For example, he says the loose clumps of troops look like the armies we see in fantasy films.
Check out battle LoTR films and see how many block formations are used.
He says that it's not a skirmish game, it's designed for large battles. For one thing, a game in which one figure represents one man is the definition of skirmish. For another, the movement and fighting by individual figure rather than by blocks makes the game mechanically much slower when played with large numbers of figures.
Does it matter if the game is skirmish or mass battle? Not as far as players' enjoyment goes, so long as they end up playing a game that actually is what they are looking for.
He says that it's not a skirmish game, it's designed for large battles. For one thing, a game in which one figure represents one man is the definition of skirmish.
Technically, the models don't represent individual men, but rather an amorphous unit. You can attack one dude in the front and have a different dude in the back get removed from the table. Similarly, individual models do not have individual stats, but share stats with the other models in the unit. It's not individual (skirmish) scale. It's unit (tactical) scale - just like WHFB.
Does it matter if the game is skirmish or mass battle?
Skirmish games tend to have more individuality to the models, both in what they are capable of and what they represent. It's the difference between, "Man, Ted, the Butcher of Piggies, sole survivor of the Butt Massacre, failed his save and died!" to "Man, I lost five orcs! It's cool. I've got like three more." I would think that some people would have a preference towards one or the other, unless their interest in miniature games was purely mechanical.
The rules are easy to learn, quick to reference, and free. When taken with the warscrolls, battleplans et al, the game is not that much simpler than old Warhammer. By abandoning “top-down” rules design and shifting the detail out of the rules and onto the warscrolls, it allows greater variation.
The bare bones rules are free, sure. But then it becomes a DLC fest full of scenarios and rules locked behind pay walls if you want the "full experience". $58 books and $2 scenarios add up.
As for the simplicity of it, some would argue that's a negative. What if I want to customize my vampire lord to have a Blood Dragon theme? Or Von Carstein, Lahmian, etc.? Nope, I'm stuck with a vampire lord armed with a spirit-possessed sword. But I have the option to mount him on a nightmare of abyssal terror! Yay me! Too generic is just as bad as overly-complex.
No longer are units restricted into overly formal, somewhat absurd Napoleonic-era blocks of troops. AoS battles look like battles from epic fantasy movies, and that is damn cool.
He's right. I think that Greek Hoplites and Roman Legionnaires would have been much more effective on the battlefield, as well as visually appealing without their formal formations, and had just blobbed up into hordes of men screaming across the battlefield.
Screw all that. POINTS VALUES WERE NEVER BALANCED. They were actually unfair.
The last 30 years have all been a lie! We have been deceived by a system that has never worked in the history of ever! Fairness is an illusion!
Warhammer devolved into an exercise where power-mad dice chuckers would spend every waking moment breaking the latest army book.
Yeah, because it's real hard to look at the warscrolls and find cheesy combos of buffs and unit abilities. There's just as much ability to be a power gamer in AoS. Only it's easier now because you don't have points limits, and you can include everything you've ever wanted to create your super list.
The fun in the game comes with the delightful way all the various abilities work to enhance your troops. That the abilities come from heroes encourages gamers to indulge in heroic, movie-style duels of champions to knock out enemy buffs. I can add whatever I want to my army, whenever I want. That’s fun too.
Wasn't this guy just bashing WHFB for encouraging people to break the latest armybook and find cheap combinations? Now he's praising that ability in AoS.
Despite what the detractors say, there are tactics, they are merely different to the old maths-hammer style gaming. Ability combos, battalions, troop numbers and so forth mean army selection still has its role. Outmanoeuvring your opponent is still important. What isn’t important is trawling the army books for weaknesses in the rules.
But... you said... oh what's the point. Oh that's right. There are no more points.
Pojko wrote: The bare bones rules are free, sure. But then it becomes a DLC fest full of scenarios and rules locked behind pay walls if you want the "full experience". $58 books and $2 scenarios add up.
All the unit rules are also free. Only the scenarios, battalions, and time or war rules cost money - and even then, they are completely optional. The 4 pages of rules includes a basic deathmatch scenario built in, so you are missing nothing by igoring them. I wouldn't even consider them the "full experience", given how situational they all are. You won't use most battalions or time or war rules even once, but the game probably could use more free scenarios.
The last 30 years have all been a lie! We have been deceived by a system that has never worked in the history of ever! Fairness is an illusion!
I don't think ANYBODY has argued that point systems were perfectly balanced - just that they were balanced enough (in certain circumstances) and that something bad or mediocre is better than nothing at all. If you are clinging to the idea that point systems in games like Warmachine or 40k actually do their job well, then I'm not really sure how to respond to that particular delusion.
Yeah, because it's real hard to look at the warscrolls and find cheesy combos of buffs and unit abilities. There's just as much ability to be a power gamer in AoS. Only it's easier now because you don't have points limits, and you can include everything you've ever wanted to create your super list.
I think the point is that because it is so easy to be a power gamer in AoS, it requires effort to not be one. So rather than spending your effort trying to outdo your opponent, you are spending your effort to do them... uh, that came out wrong... You spend effort to create playable experiences, rather than unplayable ones. Rather than minmaxing a bunch of points to create a cheesy army which exploits loopholes to unbalance the game in your favor, you instead seek to create a friendly game where neither side has an unfair advantage.
Well as to the points value thing I am strongly of the opinion that points are great for balancing two armies in a wargame but that the GW points system is garbage and has always been garbage since at least the mid 90s when I started.
Especially when there are other games on the market that do points so much better; when I look at 40k i only shake my head. And 40k balance has always been bad so its not like its a new thing - but a lot of that is simply units that are very powerful being too cheap for what they can do (and now we have formations that are free that do even more, and if you arne't rocking a formation and your opponent is, the conclusion is largely scripted out like a Michael Bay film)
I'm actually of the opinion that AOS losing points is a tremendous positive because it allowed fan comps to do a better job of it.
A nice read. Thanks for sharing! I'm glad he pointed out that Age of Sigmar isn't a skirmish game. Nowhere in White Dwarf or GW's website have I seen this game marketed as a skirmish game, and, yet, when a big model like Archaon comes out or GW puts out a new bundle on their webstore, so many AoS detractors are dumbfounded because they're under the impression that this game is meant to played only on a small scale. I, for one, am looking forward to playing some huuuge games once I get more miniatures painted for my Order and Chaos armies.
In the comments, he mentioned writing an article on Age of Sigmar fluff. I hope he does that! I'm reading Storm of Blades right now (his story in War Storm) and am really enjoying it, and am curious to see what a GW writer thinks of the Age of Sigmar fictional setting.
Very bland article in my opinion. Read basically the same thing 100x on random blogs a week after AoS's release - and his opinions on points and the players that like them is just offensive and rude.
Pojko wrote: The bare bones rules are free, sure. But then it becomes a DLC fest full of scenarios and rules locked behind pay walls if you want the "full experience". $58 books and $2 scenarios add up.
All the unit rules are also free. Only the scenarios, battalions, and time or war rules cost money - and even then, they are completely optional. The 4 pages of rules includes a basic deathmatch scenario built in, so you are missing nothing by igoring them. I wouldn't even consider them the "full experience", given how situational they all are. You won't use most battalions or time or war rules even once, but the game probably could use more free scenarios.
The last 30 years have all been a lie! We have been deceived by a system that has never worked in the history of ever! Fairness is an illusion!
I don't think ANYBODY has argued that point systems were perfectly balanced - just that they were balanced enough (in certain circumstances) and that something bad or mediocre is better than nothing at all. If you are clinging to the idea that point systems in games like Warmachine or 40k actually do their job well, then I'm not really sure how to respond to that particular delusion.
Yeah, because it's real hard to look at the warscrolls and find cheesy combos of buffs and unit abilities. There's just as much ability to be a power gamer in AoS. Only it's easier now because you don't have points limits, and you can include everything you've ever wanted to create your super list.
I think the point is that because it is so easy to be a power gamer in AoS, it requires effort to not be one. So rather than spending your effort trying to outdo your opponent, you are spending your effort to do them... uh, that came out wrong... You spend effort to create playable experiences, rather than unplayable ones. Rather than minmaxing a bunch of points to create a cheesy army which exploits loopholes to unbalance the game in your favor, you instead seek to create a friendly game where neither side has an unfair advantage.
Forgive me if anything I'm about to say sounds rude or combative. My only intent is to have s nice friendly debate.
This is something I see a lot of AoS supporters, Guy Haley included, say. They demonize WHFB as being some cutthroat, ruthless game where everyone is gunning to outdo their opponent and win at all costs. Simply not true. You had the option to be that kind of player. You also had the option to be the opposite. To play narratively, to make a themed army, to just have a good time. Same as AoS. You never had to fight against being a power gamer. The thing is, AoS has basically given you only one way of playing.
To me the point of Warhammer was to have fun. But the objective was to win a battle. Because it's two armies fighting. You should want to defeat your opponent and both have a fun time playing. Just like any sport or video game.
To me the point of AoS is also to have fun. But the objective is to create a fair, cooperative experience with your "battle partner". Note I didn't say opponent because that would imply competition. And from all of the people I've spoken to about this, they seem to think that competition or wanting to win at AoS is bad and goes against the spirit of the game.
