference between workable versus enjoyable.

I don't know what the exact intentions of some posters are, but if you read my OP, I wrote: and your opponent is kind enough to allow you a rematch after you lost. So I at least assume the player that brought a very competitive or what some consider broken armies to play in a pick-up game...actually have some good sportsmanship quality. I don't know what Rohlsheen's actual intentions are. The example he gave...I can actually see someone playing games with that list. So is his list really consider broken, if those playing against it just don't know how to counter it?

As for me trying to counter the 836 to infinity Bloodthirsters...in the default battleplan, deploy fortress wall at a corner in such a way that the end of the wall facing the bloodthirsters is blocked off (can be a second deployed fortress wall, for example). The other end of the fortress wall is adjacent to the battlefield borders with just enough space that a small model can be deployed and later to move underneath the fortress wall to hide from the scary bloodthirsters. Declare sudden death victory condition "endure" after your opponent painstakingly deploy their 836th Bloodthirster!

If there is a take-home message I want people to take: When playing AoS with rules as written and with no restrictions with the default battleplan, everything can be exploited if one desires to. However, I do think every single exploit has an actual counter.


So how do you overcome 800 - or, more realistically, 20 - Bloodthirsters? Because that's a legal, exploitable strategy someone might need to overcome and, I should remind you, is the entire point of this thread.

Unless I've missed the point and we're talking about something else?

Yup, that is the purpose of this thread.

Buddy Bear
04-12-2015, 18:43
OK I'll give you a list that is running about 95% win to loss ratio and you lot come up with ideas to beat it.

Nagash
Coven Throne
Blood Knights x10
Spirit Hosts x12
Vampire Lords with Wings x4
Cairn Wraiths x4
Banshee x2
Necromancer

Leave off the Spirit Hosts, Cairn Wraiths and Banshees for summoning, have Nagash summon the Spirit Hosts, 2 Banshees and 2 Cairn Wraiths in first turn. Put two Mystic shields on Nagash, Coven Throne and Spirit Hosts and repeat casting shield every turn. Hold the Blood Knights and Vampire Lords for charge against annoying/dangerous unit, usually decimated opponent in two turns. Sometimes I'll add a Dreadstone Blight to the list to boost the Spirit Hosts attacks.

So this starts with 17 models on the board? That means an opposing army would have to start with no more than 12 on the board in order to benefit from Sudden Death. If I were to go up against it, using what I currently have in my Empire collection, I'd throw the following down:

- Emperor Karl Franz (Ghal Maraz)
- Emperor Karl Franz (The Reikland Runefang) [NOTE: Yes, I have two Karl Franz models. The original pewter one and the new plastic one)
- Balthasar Gelt, the Supreme Patriarch
- Valten (Barded Warhorse, Full Plate Armor, Ghal Maraz)
- General of the Empire on Imperial Griffon (Runefang, Imperial Shield)
- Amber Battle Wizard on Imperial Griffon
- Empire Steam Tank (Hochland Long Rifle)
- Empire Steam Tank (Hochland Long Rifle)
- The War Altar of Sigmar (Volkmar the Grim)
- Celestial Hurricanum
- Amber Battle Wizard on Imperial Griffon
- Luminark of Hysh

I wonder how that army would do against the above?

VFX_artist
05-12-2015, 00:02
An army which wins 95% of the time is, by definition, broken. I'm reasonably certain that's why he shared that build in the thread about overcoming exploitable strategies. Like it or not under the existing ruleset it's perfectly legal to place 800+ Bloodthirsters in your deployment zone, just as it is for Rolsheen to take his same list with another 18 Coven Thrones. My example was obviously hyperbolic, but we're talking about the exact same issue.

So how do you overcome 800 - or, more realistically, 20 - Bloodthirsters? Because that's a legal, exploitable strategy someone might need to overcome and, I should remind you, is the entire point of this thread.

Unless I've missed the point and we're talking about something else?

