Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Yes and it gets kinda hard to flank units in AoS when units have no front, sides, or rear. There is hunting for a short edge but that will change on turn to turn basis so no point as well. You could ofc flank battle lines but that's just wasting time because you want to be in a fight asap. Etc.

If you engage a unit from two directions you negate its ability to pile-in (as it breaks the unit coherency). Flanking is a very real tactic in AoS.

Again, why does it being obvious make it tactically shallow? You still have to pull it off. Taking the queen in chess is an obvious tactical move, doesn't make it easy or tactically shallow.

Again, why does it being obvious make it tactically shallow? You still have to pull it off. Taking the queen in chess is an obvious tactical move, doesn't make it easy or tactically shallow.

IMO you may have the skill to pull off you flanking move. But if due to the nature of the game rules it is clear what you are trying to and why then the tactic itself is shallow. That is not to say that you may not have done a good job achieving it and won accordingly.

If I can't work out what your maneuvering is about at the time, say because there is no mega flanking bonus that you are clearly going for, yet at the end it is what made a noticeable contribution then it is probably due to deeper tactics.

In other words deep tactical play is not about some game bonus, but about doing stuff that goes beyond a clear immediate bonus.

That might not be your idea of shallow or deep tactics, fair enough, I'm not sure there is a real definition of the terms. I just see shallow as meaning something only surface deep in game terms and deep as being something that you have to go beyond the surface to work out. I hence tend to see WFB as being mainly a shallow game as it was mainly always clear what people were doing, and why. That, however, is not to say it was a bad game or anything.

puree wrote:

Again, why does it being obvious make it tactically shallow? You still have to pull it off. Taking the queen in chess is an obvious tactical move, doesn't make it easy or tactically shallow.

IMO you may have the skill to pull off you flanking move. But if due to the nature of the game rules it is clear what you are trying to and why then the tactic itself is shallow. That is not to say that you may not have done a good job achieving it and won accordingly.

If I can't work out what your maneuvering is about at the time, say because there is no mega flanking bonus that you are clearly going for, yet at the end it is what made a noticeable contribution then it is probably due to deeper tactics.

In other words deep tactical play is not about some game bonus, but about doing stuff that goes beyond a clear immediate bonus.

That might not be your idea of shallow or deep tactics, fair enough, I'm not sure there is a real definition of the terms. I just see shallow as meaning something only surface deep in game terms and deep as being something that you have to go beyond the surface to work out. I hence tend to see WFB as being mainly a shallow game as it was mainly always clear what people were doing, and why. That, however, is not to say it was a bad game or anything.

And are you trying to say AoS isn't tactically shallow or are you just claiming WHFB is?
If you think AoS isn't shallow then I'd very much like to know what kind of tactics are involved that are suitably subtle for your definition.

As noted, I was making no great comment on AoS, beyond I don't see how WFB is some deep tactical game and AoS isn't.

Both have maneuvering in, which as noted earlier would be very bizarre if that was not the case. Almost all tactics rely to some extent on maneuvering, the only thing that might be different is to what goal. In both cases you could be attempting something non obvious, WFB also has a couple of clear cut things that are good to achieve, but they alone do not make the game the epitome of tactics. With a much bigger variety of unit combos and potential synergies etc it is hard to imagine that AoS does not offer more tactical opportunities that are not going to be found in the more restrictive setting of a WFB block game. Different game rules, e.g. the whole pile in/combat timing makes for a new set of tactics that WFB doesn't really do.

The games are different, and have different things to account for. But the argument that WFB is a great tactical game and AoS isn't just strikes me as bizarre, and given how much it comes up as the shining example, maybe from those who feel that tactics amount to not much more than flanking.

 jonolikespie wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
How is AoS better for narrative play than WHFB was?.

Because you can imagine ANYTHING now and have it fit into the world, no more having to work within the confines of any silly 'official fluff' like before. Don't ya know that the less established setting material there is the better for creating stories. That's why no one ever developed any settings and worlds to go along with D&D, right?

I'm not sure if it's what Plum was getting at, but I find there is a huge difference between how people approach the setting and creating their armies vs how players approach the rules and creating their lists. WFB had amazing background, but WFB the game had percentages of core and must takes and limited units worth taking. AOS has underdeveloped fluff, but the rules make it much easier to take the units you want for your own narrative. At least for now. As the tournament scene heats up, I'm sure unit synergy and min maxing will render AOS every bit as joyless to play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Motograter wrote:
Age of sigmar sucks, fantasy was so much better. Excusing the fact no one played it. Where were all the fantasy fans when it was dying on its ass, no one buying, playing etc. You didn't care then but the minute it was replaced by the thankfully great AoS you lot were up whining til you were green. Fantasy is dead thank god.