The thing is, AoS has basically given you only one way of playing
No more or less than WFB did. You can play any way you want with AoS, you can play any way you want with WFB.
Points in any wargame are not about creating equal armies per se, they are about creating balance for a specific scenario - usually the line up and kill each other one. Points are really part of a scenario not the rules of the game. Tweak the victory conditions or setup or size or terrain or whatever and the points may well no longer work, as you are now playing a different scenario. Units that are good in small games may not be so in big games, units that are good at speeding across the table are awesome if you need to exit the far side, and potentially pointless in other scenarios. Skirmish types are often great in terrain and crap on an open table. A points system in isolation can't cover all those variables.
AoS breaks away from any pretense of points being some magic balancing mechanism for the 'game' rather than a specific scenario. As they are for a specific scenario it is for the scenario designer to come up with the army building system (comp, points, scrolls, lists, fixed etc). So if you wish to use a points system for a competitive environment then AoS in no way stops you. Work out what sort of game your competitive type game should be (size, VC, terrain etc etc) and do the points that best handle that.
This is something I see a lot of AoS supporters, Guy Haley included, say. They demonize WHFB as being some cutthroat, ruthless game where everyone is gunning to outdo their opponent and win at all costs. Simply not true. You had the option to be that kind of player. You also had the option to be the opposite. To play narratively, to make a themed army, to just have a good time. Same as AoS. You never had to fight against being a power gamer. The thing is, AoS has basically given you only one way of playing.
I've never played WHFB, and as such, I have nothing positive or negative to say about the game. However, I've heard (repeatedly) that the game is largely won in the list building and deployment stages. If that is true (no idea if it is), then power gamers have a distinct advantage in the game, seeing as they can heavily unbalance the game in their favor before even the first model is moved. I assume WHFB is unbalanced (and unfun) when you pit a power gamer against a non-power gamer. So, if you were preparing an army against an unknown opponent, how would you create your army?
To me the point of Warhammer was to have fun. But the objective was to win a battle. Because it's two armies fighting. You should want to defeat your opponent and both have a fun time playing. Just like any sport or video game.
You agree that winning by cheating is not acceptable, right? Therefore, you agree that the goal of winning does not justify the means by which you win. Just follow that line of reasoning a little further and see what you end up.
To me the point of AoS is also to have fun. But the objective is to create a fair, cooperative experience with your "battle partner". Note I didn't say opponent because that would imply competition. And from all of the people I've spoken to about this, they seem to think that competition or wanting to win at AoS is bad and goes against the spirit of the game.
No, competition is fine, but that competition does not begin before the game begins. Once you've decided on a scenario and the units to use within it, both of you agreeing that it seems like a fair, fun fight, then you compete to win. The competitive aspect just doesn't extend to list building.
I've never played WHFB, and as such, I have nothing positive or negative to say about the game. However, I've heard (repeatedly) that the game is largely won in the list building and deployment stages. If that is true (no idea if it is), then power gamers have a distinct advantage in the game, seeing as they can heavily unbalance the game in their favor before even the first model is moved. I assume WHFB is unbalanced (and unfun) when you pit a power gamer against a non-power gamer. So, if you were preparing an army against an unknown opponent, how would you create your army?
The same problem of unknown opponents exists in AoS. From what I've read on forums such as Dakka and Warseer, very few people use the rules as written straight out of the box. Many play a variety of comp systems, or ignore/add rules like no shooting in and out of combat, restricted summoning, measuring from bases, etc. What if you and your unknown opponent have different ideas of what is fun and fair? You compromise with your opponent, right? You could compromise in WHFB too, nothing prevented you from doing so.
Yeah, it's possible to be a power gamer. It's also possible to not be one. You get out of the hobby what you put in. If you aren't a power gamer and you surround yourself with like-minded people, then there's no problem. If you don't like power gamers, don't play them.
But to me it seems like you're implying that this was the only way to play in WHFB. That's unfair. It would be like me unfairly saying (and I'm not saying this) that AoS only consists of socially awkward manchildren who compare mustache sizes, yell "For The Lady!" in a heroic voice and scream a "primal warcry" because it's within the realm of the rules to do so. And yes, these rules are a legitimate part of the game.
You agree that winning by cheating is not acceptable, right? Therefore, you agree that the goal of winning does not justify the means by which you win. Just follow that line of reasoning a little further and see what you end up.
Again, Warhammer was not some win at all costs game where you threw fun out the window. I've watched every Fantasy battle report places like Miniwargaming and Guerrilla Miniature Games have to offer on Youtube. If the WHFB critics were to be believed then I'd expect these to be miserable experiences that lasted 20 minutes until one person lost or gave up. But no, they're full of guys laughing, ribbing each other and having fun.
No, competition is fine, but that competition does not begin before the game begins. Once you've decided on a scenario and the units to use within it, both of you agreeing that it seems like a fair, fun fight, then you compete to win. The competitive aspect just doesn't extend to list building.
List building didn't have to be a competitive aspect. I made all my lists based on fluff, my own army's narrative, and what units I had/thought were cool.
Now if you were attending a competitive tournament this would be a different story. That would basically be like comparing a pickup game of WHFB to a friendly exhibition soccer match, and a tournament to the World Cup tournament. I wasn't a tournament player, but even if I was I wouldn't take some power build armylist I found on the internet to a friendly match at a local game store and expect fun times to be had.
I've never played WHFB, and as such, I have nothing positive or negative to say about the game. However, I've heard (repeatedly) that the game is largely won in the list building and deployment stages. If that is true (no idea if it is), then power gamers have a distinct advantage in the game, seeing as they can heavily unbalance the game in their favor before even the first model is moved. I assume WHFB is unbalanced (and unfun) when you pit a power gamer against a non-power gamer. So, if you were preparing an army against an unknown opponent, how would you create your army?
It was so easy - my local GW had a regular points limit of 1250 so I would build one list for that and one for 1500 and one for 750 in case someone wanted to play bigger or smaller.
Did I ever play a power gamer? We always played to win and we had great games. If I got stomped I went and reviewed my list and tactics and came up with something new.
WHFB was won and lost in the movement phase, not in the list building. I used to draw tactical maps on the train ready for my next battle.
We would even make concessions in our lists to accommodate the other player (for example I would often agree to not play with 'Pit of Shades')
I enjoy AoS - but I have come to realise I now mainly enjoy the hobby aspect. I love being able to paint anything I want and only needing 10 of them. I love being able to collect all 4 grand alliances, totalling 7 factions (Empire, Dwarfs, Fyreslayers, High Elves, Vampire Counts, Night Goblins & Trolls and Skaven).
I found WHFB to be really rich and tactically rewarding - and this is something I am struggling with in AoS. I often find the game to be very unsatisfying tactically - especially in pick up games. I am hoping being much more strict about summoning is going to help my games become more tactical though.
Pojko wrote: The same problem of unknown opponents exists in AoS.
Except AoS expects you to have a dialogue with your opponent before (or more precisely, WHILE) you select your units.
From what I've read on forums such as Dakka and Warseer, very few people use the rules as written straight out of the box. Many play a variety of comp systems, or ignore/add rules like no shooting in and out of combat, restricted summoning, measuring from bases, etc. What if you and your unknown opponent have different ideas of what is fun and fair? You compromise with your opponent, right? You could compromise in WHFB too, nothing prevented you from doing so.
Long story short, AoS has no innate balancing mechanisms, so any changes you make to the rules - either by adding, limiting, or removing rules - will not affect the innate balance of the game. You are expected to decide on the balance yourself, and that's one way to do it (though I don't agree with no shooting into/out of combat, as that changes a fundamental rule which affects the very nature of specific units).
In a game like Warmachine, which is built on various combos and combo-counters, removing/changing a rule could end up making one combo unstoppable, unbalancing the game to the point of no fun. Like if you play the Twisted Metal variant (warjacks and casters only), the relative power of the units change completely, and you might as well throw out points completely. Age of Sigmar can not be unbalanced because it is not designed to be balanced.
But to me it seems like you're implying that this was the only way to play in WHFB. That's unfair.
I'm not saying it is the only way to play it. I'm saying that, if you don't know who your opponent will be, because of the way point systems work, you will have a better game if you assume some level of minmaxing on their part than if you do not - and design your list accordingly. If you took a 1,500 pt fluff list filled with models you like with no regard for anything BUT points, how balanced would your game be against ten other random 1,500 pt lists? Would you expect a balanced game every time? Points do not work as a balancing mechanism. There is no such thing as a game where every (or even most, or many) 1,500 pt list is balanced against each other.
Again, Warhammer was not some win at all costs game where you threw fun out the window. I've watched every Fantasy battle report places like Miniwargaming and Guerrilla Miniature Games have to offer on Youtube. If the WHFB critics were to be believed then I'd expect these to be miserable experiences that lasted 20 minutes until one person lost or gave up. But no, they're full of guys laughing, ribbing each other and having fun.
I don't think WHFB is a WAAC game at all (again, I've never played it). I think games which feature the opportunity to minmax will draw players who minmax, and the end result is that some players will put efficiency ahead of fun, sportsmanship, or fairness, and because minmaxing is codified in the rules directly (and fun, sportsmanship, and fairness are not), they end up dictating the terms of play within the community. AoS doesn't have minmaxing (not really), but does codify sportsmanship and fun through the Most Important Rule, and the looseness with which the game is drawn.