I'd say the best way to avoid 800 bloodletters is not to a play a game with a total ******* who brings 800 bloodletters to a game. It may be hypothetical but a hypothesis like that doesn't take into account basic human reasoning and is purely meant to antagonise and provoke.

the best strategy I've seen so far for AoS is from a guy called Nate at Kingdom of Geekdom which suggests turning up to a game and employing a MTG system of having a sidebar/pool of potential units to deploy to cover all possible tactical strategies/outcomes, for instance maybe you need a fast shock troop style unit or more of a ground and pound army composition, or something fast and light, so bring all these possible options with you ( in the same way if you were creating say, a well rounded 'takes all comers' wfb army) and to keep this collection of warscrolls as an army list your opponents can view, but then , and this is the beauty of it, not actually specify which units you are using, and then once you and your opponent face off and have decided on missions/terrain etc to deploy one warscroll at a time each, and to agree to let the player who deploys second to be the one to call it and cap it when he decides theres enough of a fair balance on the table or if say, someone starts to be a dick and tried to put 3 bloodthirsters down one after another he can call it pretty quick . What you then get is a system where the 1st player deploys the units he most wants to use / his most valuable units, but then they are also exposed to a possible counter deployment by the opposing player.

Other than that the only caps would be 30 models per war scroll and no named characters more than once.

You have to think outside the box a bit and stop thinking of AoS as a poor mans WFB, but more of a completely new game.

Why do you need army lists? Answer : you dont thats a WFB thing
Why do you need to pre-plan every little tactic or strategy in advance/ahead of a game? You don't : You can do this at the time depending on what scrolls your opponent brings to the table and be flexible enough to have a range of options/possible formations and units
In a game with no limits, why would you limit yourself to only having a handfull of possible units to play

Lord Dan
05-12-2015, 03:44
I'd say the best way to avoid 800 bloodletters is not to a play a game with a total ******* who brings 800 bloodletters to a game. It may be hypothetical but a hypothesis like that doesn't take into account basic human reasoning and is purely meant to antagonise and provoke.
Actually that begs a question: against the army posted early in this thread, at what point between 1 and 800 Bloodthirsters does someone go from being a competitive player to "a total *********"? I suppose that's mostly rhetorical, but I only ask because if we're trying to come up with answers to people exploiting the game - and evidently there's a point at which someone is exploiting the game too much - shouldn't we attempt to define what that point is before we continue?

akai
05-12-2015, 05:13
Actually that begs a question: against the army posted early in this thread, at what point between 1 and 800 Bloodthirsters does someone go from being a competitive player to "a total *********"? I suppose that's mostly rhetorical, but I only ask because if we're trying to come up with answers to people exploiting the game - and evidently there's a point at which someone is exploiting the game too much - shouldn't we attempt to define what that point is before we continue?

Since you pose the question, maybe it would help if you provide your "point" when a strategy being used is "too much"?

Before this thread goes completely off topic (maybe it won't)...this thread actually started off with a real life example of someone using a very specific strategy to win games. So some may think this thread is ridiculous, but it actually is based on something that actually happened. So my hopes is that discussions are truly talking about strategies/army lists that they would actually use to counter the example strategies/army lists given.

Specifically to Lord Dan and Zywus: this mathematically determined 836 or 1111 bloodthirsters....I'm actually interested in how you mathematically came up with these numbers. Can you show the actual math work you did to come up with these numbers? As for the actual topic of this thread, if you really would deploy 836 to 1111 bloodthirsters in an actual game, then it is ok, imo, to continue discussing about it (if that is really where you want the discussion to go...). If it is not, I guess how many bloodthirsters can you actually see yourselves or others fielding in an actual game of AoS?

Zywus
05-12-2015, 10:23
Specifically to Lord Dan and Zywus: this mathematically determined 836 or 1111 bloodthirsters....I'm actually interested in how you mathematically came up with these numbers. Can you show the actual math work you did to come up with these numbers? As for the actual topic of this thread, if you really would deploy 836 to 1111 bloodthirsters in an actual game, then it is ok, imo, to continue discussing about it (if that is really where you want the discussion to go...). If it is not, I guess how many bloodthirsters can you actually see yourselves or others fielding in an actual game of AoS?
I don't know how Lord Dan came up with 836 Bloodthirsters but 1111 is simply the largest number possible to field without giving up sudden death to them.

It's of course possible to play the game in the way you outline, with both players trying to exploit the system the most but it's basically pointless since the optimal strategy is more or less obvious.