Now lets hope 40k gets fixed next cos lord it needs a total redo

There are many reasons for fantasy sales to plummet despite the game's enduring popularity. Pricing out the customers and diminishing rules quality are the obvious ones, but there are more subtle things like increased competition and changing demographics in tabletop gaming. BL was clearly having success with the setting, as was the video game industry.

Honestly, GW's reaction makes me wonder what would have happened if George Lucas saw the fan reaction to his prequels and then decided Star Wars was dead, killed all the characters except Lando and Wicket, burnt every world to ash, and then created Star Wars: A New Setting, where everything lives in hyperspace and the plot revolves around the war between ancient energy squids and giant space Arthropods.

puree wrote:
As noted, I was making no great comment on AoS, beyond I don't see how WFB is some deep tactical game and AoS isn't..

Well for starters, WFB had more than four pages of rules.

 jonolikespie wrote:

puree wrote:
What was so tactical about WFB? I can't think of anything that made it a deep tactical game, it was about as shallow/deep tactically as AOS.

Maneuvering a unit into hitting your enemy in the flank required skill and provided significant reward.

In WHFB you could tie ranged units up with cheap fast melee unit.

In WHFB one of my favourite tactics was using chaff to tie up my enemies best units and control who would fight and where, if I played it right two units of 5 wolves could take a unit of 40 chaos warriors out of the game..

This right here is probably why WHFB was not considered a good narrative game. Too many tactics so heavily based on flawed game mechanics would and did kill my suspension of disbelief. AOS might be crap, but sometimes it's fun crap.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Honestly, GW's reaction makes me wonder what would have happened if George Lucas saw the fan reaction to his prequels and then decided Star Wars was dead, killed all the characters except Lando and Wicket, burnt every world to ash, and then created Star Wars: A New Setting, where everything lives in hyperspace and the plot revolves around the war between ancient energy squids and giant space Arthropods.

That's a great analogy actually.

 Arbitrator wrote:

puree wrote:
As noted, I was making no great comment on AoS, beyond I don't see how WFB is some deep tactical game and AoS isn't..

Well for starters, WFB had more than four pages of rules.

Should we pretend that the huge pile of battle scrolls with different rules and options on each of them, including ones for terrain , are not an actual set of rules? Just because you don't have to check the main rule book to see what a sword and shield combo does or what benefit comes with a fortress wall doesn't mean there aren't a significant a.ount of rules.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:

puree wrote:
As noted, I was making no great comment on AoS, beyond I don't see how WFB is some deep tactical game and AoS isn't..

Well for starters, WFB had more than four pages of rules.

Should we pretend that the huge pile of battle scrolls with different rules and options on each of them, including ones for terrain , are not an actual set of rules? Just because you don't have to check the main rule book to see what a sword and shield combo does or what benefit comes with a fortress wall doesn't mean there aren't a significant a.ount of rules.

Right, so WFB had a massive BRB and a big army book per faction full of options and choices, AOS has a four-page ruleset and... warscrolls. Hmm, I'm not buying it.

The idea that "more rules = deeper game" is painful.

Seems like the same people who haven't played the game are still arguing why there's nothing to it.

If you're interested, follow the community (YouTube, Facebook, Twitter), podcasts, battle reports, etc. and see for yourself. If you're not interested, think about things you are interested in.

Your mind is not going to be changed arguing about it on a forum, but that might not be your goal anyway.

Erm, I read the actual rules of the game (wasn't that much of an effort, lol). I don't see how some battle reports are going to change my opinion on the four pages long ruleset.

Certainly more rules =/= better game. WHFB itself proves that, with 8th edition being clearly the worst in my opinion, and at the same time the most bloated and rules-heavy of them all.

AoS is a half-assed attempt of a game. It will survive for some time because if you happen to play at a GW official store, it's AoS, 40k or nothing. It will retain some enthusiasts, of course. Outside of that, people can try to convince themselves that it's truly "picking up steam" and whatever you want. Without official data you can't make such a claim, and the latest half-year report by GW doesn't seem to indicate it's doing any better than WHFB was before getting the axe.

I'm really sorry, but some people seem to just be deluding themselves.

puree wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

puree wrote:
I played earlier editions rather than 8th. There was nothing about it that made it some deep tactical wargame. Maneuver is pretty much mandatory in any wargame as noted above, and flanking is not the epitome of deep tactics, especially in WFB. It was the most shallow tactic in many ways, the rules pretty much highlighted in big neon signs why you should flank making it pretty much the definition of shallowness.