List building didn't have to be a competitive aspect. I made all my lists based on fluff, my own army's narrative, and what units I had/thought were cool.
And how well did those lists fare against the ones created by minmaxing players, eking out every advantage from every point? Points largely one work with a specific scenario, and an unspoken agreement on the purpose of employing those points. AoS forces you to speak that agreement, then cooperate on fulfilling it, while points systems force you to operate under assumptions and act unilaterally towards a purpose your opponent may not share.
I think you are making a lot of fallacious arguments against points here. I played WFB from 5th edition to 8th edition, and the points system was at least reasonably balanced for large chunks of that time.
Poor rules writing from GW resulted in imbalance (most infamously the 7th edition Daemon book) but the balance was nowhere near as bad as you were making out. The games were in general (especially in 6th and 7th edition) reasonably balanced and fair.
This was especially true below 1500 points where you could only take heroes and fewer rare units.
I played pick up games and in tournaments with lists cobbled together with stuff I liked, that fit my theme, or that I got cheap in starters and always did alright, and rarely felt I had no chance until the end period of 7th when the army book writers started to lose the run of themselves.
We played narrative campaigns too, in fact that was the most common way for us to play. Frankly I think you have little idea of what you are talking about with regard to older editions of Fantasy.
I enjoy AoS - but I have come to realise I now mainly enjoy the hobby aspect. I love being able to paint anything I want and only needing 10 of them. I love being able to collect all 4 grand alliances, totalling 7 factions (Empire, Dwarfs, Fyreslayers, High Elves, Vampire Counts, Night Goblins & Trolls and Skaven).
That is also my favorite aspect of the game. I love that I can see a model I like and buy it without having to support it with specific units or even investing in another full army. And I firmly believe that the reason that is possible is because AoS is innately unbalanced, such that no balancing contracts are broken by "coloring outside the lines".
I found WHFB to be really rich and tactically rewarding - and this is something I am struggling with in AoS. I often find the game to be very unsatisfying tactically - especially in pick up games. I am hoping being much more strict about summoning is going to help my games become more tactical though.
That's a perfectly reasonable assessment of AoS, and I don't disagree. It's just that I have a lot of tactical board and video games that I enjoy that require far less time and money to play. If I'm going to make the effort to hang out with my friends with a few hundred dollars in models, painted over dozens of hours, I don't want the tactical aspects to overpower everything else. I don't want to play against a friend who always wins (or loses), nor do I want to spend money and time on models that are tactically rich, but ugly and expensive. I see the tactical aspect as a framework to hang the shared experience on rather than the goal itself. If I want to dwell on the tactical, I'll whip out Advance Wars - they don't charge extra for more powerful units.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: I think you are making a lot of fallacious arguments against points here. I played WFB from 5th edition to 8th edition, and the points system was at least reasonably balanced for large chunks of that time.
I haven't played WHFB, so I'm speaking generally about point systems. Perhaps WHFB implements it better than everything else - and that's possible. Warmachine, for example, has a bunch of situational abilities. For instance, I have a Leviathan jack which is amphibious, but I've never played on a table with any significant body of water on it, so I'm paying extra for an ability I've never used. Maybe WHFB is less situational, and therefore more fairly balanced? Does WHFB have a bunch of units which do not change in effectiveness depending on the terrain or opponent's army selection?
Poor rules writing from GW resulted in imbalance (most infamously the 7th edition Daemon book) but the balance was nowhere near as bad as you were making out.
It's never the points, it's always GW's fault
The games were in general (especially in 6th and 7th edition) reasonably balanced and fair.
This was especially true below 1500 points where you could only take heroes and fewer rare units.
It's generally reasonably balanced and fair, but in some situations, it is especially reasonably balanced and fair?
5th edition had balance problems due to herohammer, and late 7th became unbalanced through badly designed army books. That's what I was referencing in the sentence that gave you trouble.
And, well, GW are the people setting the points values, so yeah, it's their fault if the points are imbalanced.
I would not say WFB was an especially good example of points balancing - about as good as Warmachine/Hordes but without the advantage of those games of every faction getting upgraded at once.
KoW has better points balancing, though it is not perfect. It will never be perfect, but should strive to be as good as possible. Completely jacking it in because it can't be perfect is...well, it's not something I agree with.
I do play narrative games, but I feel that AoS is poorly designed to be a narrative game. Dungeons and Dragons does a better job of it.
I also play pointsless games (in theory - in reality I don't get to play much these days) but they generally are historicals where you would recreate a specific battle.
As a foreigner in Germany, if GW games were not so complicated to negotiate right now, I would probably play them. It would be a lot easier for me with my not-so-great German to walk into the shop and get a game with someone by saying "Wollen Sie spielen? 1500 punkte?" than having to engage in the complex conversation about expectations. So I don't play GW games any more, pretty much, because they made it more awkward for me to do so by removing the structure that would have made it easy for me to play.
I don't mind much though as it's probably been good for my hobbying overall to look outside the pond after all these years.
Da Boss wrote: I think you are making a lot of fallacious arguments against points here. I played WFB from 5th edition to 8th edition, and the points system was at least reasonably balanced for large chunks of that time.
Poor rules writing from GW resulted in imbalance (most infamously the 7th edition Daemon book) but the balance was nowhere near as bad as you were making out. The games were in general (especially in 6th and 7th edition) reasonably balanced and fair.
This was especially true below 1500 points where you could only take heroes and fewer rare units.
I played pick up games and in tournaments with lists cobbled together with stuff I liked, that fit my theme, or that I got cheap in starters and always did alright, and rarely felt I had no chance until the end period of 7th when the army book writers started to lose the run of themselves.
We played narrative campaigns too, in fact that was the most common way for us to play. Frankly I think you have little idea of what you are talking about with regard to older editions of Fantasy.
Most of my games were 1st edition - which is pushing the limits of my fading memory, but that was hopeless for points/balance as I remember. However, as teens with limited models points weren't that important, we played much more like AOS - discuss who has what and how should we split up between 2 sides. I think 3rd was my next version, but only dabbled and don't really remember much beyond it being very different to 1st. Then 6th ed. My recollections of 6th is mainly Skaven gunlines wiping most stuff and being the subject of much hate, and locally my lizard skink army that murdered everything for the short period I was playing with that army before losing interest in the game again.
I'm not saying it is the only way to play it. I'm saying that, if you don't know who your opponent will be, because of the way point systems work, you will have a better game if you assume some level of minmaxing on their part than if you do not - and design your list accordingly. If you took a 1,500 pt fluff list filled with models you like with no regard for anything BUT points, how balanced would your game be against ten other random 1,500 pt lists? Would you expect a balanced game every time? Points do not work as a balancing mechanism. There is no such thing as a game where every (or even most, or many) 1,500 pt list is balanced against each other.
I don't think WHFB is a WAAC game at all (again, I've never played it). I think games which feature the opportunity to minmax will draw players who minmax, and the end result is that some players will put efficiency ahead of fun, sportsmanship, or fairness, and because minmaxing is codified in the rules directly (and fun, sportsmanship, and fairness are not), they end up dictating the terms of play within the community. AoS doesn't have minmaxing (not really), but does codify sportsmanship and fun through the Most Important Rule, and the looseness with which the game is drawn.
And how well did those lists fare against the ones created by minmaxing players, eking out every advantage from every point? Points largely one work with a specific scenario, and an unspoken agreement on the purpose of employing those points. AoS forces you to speak that agreement, then cooperate on fulfilling it, while points systems force you to operate under assumptions and act unilaterally towards a purpose your opponent may not share.
Basically what I've gathered here is that despite never having ever played WHFB, you've come up with the notion that it was inferior because some people in theory could be power gamers and min/max and try to ruin everyone's fun. It's a pretty shaky premise to base an argument on.
Any game can be abused by power gamers, AoS included. Any game can have sensible people with good sportsmanship play it, WHFB included. Age of Sigmar is not a revolutionary idea that eliminates bad players by touting the "most important rule". Because that rule has been around the GW community for many years before AoS. People were having fun games, narratives, campaigns, battle reports, and all around awesome times without the need of GW's enforced freedom from points systems and balance. Because in the end it comes down to the people who play the game to have a good time, not the system forcing you to.
And since you asked, I don't have much experience playing against min/maxing players eking out every advantage from every point. Maybe level-headed people just outweigh power gamers in Chicago? Even in the couple 40K tournaments I attended as a teenager in 2001, people were kind, fair, and didn't have super lists. Except that one guy who had 3 Wraithlords, but hey, that could be considered fluffy if it was an Iyanden army.
Sqorgar wrote: I haven't played WHFB, so I'm speaking generally about point systems. Perhaps WHFB implements it better than everything else - and that's possible. Warmachine, for example, has a bunch of situational abilities. For instance, I have a Leviathan jack which is amphibious, but I've never played on a table with any significant body of water on it, so I'm paying extra for an ability I've never used.