- Place your individually most powerful model, await your opponent placing his unit
- Place your next individually most powerful model await your opponent placing his unit
- Keep placing until you run out of space or your opponent stops placing stuff. If your opponent stops, place as many models as possible while staying under the Sudden Death limit.

It's of course not practical to actually field a thousand Bloodthirsters. It just illustrates how the obvious strategy of army creation is simply to field as many powerful single models as possible.

Spiney Norman
05-12-2015, 12:42
Actually that begs a question: against the army posted early in this thread, at what point between 1 and 800 Bloodthirsters does someone go from being a competitive player to "a total *********"? I suppose that's mostly rhetorical, but I only ask because if we're trying to come up with answers to people exploiting the game - and evidently there's a point at which someone is exploiting the game too much - shouldn't we attempt to define what that point is before we continue?

That's not really a question, if you were fielding 800 blood thirsters in a game where you had arranged the game with your opponent before hand and he was bringing 800 Star dragon lords or 800 GUOs would be completely legit.

Whatever you end up bringing, if your motivation in putting together your list is to exploit the rules and ruin your opponents fun then you've already become a 'total ********'

Zywus
05-12-2015, 12:52
Whatever you end up bringing, if your motivation in putting together your list is to exploit the rules and ruin your opponents fun then you've already become a 'total ********'
Then everyone who posts a list in this thread is a 'total ********' I suppose. Since the topic of the thread is literally about exploiting the rules.

It seems like you equate exploiting the rules with ruining the opponents fun. While I don't personally find that kind of 'gamey' behavior to be a fun experience in a miniature wargame (especially not in using a barely held together rule set such as AoS), that's not necessarily true for everyone. Some people like the metagame of trying to defeate each other in the armybuilding phase. It's just that AoS is a particular poor game system for that kind of gaming. Magic the Gathering for example would be much more suited to that.

akai
05-12-2015, 13:43
I don't know how Lord Dan came up with 836 Bloodthirsters but 1111 is simply the largest number possible to field without giving up sudden death to them.

..your math is wrong, then -_-



It's of course possible to play the game in the way you outline, with both players trying to exploit the system the most but it's basically pointless since the optimal strategy is more or less obvious.

- Place your individually most powerful model, await your opponent placing his unit
- Place your next individually most powerful model await your opponent placing his unit
- Keep placing until you run out of space or your opponent stops placing stuff. If your opponent stops, place as many models as possible while staying under the Sudden Death limit.

It's of course not practical to actually field a thousand Bloodthirsters. It just illustrates how the obvious strategy of army creation is simply to field as many powerful single models as possible.

Since you keep referring to the topic of this thread, please re-read the first paragraph in my original post again. The optimal strategy you keep talking about is not really relevant to the topic of this thread.

Lord Dan
05-12-2015, 13:52
Forgive me, akai, I won't derail your thread any further. I was genuinely just trying to understand how you can determine the difference between "exploitable strategy" and "being a jerk", as that seems like it would be a pretty fine line in this particular discussion. Obviously in a friendly game no one is going to roll hundreds of 'Thirsters, but when we're theorizing about instances in which people are trying to take advantage of game mechanics to gain an edge I'm just not seeing how one can restrict that mentality without predefined limits.


Specifically to Lord Dan and Zywus: this mathematically determined 836 or 1111 bloodthirsters....I'm actually interested in how you mathematically came up with these numbers. Can you show the actual math work you did to come up with these numbers?
Sure: A 50x50mm base is 2500 square mm. A 6x4 (1828x1219 mm) gaming board is 2.2 million square mm, which divided by 2500 is 891.33, which I rounded down to 836 - arbitrarily, I should add - to somehow account for the fact that it's highly unlikely they'd fit in there side-by-side without overlapping a table edge somewhere.

Zywus
05-12-2015, 14:02
..your math is wrong, then -_-
Indeed it is. I should have brought a few more imaginary Bloodthirsters. I still feel confident I can bring down Lord Dan with the ones I have though:p
I assumed for the sake of argument that the 836 figure was correct, but I believe that the actual number would be closer to about 300 since you only have about 1/3 of the table to deploy in.