I... what?
If flanking is considered 'shallow' then without it isn't AoS essentially an empty pool tactically?

And why the hell is seeing that something is obviously a good tactical move a bad thing? Yes, it is obvious that flanking is good, the point is you have to pull it off.

I never said it was a bad thing.

Your statement comes down to maneuver to achieve something. That is the relevant fact. That the 'something' is flanking is irrelevant, and due to the obvious nature highlighted by the game 'shallow'.

The more a game revolves around a couple of clear cut things like flanking IMO makes a game shallower tactically. That is not to say the game is bad or whatever. But I fail to see how WFB is made out to be somehow better tactically than AoS due to the presence of such clear and obvious huge bonuses to combat resolution.

You have to keep track of multiple units and their facing and plan accordingly. It's not about particular tactic being shallow but the gameplay being shallow or not thanks to particular mechanic. That you can say that "it's obvious that you have to go for a flanking move" is completly irrelevant.

Also battles simulated on the tabletop are not really that deep affairs in general and you should rather add mechanics, even abstract ones, than remove them. Movement phase is crucial when it comes to wargame depth and facing makes it deeper, not more shallow. Whfb was not a super deep game but still AoS dumbed it down significantly.

 Korinov wrote:
Erm, I read the actual rules of the game (wasn't that much of an effort, lol). I don't see how some battle reports are going to change my opinion on the four pages long ruleset.

Well, your entire understanding of the game is imagined in your head. It's not nothing, but you're likely not going to change your opinion without seeking more sources of information.

 Pacific wrote:
Re. the Roundtree comments, the company definitely seems it has turned round, in the sense that they no longer seem like they are trying to feth followers of their games with every decision (veterans get special attention)

...

I've always thought of Bretonnia players as being historicals players that haven't realised it quite yet

Other than crushing greenskins under-hoof with lance formations, really there isn't anything in the concept of Bretonnians that you can't find in a dozen historical game systems and lots of fantasy ones for that matter (Perry + KoW = done!)

That's arguably true about fantasy and SF wargames in general, though. They are based on mediaeval or modern warfare with some variations.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 455_PWR wrote:
Fantasy was killed due to bad sales.

WHFB was killed due to poor rules and inflated prices.

And terrible marketing without due research.

There were people that joined in the play for End Times because suddenly they had a hope that WHFB would no longer be the red headed step child of WH40K....

Instead... they got AoS.

I was not one of the people to jump on the End Times Bandwagon, having already switched to KoW. (Which meant that I was in a position to help others switch over....)

The Auld Grump - but I was hoping that there would be some good models coming out of End Times....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zywus wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Honestly, GW's reaction makes me wonder what would have happened if George Lucas saw the fan reaction to his prequels and then decided Star Wars was dead, killed all the characters except Lando and Wicket, burnt every world to ash, and then created Star Wars: A New Setting, where everything lives in hyperspace and the plot revolves around the war between ancient energy squids and giant space Arthropods.

That's a great analogy actually.

I think that he made a mistake, and was looking at the series outline for Mass Effect....

The Auld Grump - or Lucas throwing the characters from Willow into the Star Wars universe because Willow did poorly.... (This is actually the sound of me agreeing, for the record.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
Re. the Roundtree comments, the company definitely seems it has turned round, in the sense that they no longer seem like they are trying to feth followers of their games with every decision (veterans get special attention)

...

I've always thought of Bretonnia players as being historicals players that haven't realised it quite yet

Other than crushing greenskins under-hoof with lance formations, really there isn't anything in the concept of Bretonnians that you can't find in a dozen historical game systems and lots of fantasy ones for that matter (Perry + KoW = done!)

That's arguably true about fantasy and SF wargames in general, though. They are based on mediaeval or modern warfare with some variations.

Pshh! Next you'll be trying to tell us that The Empire in WHFB was based on The Holy Roman Empire under the Hapsburgs, or something....

The Auld Grump

 Bottle wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Yes and it gets kinda hard to flank units in AoS when units have no front, sides, or rear. There is hunting for a short edge but that will change on turn to turn basis so no point as well. You could ofc flank battle lines but that's just wasting time because you want to be in a fight asap. Etc.

If you engage a unit from two directions you negate its ability to pile-in (as it breaks the unit coherency). Flanking is a very real tactic in AoS.

Is it though, how situational is that. Doesn't the unit have to be both big enough and foolishly set up to allow you to exploit it? Also if it's set up like that, wouldn't it limit the number of attackers anyway for the initial round of combat even if not flanked?