That looks like a fundamental misunderstanding of how points work to me. You assume you're paying points for amphibious but you're not, it's not an upgrade you buy for additional points, it is part of a package deal and you get it with the rest of that jack. If you want to argue that the Leviathan is an overcosted jack then that is a debate we could have, but you're coming at that issue from a fundamentally wrong angle.
If a model in a game has an ability it doesn't get to use that game that model is paying points for something it's not doing, but it doesn't make that model not worth the points because of it.
A khorne warrior in WHFB was not overcosted because it got shot to death before it could ever reach melee.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'll also just pitch in that while my WHFB experience was limited to 8th ed only I went to LOTS of tourneys for it and had a blast because I found it a balanced enough game that even when I went up against the cheesy powergamer (my most common opponent in fact) the game came down to how we played and woulds still be won on our maneuvering.
Also fun fact, the only WHFB player I can distinctly remember playing and having no fun against because of powergaming dived straight into AoS and last I saw him was super excited about it.
Basically what I've gathered here is that despite never having ever played WHFB, you've come up with the notion that it was inferior because some people in theory could be power gamers and min/max and try to ruin everyone's fun. It's a pretty shaky premise to base an argument on.
I've never said anything against WHFB. I'm talking about points used for balancing. They are innately poor at their job, and it does not appear that WHFB does anything to assuage those faults. Maybe it does. I don't know.
Any game can be abused by power gamers, AoS included. Any game can have sensible people with good sportsmanship play it, WHFB included. Age of Sigmar is not a revolutionary idea that eliminates bad players by touting the "most important rule". Because that rule has been around the GW community for many years before AoS. People were having fun games, narratives, campaigns, battle reports, and all around awesome times without the need of GW's enforced freedom from points systems and balance. Because in the end it comes down to the people who play the game to have a good time, not the system forcing you to.
You misunderstand. Anybody can play a game however they want, but at the point you start codifying specific behaviors into the gameplay DNA itself, it becomes more difficult to play against type. It's not that AoS doesn't have munchkins. It's that AoS doesn't include munchkin DNA within the rules themselves. And I consider point systems, which by their very nature encourage and reward minmaxing, to be munchkin DNA. Playing AoS as a narrative game is not playing AoS against type.
There's basically two things points do, mutually exclusive. They either provide a sense of balance where one 1,500 pt army is balanced against another 1,500 pt army, or they reward the overcoming of limitations to create a better 1,500 pt army. They can't be both things. You can't have a situation where "1,500 pts is balanced, but some 1,500 pts are more balanced than others". So either points create balance or they create limitations to surpass. I can't think of a game which is more the former than the latter.
And since you asked, I don't have much experience playing against min/maxing players eking out every advantage from every point. Maybe level-headed people just outweigh power gamers in Chicago?
I don't think that power gamers aren't level headed. In fact, I think they tend to be rational to a fault. It's just that their goals involve efficiency and logistical mastery, which can be at odds with the goals of a balanced game - or even a game enjoyable to all parties.
I'm actually of the opinion that AOS losing points is a tremendous positive because it allowed fan comps to do a better job of it.
except it dosent. In fact you have camps of players that want to play by ruleset A and camps that want B, usually because they favor their particular armies. Say what you will about under and overcosted points values. At least whe they existed everyone had to play by the same set of rules.
Our players broke into groups. 9th age, kings of war, and staying with 8th. Lo and behold fan made "adjustments" to these sets split them further.
Now nobody gets a game. Literally have not seen a game of fantasy in any format since about 3 months ago. This goes from 20+ active players a year ago.
TheCustomLime wrote: Does this man not understand why troops were organized into block formations until the wide-spread adoption of modern military firearms?
They only thing he understands is he had better damn well find a way to shill this thing in a positive light, because his companies future, and thus his job, relies on convincing the community that this change was a positive, and not a disaster.
I'm actually of the opinion that AOS losing points is a tremendous positive because it allowed fan comps to do a better job of it.
except it dosent. In fact you have camps of players that want to play by ruleset A and camps that want B, usually because they favor their particular armies. Say what you will about under and overcosted points values. At least whe they existed everyone had to play by the same set of rules.
Our players broke into groups. 9th age, kings of war, and staying with 8th. Lo and behold fan made "adjustments" to these sets split them further.
Now nobody gets a game. Literally have not seen a game of fantasy in any format since about 3 months ago. This goes from 20+ active players a year ago.
I'm seeing the opposite. That there are people that demand that everyone else plays the same rules as they do or they won't play is not a concern of mine though. The whole "one way to play or nothing" mindset is never anything that I ever followed. Our fantasy group is growing locally, much like it did in 2010 when 8th came and everyone rage quit for warmachine because of the random elements introduced. The same growth ratio is present today with AoS here.
Having to play by the same set of busted unbalanced point costs is not much of an option in my opinion. Of the fan comps that exist I'm not sure of any of the bigger ones that favor any one army over the other, at least I would need to see that demonstrated mathematically some how. They all seem to provide fairly consistent balance.
If I have to choose between playing the same busted balance point costs which introduce a predictable internet meta every game, or getting a game in with a smaller subset of people but the games are more balanced I'm going with the latter every time.
Every few weeks we get another club member checking out the game,or a new player altogether joining us.The group now is probably around 15 or so players that pop in to get a game from every few months to every other week.
A few are old fantasy players,some 40k players and even a few new to the genre.
With all the great fan made comps out there,AoS has more ways to play than WHFB ever did,and with its focus on themed armies its really grabbing players with its relaxed less competitive vibe.
What I'm getting tired of is this assumption from all the so called log time GW gamer "experts" that everyone wants to have some ultra competitive game system with intricate points that ,by the way are ALWAYS bitched about ,no matter how many times GW would adjust them.
There is a whole segment of gamers that just want to play casual themed games and could care less how well they play toys soldiers because no matter how tactical you think you are,,after all you are just playing with toy soldiers,its just a game.They just want to socialize and have a good time and use the cool models they painted up.GW is going after this segment and from what I'm seeing and hearing its working.Just this weekend Ill be hosting another session at the largest game shop in the city,this time will have 2 more new members joining us,not to mention the watchers we get from the 100+ patrons that are usually in the store on Saturday evenings.
They only thing he understands is he had better damn well find a way to shill this thing in a positive light, because his companies future, and thus his job, relies on convincing the community that this change was a positive, and not a disaster.
Are you suggesting that he does not legitimately enjoy the game? I, personally, feel that calling his credibility into question and insinuating that he is corrupt and a liar is kind of excessive for a somewhat positive, vaguely constructive opinion posted on a personal blog that largely mirrors the same commentary I've read a hundred times from AoS fans in the past year. I get that you disagree, but there's a world of difference between disagreeing and what you are insinuating. Dick move, dude.
Got to say I find this article terribly biased. I get that liking a game is subjective but he contradicts himself and makes just plain false statements in other parts.
1) he states that a lack of points isn't an issue , but his reasoning of why is just because GW didn't do a good job with balance.
1A) then he says that AOS isn't balanced but that's not an issue because he's never played against people using broken army's and doesn't plan on playing against them in AOS.
1C) using this logic there was nothing wrong with WHFB because he could just avoid players that would aim to break it just like he does now. He states that any imbalance is solved by a quick discussion but this once again isn't a good argument because you can discuss balance in any game.
2)he claims that the game scales well up and down but this is just not a fact. While WHFB didn't scale down it was easy to scale up games because of the ways units work. I played an all goblin force with 200+ models and it was easy to move, set up, and play because the way units were assembled. I could add 100 troops to my army and that could easily be 2 groups of 50
2B) scaling up in AOS is just terrible. The amount of times you move a model per turn and measuring from the model make game length grow exponentially. Stating AOS plays well with large army's is as disingenuous as saying WHFB played well at 250 points.
He also says that army selection is a big part of the tactics in AOS but that just isn't true when you can take anything in the game. If he's stating that its true with some comps thats true but simply not true if he's discussing raw.
Yeah. AoS does not scale up well to mass battle. The rules are far too detailed on the level of the individual model to do that. It's Skirmish style rules but they still want to shill 100+ models to a prospective player.
Frankly, I think this attitude is doing a disservice to the strengths of the ruleset.
TheCustomLime wrote: Yeah. AoS does not scale up well to mass battle. The rules are far too detailed on the level of the individual model to do that. It's Skirmish style rules but they still want to shill 100+ models to a prospective player.
Frankly, I think this attitude is doing a disservice to the strengths of the ruleset.
IMOAOS has two strengths
1) it plays well at small levels and as you said they are doing themselves a disservice by trying to sell it as a replacement for large mass battle games..... It just isn't
2) online rules is the second strength but then instead of being able to balance units whenever they are still set on making hard copy books with unit rules
AoS plays well with anywhere from what you get in the Starter, with 17 models in the Stormcast army up to around 70 or so models.After that it starts to get too grindy I think,plus the games just take too long.
I think the point that people are making about AoS being smaller armies,is that you don't need to have 2 groups of 50 night goblins then 30+ Savage orks as your troop blocks then another 25 or so models in the elite and support areas.Sure you can do that if you want,but its just not really made for those large blocks of troops.
I don't think GW is pushing people to build huge armies with AoS,but what they would like people to do is to branch out and have a playable amount of models from all the factions.And that could be as little as 15 models of an elite army to around 35 or so for a more horde oriented army.The "Start collecting" boxes are a great way to get headed in this direction.