Since you keep referring to the topic of this thread, please re-read the first paragraph in my original post again. The optimal strategy you keep talking about is not really relevant to the topic of this thread.Really? I think it does very well countering those cannons.


he/she plays the same army and allow you to adjust your army to counter theirs

You don't need more stuff to win AoS. You actually need less stuff. I played three games and won all three. How? Take like five or six cannons

-I place a BT
-andyv2k14 places a cannon
-I place a BT
-andyv2k14 places a cannon
-and so on....

Whenever andyv2k14 stop placing stuff, I pile on the Bloodthirsters until I hit the sudden death limit (or rather just before I hit the limit). Of course in the real world no one would own a unlimited amount of Bloodthirsters so when those I actually own are all placed I move on to less impressive but still individually powerful models such as vampire lords, zombie dragons, perhaps a lammasu or that Manticore I've had laying around half-painted for years...

Buddy Bear
05-12-2015, 20:01
When I did the math, I came out closer to 100 Bloodthirsters fitting in a deployment zone, based off of current base sizes. But then I remembered that bases don't count, so it wouldn't be a problem to deploy them with their bases overlapping, so now I'm not sure how many could fit.

akai
06-12-2015, 02:19
Forgive me, akai, I won't derail your thread any further. I was genuinely just trying to understand how you can determine the difference between "exploitable strategy" and "being a jerk", as that seems like it would be a pretty fine line in this particular discussion. Obviously in a friendly game no one is going to roll hundreds of 'Thirsters, but when we're theorizing about instances in which people are trying to take advantage of game mechanics to gain an edge I'm just not seeing how one can restrict that mentality without predefined limits.

Sure: A 50x50mm base is 2500 square mm. A 6x4 (1828x1219 mm) gaming board is 2.2 million square mm, which divided by 2500 is 891.33, which I rounded down to 836 - arbitrarily, I should add - to somehow account for the fact that it's highly unlikely they'd fit in there side-by-side without overlapping a table edge somewhere.

No worries, maybe I should make another thread in general forum section about this, but when i used the word "exploit" I am referring to exploit as "making full use of and derive benefit from" the rules for advantages rather than the definition of "using a situation in an unfair or selfish way." Still a very fine line, but to determine if the person is "being a jerk"...i think it very much depends on the actual interaction of the players's during the game and what happens afterwards, imo. For example, the player that won with the questionable army says "Hmmm, the matchup was very uneven...my bad...let's play next time with me choosing a tone down list or give you a chance for a rematch the next time." or "Hmm, nice playing against you, sorry about the matchup. Lets decide on some comp structure before we play our next match so that we don't come into a game with such lopsidedness." Those would be what I consider someone not being a jerk. Another example - "hahah beat ya, you suck, not giving you a chance for a rematch"...that would be a jerk for me :D

Also, thanks for showing the math so that I can see how you came up with the number. You forgot to take general deployment rules of your troops into consideration so that would only be 6 x 1 ft of the full gaming board, so ~ 1/4th of your calculated number. 200+ bloodthirsters is plenty though!



Really? I think it does very well countering those cannons.

Yes, really! Two points to make...

First, your example/discussion of "optimal strategy" is describing a generic deployment strategy and not necessarily strategy to counter against specific armies/strategies. What you state is actually a very good general strategy, but there are armies listed here already in this thread that having more models against them (but not enough to give sudden death) is not really a great advantage or really is a counter.

Second, you wrote that it was "basically pointless" to play the game as I outline because. in your opinion, there is only one optimal strategy....

What is the actual point of this thread? It is to list counters against strategies that someone have lost against.
Is the main focus of this thread to talk about optimal strategy? Nope. It should be noted that there is nothing wrong to talk about optimizing though either.
Do someone need Zywus' stated "optimal strategy" to counter against an army that you have already lost to? Nope, the purpose is just to defeat the army you just lost against.
Can someone use what Zywus refer to as "pointless" strategy to actually counter an army? Yes.
Thus, is something "basically pointless" if it fulfills the intended purpose or point? Of course not. :P

Zywus
06-12-2015, 09:20
Yes, really! Two points to make...