Doesn't have to be a big group or foolish player. Two small skirmish units attacking a medium sized group of soldiers by attacking from opposite directions so the bigger group can only focus soldiers on one side or the other can be rough.

More complicated when you add in that the soldier is trying to keep high enough numbers to keep it's ability bonus and if the skirmishers have any nasty effects or even a simple 2" range advantage.

I love those simple 1" and 2" range differences, fun to combine sword and spear units to create mousetraps to limit and pick apart a elite force. Use their size against them.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 Bottle wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Yes and it gets kinda hard to flank units in AoS when units have no front, sides, or rear. There is hunting for a short edge but that will change on turn to turn basis so no point as well. You could ofc flank battle lines but that's just wasting time because you want to be in a fight asap. Etc.

If you engage a unit from two directions you negate its ability to pile-in (as it breaks the unit coherency). Flanking is a very real tactic in AoS.

Is it though, how situational is that. Doesn't the unit have to be both big enough and foolishly set up to allow you to exploit it? Also if it's set up like that, wouldn't it limit the number of attackers anyway for the initial round of combat even if not flanked?

It's not that situational - often units are set up with wide facings to better pile-in, but that sort of formation can be prone to being hit from either end. Especially if the countering player wins initiative. It doesn't have to be some grand cavalry charge in the rear too, it's quite easy to pull off this with flying or other fast moving units.

There's not really any point in us discussing how situational something is however, or even if *you* find AoS to be tactical or not. The main point that set off this tangent is that SCGT showed there was a section of the player base that wants to be play AoS competitively - and that the game + a points system led to a very enjoyable experience for the players that attended - many of them commenting that they enjoyed the tactics involved in the game and the smoothness of the core rules too.

 Pacific wrote:
Re. the Roundtree comments, the company definitely seems it has turned round, in the sense that they no longer seem like they are trying to feth followers of their games with every decision (veterans get special attention)

Dudeface wrote:

Chikout wrote:
I am highly dubious of this. From what I understand the end times and age of sigmar was in planning for years, so why start to make a new starter set. The stuff about scheduling meetings to avoid Kirby also sounds like nonsense. Didn't they already talk about plans for the Lotr game which did not include war of the ring? They haven't even don't the second part of war zone Fenris yet. How will there be time for two more this year?

The Bretonnia stuff reinforces this for me, I think it was Hastings over at Warseer who confirmed laying eyes on these 2-3 years back. If I remember he said they were set for a new army book and a full mini overhaul, then sigmar hit and they got shelved.

I've always thought of Bretonnia players as being historicals players that haven't realised it quite yet

Other than crushing greenskins under-hoof with lance formations, really there isn't anything in the concept of Bretonnians that you can't find in a dozen historical game systems and lots of fantasy ones for that matter (Perry + KoW = done!)

Except for the whole magical force field protection granted to them by an Arthurian Legend expy, you mean.
Or a ghost knight.

Baron Klatz wrote:
Doesn't have to be a big group or foolish player. Two small skirmish units attacking a medium sized group of soldiers by attacking from opposite directions so the bigger group can only focus soldiers on one side or the other can be rough.

More complicated when you add in that the soldier is trying to keep high enough numbers to keep it's ability bonus and if the skirmishers have any nasty effects or even a simple 2" range advantage.

I love those simple 1" and 2" range differences, fun to combine sword and spear units to create mousetraps to limit and pick apart a elite force. Use their size against them.

Still sounds like a glorified double tap tbh. But ok, let's call it flanking lite, do you have a batrep with that pulled off? I'd love to see it in practice.

Haha, well I can't really give you any personal examples of flanking because I haven't played that many games (my free time schedule stinks) and I don't go for flanks because, as was in 8th, I'm the elite army guy who likes head on charges.

Hopefully someone will link one example, though.

RoperPG wrote:

 Lockark wrote:
Whao, is their any verification about that story about Alessio Calvatore? That's some pretty damning claims, even for Kirby. I know people suspected this for awhile.

Whole rumour is just an exercise in confirmation bias.

This the reason I had to take a moment to point out how this unverifiable rumour, is claiming a lot of people theories of what happens in GW internal are true.

If the claims were verifiable would actually be a pretty big deal.

I see alot of good points and arguments on both sides here (pro AoS and pro WHFB).

I think its safe to say Fantasy Battle is not coming back, and GW is really going in for a huge AoS push and giving it lots of support (i think Sad panda has said something like that).