TheCustomLime wrote: Yeah. AoS does not scale up well to mass battle. The rules are far too detailed on the level of the individual model to do that. It's Skirmish style rules but they still want to shill 100+ models to a prospective player.
Frankly, I think this attitude is doing a disservice to the strengths of the ruleset.
Minijack wrote: AoS plays well with anywhere from what you get in the Starter, with 17 models in the Stormcast army up to around 70 or so models.After that it starts to get too grindy I think,plus the games just take too long.
I think the point that people are making about AoS being smaller armies,is that you don't need to have 2 groups of 50 night goblins then 30+ Savage orks as your troop blocks then another 25 or so models in the elite and support areas.Sure you can do that if you want,but its just not really made for those large blocks of troops.
I don't think GW is pushing people to build huge armies with AoS,but what they would like people to do is to branch out and have a playable amount of models from all the factions.And that could be as little as 15 models of an elite army to around 35 or so for a more horde oriented army.The "Start collecting" boxes are a great way to get headed in this direction.
I never have to take 100 night goblins.... I love taking a few hundred. I never played WHFB to play small forces. I loved the feeling of my goblins getting slaughtered left and right but flooding the board with too many bodies to kill. I could never do this with AOS because the game kills it in two ways. Firstly the game would just be beyond long in the movement/ pile in phase. Secondly you are punished for taking lots of models by giving up sudden death easily with a horde army.
Minijack wrote: I think the point that people are making about AoS being smaller armies,is that you don't need to have 2 groups of 50 night goblins then 30+ Savage orks as your troop blocks then another 25 or so models in the elite and support areas.Sure you can do that if you want,but its just not really made for those large blocks of troops.
You know, this is something I find interesting. Was I alone in enjoying the idea that you should have to bring so many spearmen and so many bowmen before you can bring your elite units to the table? That felt practical, it felt realistic, and above all it felt fluffy to me. I liked the 25% core minimum and I say that as a Vampire Counts player who felt like if he brought 502 points (out of 2,000) of core because a zombie was 3 he had waited 2 points.
Leaving the zombies and skeletons at home would have allowed me so many knights or grave guard or just more ungodly beatstick vampires... but that wasn't how the army was supposed to play and that was not how they functioned in the fluff. I much prefer that to 'bring whatever the you want'.
Minijack wrote: I think the point that people are making about AoS being smaller armies,is that you don't need to have 2 groups of 50 night goblins then 30+ Savage orks as your troop blocks then another 25 or so models in the elite and support areas.Sure you can do that if you want,but its just not really made for those large blocks of troops.
You know, this is something I find interesting. Was I alone in enjoying the idea that you should have to bring so many spearmen and so many bowmen before you can bring your elite units to the table? That felt practical, it felt realistic, and above all it felt fluffy to me. I liked the 25% core minimum and I say that as a Vampire Counts player who felt like if he brought 502 points (out of 2,000) of core because a zombie was 3 he had waited 2 points.
Leaving the zombies and skeletons at home would have allowed me so many knights or grave guard or just more ungodly beatstick vampires... but that wasn't how the army was supposed to play and that was not how they functioned in the fluff. I much prefer that to 'bring whatever the you want'.
Agreed, that was my preference as well. The whole point of the core requirement was to help present semi-fluffy armies. Armies wouldn't be made up of all elites, because if they are, then the elites are CORE. If everyone is special, then no one is.
But I also felt that core units shouldn't be worthless. it shouldn't be a core tax, they should be a useful part of an army. With my dwarves,8th edition made even vanilla warriors a valuable unit who were useful in the right situation. They had their strengths and weaknesses, but I never complained about bringing them.
Aye, core should be useful. My example of zombies with VC was just that the way VC worked was that I arrived with the minimum number of zombies I could and then summoned more to the table to tarpit the enemy until my count was ready to ruin someone's day.
TheCustomLime wrote: Does this man not understand why troops were organized into block formations until the wide-spread adoption of modern military firearms?
They only thing he understands is he had better damn well find a way to shill this thing in a positive light, because his companies future, and thus his job, relies on convincing the community that this change was a positive, and not a disaster.
Sorry, I can't let that go.
Guy is a great bloke. Yes, he edited WD once upon a time but he is no longer employed by GW, he's freelance. BL have been offering him plenty of work over the last couple of years which is why I'm *still* waiting on the next Richards & Klein novel.
He didn't have to write that post, and he makes it clear it's only his opinion. Repeatedly.
He's still demonstrably wrong. Block formations are not "absurd". There are many valid reasons why armies before the advent of machines guns would use them. Additionally, the best known battles in Fantasy films have made wide use of block formations. They look professional and badass.
TheCustomLime wrote: He's still demonstrably wrong. Block formations are not "absurd". There are many valid reasons why armies before the advent of machines guns would use them. Additionally, the best known battles in Fantasy films have made wide use of block formations. They look professional and badass.
Sorry Lime, wasn't defending the content of the post - but the insinuation that he is forced to like AoS because of association with GW.
I think his opinion on blocks may be coloured by the fact he's been an O&G player since year dot.
Using the LotR movies as an example - Elves rank up, dwarves rank up, humans rank up... Orcs and goblins *start* in ranks, then it all kinda falls to bits...
I can't think of any big fantasy film that didn't have rank and file formation, beyond some of the LOTR skirmishes (like the barrel escape in the Hobbit, or Goblin Town).
I think they've been trying to replicate the heros, in some sort of "all heroes, all the time" game. Legolas & Gimli were never in formation, but they were usually tearing through a formation.
At the scale I think AoS is meant to be aiming at I don't think it needs unit blocks, but it also shouldn't have unit cohesion and should have better skirmish rules. i.e. it's a small warband skirmish game, which is intended for maybe 20 minis a side. WHFB definitely needed blocks.
Sqorgar wrote: I've never said anything against WHFB. I'm talking about points used for balancing. They are innately poor at their job, and it does not appear that WHFB does anything to assuage those faults. Maybe it does. I don't know.
Points are the absolute best way to approach it; all of the other systems are really just emulating points anyway (and pretty badly, in the case of model counts).
Any sort of effectiveness is based on comparison; an armoured knight it objectively better than a rag covered goblin, but by how much?
All of the comp systems have been focused on coming up with a points system; something that'd have been served much better by the people who wrote the actual rules and did the *ahem* playtesting, instead of the customers.
Sure, points will never be perfect, but they give you the best starting point. Even if your points system gives you, say, 75% accuracy (so 1000pts of X is worth the equivalent of about 750-1250pts of Y), then you're still going to have a much more balanced game than just guessing and going with a gut feeling, until you've played it enough to have formulated pseudo points in your head anyway.
And something I keep saying; it's so much easier to drop the points (like we did playing 3rd Ed WHFB on the floor) than it is to re-invent them.
Also; there's literally nothing you can do in AoS that you couldn't do at least as easily in WHFB, and it really says something that even the biggest advocates of AoS (including Guy Haley, who gets paid to write AoS fiction) admit it has flaws or they don't like the way some things work.
I get the arguments about "you were always free to do whatever you wanted", but the whole point of any rules system is to standardise.
People have said AoS doesn't work for pick-up games.
But from my experience, WFB pickup games were invariably equal-pointed pitched battles - only the terrain ever differed.
The difference between AoS and WFB in that regard is that the WFB baseline was even-pointed army lists, pitched battles and the victory point table.
AoS' baseline is to discuss with your opponent what sort of game you want, which automatically lends itself to mucking around with the system and tailoring the experience.
I personally have come to prefer the AoS baseline. I am not claiming that I never enjoyed WFB games, but it just never occurred to me that an AoS-esque approach could work.
But I'm glad that I've found it does.
That was because even points with pitched battle and standard victory points is perfect for pick up games. That's all of the back-and-forth negotiation done in like 8 words:
2000 point, pitched battle, standard victory conditions? Done.
So you can spent all of your time playing the game and engaging in banter, instead of spending the first 20+ minutes deciding on *how* you want to play.
I'd hate for the negotiations to last longer than it takes to unpack my army and start deploying.
AoS has also become far from standardized; it's the first GW ruleset I can think of where houseruling became the norm. Everyone plays it differently.
Herzlos wrote: That was because even points with pitched battle and standard victory points is perfect for pick up games. That's all of the back-and-forth negotiation done in like 8 words:
2000 point, pitched battle, standard victory conditions? Done.
So you can spent all of your time playing the game and engaging in banter, instead of spending the first 20+ minutes deciding on *how* you want to play.
I'd hate for the negotiations to last longer than it takes to unpack my army and start deploying.
I'm not denying any of that. But once you have a few games under your belt if it takes more than 5 minutes to organise a game of AoS then something's not right.
As I said, the baseline of WFB was a standardised size and format.
The baseline for AoS isn't.
I don't think it matters at all if a game adopts rank formations like historical armies, or loose skirmishing groups like modern infantry (who it must be said, still form up in loose skirmish ranks or blocks to develop maximum firepower.) Either is a completely valid way of playing a wargame, and more power to your elbow for playing the game you like.
What's silly and almost verging on a lie, is to say that AoS provides a mass battle visual experience that looks like awesome fantasy films when everyone can easily see that fantasy films with mass battles in them always show the armies formed up into ranks and blocks.