First, your example/discussion of "optimal strategy" is describing a generic deployment strategy and not necessarily strategy to counter against specific armies/strategies. What you state is actually a very good general strategy, but there are armies listed here already in this thread that having more models against them (but not enough to give sudden death) is not really a great advantage or really is a counter.

Second, you wrote that it was "basically pointless" to play the game as I outline because. in your opinion, there is only one optimal strategy....

What is the actual point of this thread? It is to list counters against strategies that someone have lost against.
Is the main focus of this thread to talk about optimal strategy? Nope. It should be noted that there is nothing wrong to talk about optimizing though either.
Do someone need Zywus' stated "optimal strategy" to counter against an army that you have already lost to? Nope, the purpose is just to defeat the army you just lost against.
Can someone use what Zywus refer to as "pointless" strategy to actually counter an army? Yes.
Thus, is something "basically pointless" if it fulfills the intended purpose or point? Of course not. :P

Well, what I meant by this being a pointless exercise was that nothing we do will be as effective as using the "Zywus Optimal Strategy" (or ZOS for short :p) so there is no need to consider counters to specific armies as the ZOS has it all covered. Apparently you disagree, and I suppose that there may be some way to leverage lesser models into being better through some synergies.

As for the rest I don't really understand what you mean and I guess I''ll be leaving the thread. Probably shouldn't have posted in the first place given the subject, but good luck to you Akai. I do commend you for keeping a civil tone even when our tempers get the better of some of us.

akai
07-12-2015, 22:42
Well, what I meant by this being a pointless exercise was that nothing we do will be as effective as using the "Zywus Optimal Strategy" (or ZOS for short :p) so there is no need to consider counters to specific armies as the ZOS has it all covered. Apparently you disagree, and I suppose that there may be some way to leverage lesser models into being better through some synergies.

As for the rest I don't really understand what you mean and I guess I''ll be leaving the thread. Probably shouldn't have posted in the first place given the subject, but good luck to you Akai. I do commend you for keeping a civil tone even when our tempers get the better of some of us.

Yeah, from your postings on Warseer I assume that you have not play/think about the AoS system carefully enough to know that ZOS (:P) does not cover everything. In fact, there are gimmicks that would make your ZOS to have no effect. Good luck to you too, Zywus, on your non-AoS endeavors.

Lord Dan
07-12-2015, 23:00
You forgot to take general deployment rules of your troops into consideration so that would only be 6 x 1 ft of the full gaming board, so ~ 1/4th of your calculated number.
Wow, duh Dan. I'll let myself out, then...

melonmelon
11-12-2015, 00:31
Bastiladon in cover, 2+ unmodified save, 4+ against mortal wound. Their laser beam just too hurt to ignore, useful in most battleplan even the breakthrough.

akai
11-12-2015, 16:10
melonmelon - yeah with rend having no effect, you would need many units that have mortal wound abilities to be able to whittle down its health.

Krenz
17-12-2015, 19:46
Wouldn't the best strategy to counter what your opponent has be to keep a few secret nagashes in your bag? Then when he's deployed, put down as many as you need?

akai
18-12-2015, 15:10
Wouldn't the best strategy to counter what your opponent has be to keep a few secret nagashes in your bag? Then when he's deployed, put down as many as you need?

Well I guess if you are playing against someone that allows having a secret hiding spot in your bag...what makes you think your opponent also not have a secret hiding bag with nagashes? :D. So it's not the best strategy.:P

=Angel=
18-12-2015, 15:41
Well I guess if you are playing against someone that allows having a secret hiding spot in your bag...what makes you think your opponent also not have a secret hiding bag with nagashes? :D. So it's not the best strategy.:P

The logical progression to counter that possible strategy would be to have a second bag, also filled with Nagashes which you had secreted in the gamestore the night before.
If by some co-incidence (or maybe he had read this strategies thread) he also has a second Nagash bag, you would then dislocate your prosthetic leg, revealing it to be hollow and filled to the brim with Nagashes.

akai
18-12-2015, 15:52
The logical progression to counter that possible strategy would be to have a second bag, also filled with Nagashes which you had secreted in the gamestore the night before.
If by some co-incidence (or maybe he had read this strategies thread) he also has a second Nagash bag, you would then dislocate your prosthetic leg, revealing it to be hollow and filled to the brim with Nagashes.