So I think the question right now for GWs future is -how far away is "AoS second edition"?
The whole "lofty" setting, lack of points, rules on the war scrolls (lets not forget there really is lots more rules than the 4 page basic game mechanics), has to me always looked like a bridge for old gamers to something more stable and elaborate once enough people get used to the concept.

Came here to read about the future of GW...looks like it is much more of the same.

Haha, indeed!

 Bottle wrote:

There's not really any point in us discussing how situational something is however, or even if *you* find AoS to be tactical or not. The main point that set off this tangent is that SCGT showed there was a section of the player base that wants to be play AoS competitively - and that the game + a points system led to a very enjoyable experience for the players that attended - many of them commenting that they enjoyed the tactics involved in the game and the smoothness of the core rules too.

Sure but you said that it can be played "very tacticaly" and I asked about that. People saying that they enjoyed the tactics involved doesn't really mean the game is or isn't very tactical. Also while I am obviously combative about the game, I consider you a quality poster and a claim like that makes me genuinely curious.

I actualy like the fact that it's played as tacticaly as possible, that's how games should be played imo and good to see that players can keep their spirit even bombarded with forge the narrative and hhhobby propaganda. It's just that the cc pile in 40k is similar and not only it's simple and obvious but also seems incredibly boring and micromanagey as a big mechanic for tactical play in a cc based game.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
Re. the Roundtree comments, the company definitely seems it has turned round, in the sense that they no longer seem like they are trying to feth followers of their games with every decision (veterans get special attention)

Dudeface wrote:

Chikout wrote:
I am highly dubious of this. From what I understand the end times and age of sigmar was in planning for years, so why start to make a new starter set. The stuff about scheduling meetings to avoid Kirby also sounds like nonsense. Didn't they already talk about plans for the Lotr game which did not include war of the ring? They haven't even don't the second part of war zone Fenris yet. How will there be time for two more this year?

The Bretonnia stuff reinforces this for me, I think it was Hastings over at Warseer who confirmed laying eyes on these 2-3 years back. If I remember he said they were set for a new army book and a full mini overhaul, then sigmar hit and they got shelved.

I've always thought of Bretonnia players as being historicals players that haven't realised it quite yet

Other than crushing greenskins under-hoof with lance formations, really there isn't anything in the concept of Bretonnians that you can't find in a dozen historical game systems and lots of fantasy ones for that matter (Perry + KoW = done!)

Except for the whole magical force field protection granted to them by an Arthurian Legend expy, you mean.
Or a ghost knight.

You mean "faith"? Pretty sure plenty of historical armies have gone out with a shield of that in the past.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 Bottle wrote:

There's not really any point in us discussing how situational something is however, or even if *you* find AoS to be tactical or not. The main point that set off this tangent is that SCGT showed there was a section of the player base that wants to be play AoS competitively - and that the game + a points system led to a very enjoyable experience for the players that attended - many of them commenting that they enjoyed the tactics involved in the game and the smoothness of the core rules too.

Sure but you said that it can be played "very tacticaly" and I asked about that. People saying that they enjoyed the tactics involved doesn't really mean the game is or isn't very tactical. Also while I am obviously combative about the game, I consider you a quality poster and a claim like that makes me genuinely curious.

I actualy like the fact that it's played as tacticaly as possible, that's how games should be played imo and good to see that players can keep their spirit even bombarded with forge the narrative and hhhobby propaganda. It's just that the cc pile in 40k is similar and not only it's simple and obvious but also seems incredibly boring and micromanagey as a big mechanic for tactical play in a cc based game.

Good points all round. I guess when I said "very tactically" - I wasn't wanting to make a value judgement of how tactical AoS is compared to other games but to simply highlight that it can be played competitively with success and that at high-level play the players remarked at how much tactics were at play in the games (this is out of my sphere of experience - but watch some of the SCGT coverage to see the player commentary.)

Part of my personal journey with AoS has been the revelation that although I thought I was a casual-at-all-costs gamer I actually found out I love competitive play instead lol. And now after having my eyes opened by GW's coverage of SCGT I'm going to my first tournament in June (and if I successfully shut down an enemy pile-in with flank attacks I'll post pictures for you to see it in action haha) I feel much more happy with the direction of the game now because I no longer have my fellow AoSers saying "if you want to play competitively you've got the wrong game..."

I really do feel that SCGT and just as importantly GW's coverage, support and interaction with the event has really had a massive impact on the game and future of AoS. Although we need to see that support continue if they want to grow the game. It seems that GW are finally starting to realise not everyone wants to play the game the same way as they do in Lenton - and that's going to be very healthy for AoS and probably 40k too.