Formed ranks are seen in all the LoTR and Hobbit mass battles.
300 (essentially a fantasy film, though based on historical events) shows blocks.
The Narnia film mass battle scenes are in ranks.
Troy (2004) shows troops in rank formations.
Princess Mononoke shows troops in ranks.
The Mummy 3
Red Cliff 2
El Cid, Kingdom of Heaven, Kagemusha (all semi-historical)
To be sure, there are plenty of fight scenes in fantasy films that look more like the AoS style, but these are all fights with small numbers involved, not large scale battles. Usually involving one or a few heroes versus some monsters or a group of mooks, or sometimes small warbands fighting each other. In Excalibur, for instance, you get scenes with a couple of hundred knights fighting, which is the typical size of a large game of AoS.
RoperPG wrote: But once you have a few games under your belt if it takes more than 5 minutes to organise a game of AoS then something's not right..
Even with a complete stranger? Does that time also include deciding what forces you are fielding?
In my experience, yes. Full disclosure, I've only played two games of AoS against people I hadn't arranged with previously, buy we got from "fancy a game?" to turn 1 inside 20/25 minutes. This included arranging the game, deciding what we were doing, setting up the table, setting up terrain and deploying forces.
Edit: I'd regard WHW differently, since the events already have pre-defined comp packs and they probably don't approve of fan-made comp packs in open play.
Do the WHW events encourage players to decide amongst themselves what to house rule, or is it RAW + event comp?
Well, that post from Mr Haley isn't really surprising.
But I still note the tone about the mantra "people don't get AoS, they are in the wrong".
I think he actually and truly believes that - like many people working for GW or being quite close to them. That was also the same stance I had from GW representatives when they came in Belgium to show AoS.
That's quite understandable, to be honest. But I believe it can be a problem - absolutely no objectivity at all and oblivious to criticism. Being passionate is fine. Willingly ignoring some parts because they don't suit you is not, IMHO. I get that a lot from fans who just don't want to listen to anything that may be even slightly going against their vision.
Being a long-time 40K player who’s now moved across the AoS, one of the main attractions for the move was that they’d shifted to 1” coherency skirmish-style formations, and a more “realistic” ground scale for small patrol-clash stories, rather than a “mighty unit of the Empire’s finest warriors” being represented by a rank and file unit of…er.. 20 blokes.
I’m one of those weird types who’d happily lose every game so long as there was a compelling story and a more skirmish-y, cinematic feel to a game, and I think AoS provides this more successfully than WFB ever did. Taking the rigidity of the rules / points away from army books and putting the onus back onto players to behave cooperatively and game in the tradition of a compelling narrative and mutual cooperation can only be a good thing, in my experience. Maybe it's just the people I've gamed with in the past, like
Is it even possible to fight a mass battle without ranks from either a historical or fantasy perspective?
Historically the barbarians tried it and the roman legions, known for their formation fighting had none of it. Phalanxes and Hostilities where common among other armies because, again, it worked. Sure guerrilla warfare worked to some extent without formations, but was a distinctly different type of warfare.
Moving into more medieval warfare with proper ranked spearmen, crossbows, knights, if you weren't fighting with formed ranks you broke, ran and got cut down pretty easily. I'm no historian but in the real world the strategies that worked tended to be the ones that became well known and carried on through hundreds or thousands of years of warfare.
In fantasy things need to be less realistic, but there is usually still some reason to it. If archers behind disciplined spearmen is a winning tactic then what about AoS makes inferior to loose rabbles of people crashing into each other?
Minijack wrote: I think the point that people are making about AoS being smaller armies,is that you don't need to have 2 groups of 50 night goblins then 30+ Savage orks as your troop blocks then another 25 or so models in the elite and support areas.Sure you can do that if you want,but its just not really made for those large blocks of troops.
You know, this is something I find interesting. Was I alone in enjoying the idea that you should have to bring so many spearmen and so many bowmen before you can bring your elite units to the table? That felt practical, it felt realistic, and above all it felt fluffy to me. I liked the 25% core minimum and I say that as a Vampire Counts player who felt like if he brought 502 points (out of 2,000) of core because a zombie was 3 he had waited 2 points.
Leaving the zombies and skeletons at home would have allowed me so many knights or grave guard or just more ungodly beatstick vampires... but that wasn't how the army was supposed to play and that was not how they functioned in the fluff. I much prefer that to 'bring whatever the you want'.
Agreed, that was my preference as well. The whole point of the core requirement was to help present semi-fluffy armies. Armies wouldn't be made up of all elites, because if they are, then the elites are CORE. If everyone is special, then no one is.
But I also felt that core units shouldn't be worthless. it shouldn't be a core tax, they should be a useful part of an army. With my dwarves,8th edition made even vanilla warriors a valuable unit who were useful in the right situation. They had their strengths and weaknesses, but I never complained about bringing them.
This is my preference as well. Unfortunately I have found that this preference has long gone away from the mass of other people I know for two main reasons:
1) buying all of those models - it seems preferable to buy a smaller number of models because smaller models = faster game = preferable
2) having to paint all of those models - it seems preferable to buy a smaller number of models because smaller models = faster to paint = preferable
jonolikespie wrote: Is it even possible to fight a mass battle without ranks from either a historical or fantasy perspective?
You could, but you'd lose any semblance of control or coherency immediately, and each individual soldier would be exposed on all sides. So you'd have a giant messy brawl with no idea what's going on and a real risk of friendly fire.
Tightly ranked units usually bet loose formations for that reason; with tight units you have to attack on their front (or flank them) where they are most heavily armoured and often have a shield wall to overcome. You also get better visibility (who is where, what state are they in?) and control, as well as making it easy to do things like swap ranks out to keep the fresh fighters at the front. Once you broke into a loose formation you could get swept up by cavalry; most casualties happened that way due to being harrassed on the retreat.
There's no way you could fight a big battle (10's or 100's of thousands of soldiers) pre-radio in the "skirmish" style. I'd even argue that most of the big modern battles (like the Somme in WW1 and the Russian Front in WW2) were closer to rank-and-file than skirmish. It was certainly the case in Napoleonics or the American Civil War too.
So once you get above some given size (maybe 100 men?) formed units has been the way to go for more or less the entire history of warfare. There's no reason that'd change in a fantasy setting unless the physics were vastly different.
There are several reasons why in real life troops fight in formations:
To develop maximum possible combat power facing the enemy.
To avoid friendly fire casualties.
For mutual support.
For morale reasons.
For command and control reasons.
All these can be ignored if you want to. Game rules do not need to take into account the real world.
However the thing that cannot be ignored is simply that to move lots of figures is quicker if they are moved in blocks rather than individually.
The forum poll on the topic showed that 81% of players like to play games with 100 or fewer figures.
jonolikespie wrote:Is it even possible to fight a mass battle without ranks from either a historical or fantasy perspective?
I'm not really an expert on historical military maneuvers, but weren't ranks used in battles with thousands, and even hundreds of thousands of troops, not a few dozen? And ranks never survived contact with the enemy. They were largely an organizational effort for positioning and tactics, but once they broke rank, it was just a jumble of sweaty, shirtless men rubbing up against each other in slow motion (at least, according to Spartacus)
Herzlos wrote:Points are the absolute best way to approach it; all of the other systems are really just emulating points anyway (and pretty badly, in the case of model counts).
That shows a lack of imagination and isn't even remotely true. Points are probably the simplest way to do it, the most unilateral way to do it, but it isn't the best way. It's just so ingrained in the way people think about miniature games that it is difficult for them to let go of the idea. You literally don't need any army building rules beyond mutual agreement, and points are a neutral way to confirm that agreement ahead of time - but it isn't the only way, and I'd consider many, many more options before I declared it the "absolute best" approach.
Also; there's literally nothing you can do in AoS that you couldn't do at least as easily in WHFB, and it really says something that even the biggest advocates of AoS (including Guy Haley, who gets paid to write AoS fiction) admit it has flaws or they don't like the way some things work.
If the presence of flaws were reason enough to ignore a miniature game, there wouldn't be any miniature games left. Everything is imperfect. Doesn't mean we can't still enjoy them for what they are. Besides, I'm sure if he didn't admit the flaws, you'd just be complaining that he was blinded by loyalty and refused to admit that the game wasn't perfect. There's no (positive) opinion that this guy could have that you wouldn't find some way to trivialize and dismiss.
jonolikespie wrote:Is it even possible to fight a mass battle without ranks from either a historical or fantasy perspective?
I'm not really an expert on historical military maneuvers, but weren't ranks used in battles with thousands, and even hundreds of thousands of troops, not a few dozen? And ranks never survived contact with the enemy. They were largely an organizational effort for positioning and tactics, but once they broke rank, it was just a jumble of sweaty, shirtless men rubbing up against each other in slow motion (at least, according to Spartacus)
You need hundreds, at least, before ranks make sense. And a lot of effort was spent trying to maintain your ranks / disrupting your enemies ranks; you want to avoid a total scrum. It just doesn't make dramatic cinematography.
Herzlos wrote:Points are the absolute best way to approach it; all of the other systems are really just emulating points anyway (and pretty badly, in the case of model counts).