In the end, the true winner of all this nonsense would be Games Workshop! So many Nagashes bought to just outdo your opponent. :)

I guess if Krenz actually kept a few Nagashes in a secret bag to play against opponents in AoS, then I don't actually mind continuing with this discussion :D

Krenz
18-12-2015, 16:12
I shall call this strategy

"Crouching tiger hidden Nagash"

In honor of a movie I enjoyed watching.

Ayin
03-01-2016, 02:08
I realize this thread is old, but a little while ago I experienced an awesome event and just remembered that it would fit here. Two guys playing, one decides to start summoning Greater Demons. Opponent insists he must actually HAVE the GD models if he's going to summon them...guy walks around to everyone playing and asks to borrow what fits. Ends up with 5 Bloodthirsters (various editions, 40k and Fantasy) and two other GDs.

So, strategy -> Borrowing models.

Counter -> Not allowed to borrow models(?)

melonmelon
03-01-2016, 06:32
I realize this thread is old, but a little while ago I experienced an awesome event and just remembered that it would fit here. Two guys playing, one decides to start summoning Greater Demons. Opponent insists he must actually HAVE the GD models if he's going to summon them...guy walks around to everyone playing and asks to borrow what fits. Ends up with 5 Bloodthirsters (various editions, 40k and Fantasy) and two other GDs.

So, strategy -> Borrowing models.

Counter -> Not allowed to borrow models(?)

"Any remaining units are held in reserve, playing no part unless fate lends a hand.".

RAW, any un-deployed model should "held in reserve" and let you opponent know they exist, unless, you reserve pool is the whole game store. XD

akai
03-01-2016, 06:46
I realize this thread is old, but a little while ago I experienced an awesome event and just remembered that it would fit here. Two guys playing, one decides to start summoning Greater Demons. Opponent insists he must actually HAVE the GD models if he's going to summon them...guy walks around to everyone playing and asks to borrow what fits. Ends up with 5 Bloodthirsters (various editions, 40k and Fantasy) and two other GDs.

So, strategy -> Borrowing models.

Counter -> Not allowed to borrow models(?)

Glad you experienced an awesome event with AoS. No need to counter if the one borrowing models lost (which you left out in the details)! Please provide more details of the armies used, or did you just want to post in a tactics thread to ridicule about the players? :D

Ayin
03-01-2016, 06:55
"Any remaining units are held in reserve, playing no part unless fate lends a hand.".

RAW, any un-deployed model should "held in reserve" and let you opponent know they exist, unless, you reserve pool is the whole game store. XD

I don't see any information that would lead a player to believe that being "held in reserve" requires the physical models to be placed anywhere specific or for them to be known to one's opponents. Unlike a Sideboard with magic, reserve could just as easily be the trunk of my car until they are need.


Glad you experienced an awesome event with AoS. No need to counter if the one borrowing models lost (which you left out in the details)! Please provide more details of the armies used, or did you just want to post in a tactics thread to ridicule about the players? :D

The sequence of events was awesome. It was also hilarious. And no, borrowing models guy won some time later, I did not pay attention to the game between those parts.

Army of victory was Chaos Demons with some mortal stuff thrown in, army defeated was Empire. Or Free People. Or Hochland. Whatever you want to call them.

akai
03-01-2016, 15:42
The sequence of events was awesome. It was also hilarious. And no, borrowing models guy won some time later, I did not pay attention to the game between those parts.

Army of victory was Chaos Demons with some mortal stuff thrown in, army defeated was Empire. Or Free People. Or Hochland. Whatever you want to call them.

Not very much detail to go with....so the theory hammer counter is just to focus fire the wizards trying to summon bloodthirsters, in which the chance to successfully summon a bloodthirster by regular wizards is ~17% without any dispel attempts.

ihavetoomuchminis
03-01-2016, 19:41
Luckily there are restrictions on the number of wizarda one can field....and they cost like 200 points each.

Folomo
04-01-2016, 01:53
Luckily there are restrictions on the number of wizarda one can field....and they cost like 200 points each.

Is this some sort of comp or are you referring to 8th/9th age?
Not sure if it is sarcasm or not without further explanation.

Spiney Norman
04-01-2016, 11:51
In my experience summoning is rarely as big a problem as people make it out to be. My Khorne army has no wizards but it has 3 dispel attempts per turn (mighty Lord, flesh hounds and slaughter priest) and the bloodsecrator's portal of skulls reduces the chance of my opponent managing to summon anything big and scary to virtually nothing. I played against a Sylvaneth dryad factory army recently and they only got two summoning spells off all game (with three branch wraiths trying it pretty well every turn).

When you consider that the Wizards summoning more units could instead be spam-casting mystic shield with a much higher rate of success and making their other units much harder to kill I really don't think summoning is as broken as people make it out to be. Most summoning spells only bring on units of 5 infantry models anyway, which are petty easily dealt with, and bigger models like blood thirsters are going to take a lot of attempts to bring on.

Ayin
04-01-2016, 14:11
Using un-modified AoS rules, summoning seems to fit right in. When you can just put anything down on the table and the only thing you're trying to make sure you don't tilt is the Sudden Death rules (I believe that is what they're called), summoning is hardly of consequence. The problem seems to be when people, groups or events try and put basic limitations on game/army size. The larger the game, the less an additional unit or two makes a difference, the smaller the game, the more pronounced the effect (a similar issue arose in previous editions of Fantasy, particularly 7th edition Vampires).

malisteen
11-01-2016, 01:30
And the obvious answer to that is that if you're placing any sort of limit on the models that can be played, whether something as formal as a specific comp system or as informal as a simple gut check, then any models that are going to enter play via reserve, whether summoned or called on by the chaos lord ability or whatever, need to be counted against your total at the start. Basically, if you're limiting model use, the limit needs to apply to both deployment and reserves, not just one or the other.

Do this, and in-game summoning goes back to being what it is in vanilla AoS where any unit you add during the game could have been simply set on the table at the start to begin with - essentially summoning serves as alternate deployment method, nothing more.

Dark_Mage99
14-01-2016, 09:34
OK I'll give you a list that is running about 95% win to loss ratio and you lot come up with ideas to beat it.

Nagash
Coven Throne
Blood Knights x10
Spirit Hosts x12
Vampire Lords with Wings x4
Cairn Wraiths x4
Banshee x2
Necromancer

Leave off the Spirit Hosts, Cairn Wraiths and Banshees for summoning, have Nagash summon the Spirit Hosts, 2 Banshees and 2 Cairn Wraiths in first turn. Put two Mystic shields on Nagash, Coven Throne and Spirit Hosts and repeat casting shield every turn. Hold the Blood Knights and Vampire Lords for charge against annoying/dangerous unit, usually decimated opponent in two turns. Sometimes I'll add a Dreadstone Blight to the list to boost the Spirit Hosts attacks.

This is an incredibly outrageous list, so it's no surprise you decimate people. You have to have some semblance of fairness and Nagash eliminates most of that. Are you playing people with the new Archaon, 4x chaos lords, 10x Varanguard, etc? Then it would be slightly more fair.

Spiney Norman
14-01-2016, 11:35
This is an incredibly outrageous list, so it's no surprise you decimate people. You have to have some semblance of fairness and Nagash eliminates most of that. Are you playing people with the new Archaon, 4x chaos lords, 10x Varanguard, etc? Then it would be slightly more fair.

It's not that bad, I'm fairly confident that with unlimited resources I could put together a chaos list with a reasonable chance of defeating it. Run a few units of flesh hounds with a blood throne in support to give them multiple rerollable unbinding rolls and run 2-3 bloodsecrator's to give you good portal coverage (perhaps also bring a few skull keeps to boost your portal range). Blood thirsters are also an option.

Then throw in a few slaughter priests to put units/characters out of position with the bloodbind prayer and fill up on Varanguard and skull crushers as the high speed damage dealers. Top off with archaon to face up to the undead big bad and you're good to go with a force of a similar size.

I think it highlights the change in feel from WFB to AoS, in WFB you could potentially just turn up with whatever 2000pt list you liked and be reasonably assured that playing someone else's 2000pt list wasn't just a complete waste of time. You can't really do that unless you agree to some limits in advance of the game, certainly dropping that undead list on someone unprepared would justify you losing friends.