That shows a lack of imagination and isn't even remotely true. Points are probably the simplest way to do it, the most unilateral way to do it, but it isn't the best way. It's just so ingrained in the way people think about miniature games that it is difficult for them to let go of the idea. You literally don't need any army building rules beyond mutual agreement, and points are a neutral way to confirm that agreement ahead of time - but it isn't the only way, and I'd consider many, many more options before I declared it the "absolute best" approach.
The only other approach I can think of in terms of balance is mirroring, and even then it's imperfect if you don't compensate for the turn order. It'd make boring games though so I discounted it.
I have absolutely no idea how else you could do it.
There's historic orders of battle, but that's specifically not balanced (if you follow Sun Tsu, you want to avoid a balanced battle).
What other approaches are there to attaining balance?
Also; there's literally nothing you can do in AoS that you couldn't do at least as easily in WHFB, and it really says something that even the biggest advocates of AoS (including Guy Haley, who gets paid to write AoS fiction) admit it has flaws or they don't like the way some things work.
If the presence of flaws were reason enough to ignore a miniature game, there wouldn't be any miniature games left. Everything is imperfect. Doesn't mean we can't still enjoy them for what they are. Besides, I'm sure if he didn't admit the flaws, you'd just be complaining that he was blinded by loyalty and refused to admit that the game wasn't perfect. There's no (positive) opinion that this guy could have that you wouldn't find some way to trivialize and dismiss.
Not all flaws are equal though. There's slight niggles like shooting-out-of-combat and the backwards way walls work, and there's game breaking flaws like ignoring bases or balance. I was (not very clearly, I admit) talking about even the biggest AoS fans admiting that it's got serious, fundamental flaws in gameplay, and almost all of them houserule one way or another.
Having even the biggest fans "fix" the rules is not the sign of a quality ruleset.
None of the games I play are without flaws, but none are anywhere near as flawed as AoS. I'm actually struggling to come up with flaws for most of my other systems. Flamethrower tanks are far too powerful in Bolt Action, and there's something about Frostgrave and combat, but it's so minor I can't even remember what it is.
jonolikespie wrote:Is it even possible to fight a mass battle without ranks from either a historical or fantasy perspective?
I'm not really an expert on historical military maneuvers, but weren't ranks used in battles with thousands, and even hundreds of thousands of troops, not a few dozen? And ranks never survived contact with the enemy. They were largely an organizational effort for positioning and tactics, but once they broke rank, it was just a jumble of sweaty, shirtless men rubbing up against each other in slow motion (at least, according to Spartacus)
Herzlos wrote:Points are the absolute best way to approach it; all of the other systems are really just emulating points anyway (and pretty badly, in the case of model counts).
That shows a lack of imagination and isn't even remotely true. Points are probably the simplest way to do it, the most unilateral way to do it, but it isn't the best way. It's just so ingrained in the way people think about miniature games that it is difficult for them to let go of the idea. You literally don't need any army building rules beyond mutual agreement, and points are a neutral way to confirm that agreement ahead of time - but it isn't the only way, and I'd consider many, many more options before I declared it the "absolute best" approach.
Also; there's literally nothing you can do in AoS that you couldn't do at least as easily in WHFB, and it really says something that even the biggest advocates of AoS (including Guy Haley, who gets paid to write AoS fiction) admit it has flaws or they don't like the way some things work.
If the presence of flaws were reason enough to ignore a miniature game, there wouldn't be any miniature games left. Everything is imperfect. Doesn't mean we can't still enjoy them for what they are. Besides, I'm sure if he didn't admit the flaws, you'd just be complaining that he was blinded by loyalty and refused to admit that the game wasn't perfect. There's no (positive) opinion that this guy could have that you wouldn't find some way to trivialize and dismiss.
Guy Haley doesn't talk about historical battles, he talks about fantasy battles as seen in movies, which I have already shown him to be wrong about.
In terms of examining historical battles, it isn't necessary to argue that AoS is realistic. It's a set of fantasy rules.
Historical records are incomplete, and they tend to concern larger rather than smaller battles for obvious reasons. However, everything that we know about it tells us that armies have always been composed of fairly standard size units equivalent to the squad, platoon and company, etc. It has been suggested that this is due to aspects of psychology
Second, that organised armies have always used used drill and blocks (ranks, formations) because it gives various advantages over running around in a mob.
Third, that breaking the enemy's formation was a good thing, and losing your own formation was a bad thing.
What we know of small engagements such as Saxon battles and Rorke's Drift, is that ranks/blocks/formations were used.
Minijack wrote: I think the point that people are making about AoS being smaller armies,is that you don't need to have 2 groups of 50 night goblins then 30+ Savage orks as your troop blocks then another 25 or so models in the elite and support areas.Sure you can do that if you want,but its just not really made for those large blocks of troops.
You know, this is something I find interesting. Was I alone in enjoying the idea that you should have to bring so many spearmen and so many bowmen before you can bring your elite units to the table? That felt practical, it felt realistic, and above all it felt fluffy to me. I liked the 25% core minimum and I say that as a Vampire Counts player who felt like if he brought 502 points (out of 2,000) of core because a zombie was 3 he had waited 2 points.
Leaving the zombies and skeletons at home would have allowed me so many knights or grave guard or just more ungodly beatstick vampires... but that wasn't how the army was supposed to play and that was not how they functioned in the fluff. I much prefer that to 'bring whatever the you want'.
The core requirement of WHFB was fine,im mainly stating that now you don't need such a huge amount of core troops.AoS allows it to be scaled down nicely to say instead of 50 Goblins I run units of 20.Basically all across the board you don't need the high model count,,unless you want to do that of course,heh.
OOooooooh, actually if we're still on this I'm going to lik Battle of Nations, a sport more people need to know exists.
21 vs 21, so well within the realm of 'skirmish' for what we're discussing but I think it's a great example. The fight doesn't begin until 5 minutes in but you can see how they try to form a line and maintain a formation. I got lucky pulling this video at random too as you can see the one russian breaks the line and runs straight for the back fence to break the american line. They try briefly to maintain a formation but it devolves into a scrum on their side and that's match.
*Edit*
I don't know why we are still on this topic but I suggest everyone watch that and some of the other videos of it just because it is awesome
While you are on the topic of formations, I'd like to hop in and point out that the Stormcast fight in formations all the time and in all the books so far . Seeing that GW have made a mission for virtually every battle in the books, it comes to me that a person, unfamiliar with any other rule set, may want to see a certain representation in some scenario - "Aha, just like in the book!". One can, of course, line up his troops, but an additional rule to stir the imagination and make cross-references with the lore would certainly be welcome IMO. Maybe not for every army, but why not for stormcast?
Kilkrazy wrote: That is certainly true. And there's nothing in the rules to require you not to put your goblins in a block
Oh look!
About a dozen troops formed up in ranks for mutual protection of their shields against incoming arrows.
It makes a good defensive formation, but when you actually get around to swinging your swords around, I'd want some space. And I'd stick the left handed guys on the left. You ever try to eat a meal next to a left handed guy? It's basically war every time one of you reaches for your drink...
It makes a good defensive formation, but when you actually get around to swinging your swords around, I'd want some space..
Nope. Space is bad in battle.
Number one - it opens your lines and let's you get exposed. Any slinger or whatever can lob whatever he needs into your back ranks. It also means you yourself are open to bring isolated, cut off or flanked on both sides. It also means you lack protection from the guys next to you if you get into trouble. Heaven help you if there is cavalry on the other side too.
Space is a premium on a battle. You won't have it.
The Romans for example did as well as they did (and the Greeks before them, with the phalanx, although that had its issues) because they kept tight, compact formations where shield was almost laid across shield, where, when the Gauls (or whoever, who were often spread out so they could have space to swing their swords round) went up against them, they were often outnumbered two or three two one in the crunch area of the battle,( because the Romans were so tighly packed, every Gaul who charged in ended up facing a lot more Romans per square inch than there were gauls).
As to needing space to swing your sword round, that's pure Hollywood hokum. Why did the Romans do so well in battle? The gladius. Short swords.you don't need space to swing. Just a simple thrust. In those melees, space doesn't exist. You're face to face. Toe to toe. With fifty people crowded into an area where you wouldn't want to put six. And another dozen on the ground, screaming, trying to hold in their guts, or just bleeding out. Short weapons are the key. Stick it in a few inches, twist, pull back out. Aim for the neck, groin or belly. It's all you need to do.That guys a goner, and his blood will slick up the grass and muck up the next guy charging. Your guys in the second rank can stab down and finish off their wounded guys as they step over them.
And I'd stick the left handed guys on the left. You ever try to eat a meal next to a left handed guy? It's basically war every time one of you reaches for your drink...
So he's holding his shield in his right hand? Lol thanks, I can imagine him getting in everyone's way even more.
Lefties are great for storming castles. All those clockwise staircases that are such a hindrance to righties? Yeah, we ignore that quite handily.
Yup. If you're fighting by yourself (In a group of soldiers of course) against an enemy army you might be able to take on one enemy soldiers but then his mate can come around and stab you in the side. If you can take on two then his other mate can come and stab you in your back. And if you can take on three then some guy can come and stab you when you aren't looking. This is true on the offensive as it is on the defensive.
The best way to mitigate this? Have allies surrounding you.
I read a very interest article in Slingshot (Society of Ancients magazine) about storming castles. The writer had the idea of doing a bit of archaeology by recreation, and borrowed a small castle and a load of LARPers for a weekend, to see what sort of tactics realistically would work.
It makes a good defensive formation, but when you actually get around to swinging your swords around, I'd want some space..
Nope. Space is bad in battle.
Number one - it opens your lines and let's you get exposed. Any slinger or whatever can lob whatever he needs into your back ranks. It also means you yourself are open to bring isolated, cut off or flanked on both sides. It also means you lack protection from the guys next to you if you get into trouble. Heaven help you if there is cavalry on the other side too.
Space is a premium on a battle. You won't have it.
The Romans for example did as well as they did (and the Greeks before them, with the phalanx, although that had its issues) because they kept tight, compact formations where shield was almost laid across shield, where, when the Gauls (or whoever, who were often spread out so they could have space to swing their swords round) went up against them, they were often outnumbered two or three two one in the crunch area of the battle,( because the Romans were so tighly packed, every Gaul who charged in ended up facing a lot more Romans per square inch than there were gauls).
As to needing space to swing your sword round, that's pure Hollywood hokum. Why did the Romans do so well in battle? The gladius. Short swords.you don't need space to swing. Just a simple thrust. In those melees, space doesn't exist. You're face to face. Toe to toe. With fifty people crowded into an area where you wouldn't want to put six. And another dozen on the ground, screaming, trying to hold in their guts, or just bleeding out. Short weapons are the key. Stick it in a few inches, twist, pull back out. Aim for the neck, groin or belly. It's all you need to do.That guys a goner, and his blood will slick up the grass and muck up the next guy charging. Your guys in the second rank can stab down and finish off their wounded guys as they step over them.
And I'd stick the left handed guys on the left. You ever try to eat a meal next to a left handed guy? It's basically war every time one of you reaches for your drink...
So he's holding his shield in his right hand? Lol thanks, I can imagine him getting in everyone's way even more.
Lefties are great for storming castles. All those clockwise staircases that are such a hindrance to righties? Yeah, we ignore that quite handily.
Also, just pointing out that with the exception of the romans with their gladius (gladii?*) people fighting with swords was not as common as Hollywood would make us think. Swords were expensive so most soldiers got spears and things like that which consist of a lot less metal and require a lot less of a busy blacksmith's time to make.
Another example of fighting in formation, even on a small scale. I can't say how historically accurate Vikings is; it at least tries harder than most shows.
The thing is, AoS has basically given you only one way of playing
No more or less than WFB did. You can play any way you want with AoS, you can play any way you want with WFB.
True. It's just bloody lot harder to do that in AOS.
It's harder than ever to have 2 guys have in quick time reasonably balanced game with AOS. For all FB's problems at least it was miles ahead to AOS in that regard.
...And if you really think pointless is somehow good then it took all of 1 second to archieve same in FB. Having even some sort of reverse takes hell of a lot more than 1 second.
There is a whole segment of gamers that just want to play casual themed games and could care less how well they play toys soldiers because no matter how tactical you think you are,,after all you are just playing with toy soldiers,its just a game.They just want to socialize and have a good time and use the cool models they painted up.GW is going after this segment and from what I'm seeing and hearing its working.Just this weekend Ill be hosting another session at the largest game shop in the city,this time will have 2 more new members joining us,not to mention the watchers we get from the 100+ patrons that are usually in the store on Saturday evenings.
Yes there are. And points aren't evil enemy for players of that segment. In fact it just makes it _easier_ as you have some of the base work done to ensure there's reasonable chance for both without spending multiple practice runs to get one reasonable scenario for anything but small handful units scenario.
Nevermind silliness like taking one model which then barring seriously bad luck spawns close to 100 models in turn. Then on 2nd turn those 100 models minus whatever opponent kills each spawns close to hundred new models. Good luck with having fun with that one. Worst cheese FB had pales in comparison to taking one meagre hero in AOS
(nevermind AOS having fluff that takes away reason to fight. When fluff is set up so that it's by default eternal draw there's no incentive to fight anymore. Result is irrelevant. At least in fluff of FB there was _hope_ of better. Now there's no hope, no despair, no nothing)
Kilkrazy wrote: I read a very interest article in Slingshot (Society of Ancients magazine) about storming castles. The writer had the idea of doing a bit of archaeology by recreation, and borrowed a small castle and a load of LARPers for a weekend, to see what sort of tactics realistically would work.
Do you know if the experiment was ever done, or if the article was online anywhere?
The experiment certainly was done because he wrote it all up in Sligshot and it was a very interesting read. I am pretty sure the article was this one:
A practical guide to storming a castle, by John Curry, published in 2000. It won an editor's prize.
IDK if I still have the issue with this article. I have been a member on and off several times over the past 30 years, and whatever copies of Slingshot I still have are scattered around various boxes from moving house frequently in the past few years.
SOA has made available 45 years of Slingshot on DVD for £35.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The clip from Vikings is fun but looks unrealistic in terms of tactics.
The Saxons obviously outnumber the Vikings quite badly, as well as having better armour and weapons. In the circumstances, they should have kept the Vikings under a steady fire from their archers, to stop them moving and split the spearmen for a simultaneous frontal and a flanking attack.
Necro-warning perhaps, but I feel this topic might be worth taking a second look at in light of changed circumstances.
I assume Haley and the supporters here of his views will now be mourning GW's latest move of promoting a points system as one of the ways to play the game?
Will this arbitrary system of points attribution provide a cloak of legitimacy to peoples frightening need to prove their validity as human beings by winning at toy soldiers?
Dai wrote: Haha, this is going to be a real "gotcha" moment for some individuals isn't it?
It probably should, but I kinda doubt it.
After all when armies are mismatched, a little gentleman’s discussion, and we can add or take units away. It works better than points values. BETTERhow great of GW to provide us a alternative way of playing..
Dai wrote: Haha, this is going to be a real "gotcha" moment for some individuals isn't it?
It probably should, but I kinda doubt it.
After all when armies are mismatched, a little gentleman’s discussion, and we can add or take units away. It works better than points values. BETTERhow great of GW to provide us a alternative way of playing..
Also, we have always been at war with Eurasia.
Meh, I don't think I have any need for points. Fair enough to the company for providing it to those who do though.
Everyone need's to understand that GW are not on some kind of moral crusade planning to bring back the golden age of gentlemanly fun wargames. They just want to make money. Clearly GW now feel they lost too many players and sales by not having points in AoS.
Ironically we will soon be in the situation that you can choose to play with points or not. It will be interesting to see if this destroys the game.
It seems like Haley was on just such a moral crusade though. And several others who made similar arguments as a backhanded way of justifying the lazy design of AoS.
The way Haley attempted to paint anyone arguing in favour of a fair points based balancing system as some kind of immature powergamer uncaring of others enjoyment was really acting like a big douche IMO.
To be fair, there's nothing wrong with "the golden age of gentlemanly wargaming". It's just that it's not conducive to the pickup game culture, and despite what GW seems to think not everyone has a gaming club they are a part of where you have club rules to sort that kinda thing out.
WayneTheGame wrote: To be fair, there's nothing wrong with "the golden age of gentlemanly wargaming". It's just that it's not conducive to the pickup game culture, and despite what GW seems to think not everyone has a gaming club they are a part of where you have club rules to sort that kinda thing out.
It's not counter to the pickup game culture though. People have been playing AoS since launch without points and clubs. I never had issues with it until these stupid tournament packs started coming out.
Kilkrazy wrote: I used to play a lot of points based games during "the golden age of gentlemanly wargaming", and a lot of non-points based games too.
It is the kujibiki unbalance of the points systems created by GW that led to rampant min-maxing.
As such, it must be a worry that the new system for AoS might have the same level of failings.
I agree.
No points is arguably better than a poorly balanced point system.
A properly balanced points system is better than both though. Especially as long as players are prepared to also try out stuff outside the balanced baseline. If the latter is impossible, then that's not a failing of the game, but a deficit in the adventurousness and imagination of it's players.
I think a good points system with a restrictive army list is best for normal competitive games in tournaments and pick-up formats. It can also be a useful way to balance scenarios created by an umpire.
For campaign play and more interesting command ability testing games, a system that prevents a player from picking his ideal force is much better.
Guy Haley is pretty cool. I'd at least let his comments be digested and simmer in my brain before I quickly shot a negative response about what he said.
Guy Haley was interviewed this week for Combat Phase podcast continuing our AoS fic series with those authors. I ask him about his blog and we discuss it for a bit in the second half of this interview if you care to listen. Great guest, as always. And he actually plays regularly.
http://traffic.libsyn.com/combatphase/Ep_144_-_AoS_wGuy_Haley.mp3
We talk news, upcoming releases, hobby and games played. Our AoS fic series continues with BL author Guy Haley who talks his seven stories
multiple books and his take on AoS.
Don't forget to enter the drawing for the BL 1st ed. Lemartes book! All you need to do is ping us at www.combatphase.com and tell us quickly your favorite death scene from a 30K or 40KBL book. Drawing is next week on ep 145.
you want'.
