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.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
I'm playing and currently have 3 armies on the go. To be honest, after playing old WHF for many years, I just got so bored of it (both in play style and aesthetic) that AoS was a real shot in the arm. And purely anecdotal I know, but the new people I've encountered that play AoS seem to be a lot more...pleasant for the lack of a better term. Don't know why, but they just seem more fun to pick up and play against than the older crowd.

IT might just be bias in how you're observing things or could be that nearer the end of Fantasy players were getting more and more jaded with GW's attitude and that bled through into how they gamed and were at the club. AoS is currently on a big positive swing because those who are into it see huge potential which often makes them positive; esp when GW is currently releasing things on a weekly basis and thus people can see that in a year or two things will be vastly different - as opposed to thinking that they'll have to wait 5 or 10 years to see big changes.

Having played both WHFB (and, as others have said, the best era was 6th/7th edition) and AoS, WHFB is far more interesting and tactically deep than AoS. I really don't see how it could be considered otherwise.

Units in 6th/7th edition, based on how charging, initiative and such all went, required you to really plan ahead 2-4 rounds in advance, to make sure you had stacked the odds in your favor. I remember some of the best games against good players involved the first 4 rounds or so jockeying for position, and then charges didn't come until the last couple rounds of the game. Those were some interesting games.

I didn't see anything close to that again until I started playing Star Wars: Armada.

X Wing is to 40k/AoS (as regards movement) as Armada is to old WHF.

I am pondering playing something AoS. The models seem standard GW model, so nothing great. The cost doesn't seem to be lower then w40k, what does worry me a lot, in case of the stuff I pick ends up sucking.

Game play wise I do not know enough about the game, but from how the games look to an outsider. there seems to be a lot of mosh pits with huge blobs of 40+ models duking it out in the middle, and psychic power seem to be super powerful, comparing to w40k GK at least, and armies that don't have access to them seem to be less often played. out of 30+ people playing around in my area, which is two stores of people, half play some sort of undead lists or nurgle. Every other faction is maybe 1-2 dudes playing them. Good for not playing many mirror matchs, but those non undead players also seem to be the ones that don't win any prizes or prize money, and it is hard to support the hobby without wining at least some free stuff.

Hulksmash wrote:@master of ordinance

I call bs. You're just describing other micro management by your own definition. Field positioning matters in both WFB and AoS. Flanks matter in AoS & WFB. Proper deployment means the difference between winning and losing. And at least there isn't only DE/VC/and Daemons that are viable now

In fact AoS actually requires you to play the game. Something that didn't happen much in WFB because it was just about slugging it out. AoS revolves entirely around objectives and board control.

What I described was macro-management, or the management of massed units. Micro management is worrying where every little guy in a unit is, piling each bod in for the extra attacks, checking what each guy has, etc. In WHFB that mattered not, because the unit fought as a whole but in AoS you have your 3" pile in move, and you try to maximise the impact from bod X with the killywhatsit, but keep Bod Y to the side, and Caster H wants to stay clear of hitting range. That is micro management.
Field positions in WHFB where held by blocks of infantry. Maybe with a character or two in there. Nothing less.
>DE/VC/Demons viable. Demons where meta for a short period, VC and DE where good but Dwarf/Empire/Elf gun/bow lines and Brettonian 7th ed cavalry smasher where the real nightmare armies to face, so IDK what the meta was in your area, but if those where the nastiest you should be thankful.

Hulksmash wrote:@Overread

Oh I understand the difference in the how flanking was handled but that's not what they are really saying. They're saying hitting a flank has no purpose in AoS and you don't need to worry about positioning. That's false as hitting a flank is still as "good" of tactics in AoS as it was in WFB. Just annoyed that people point to WFB as a place of superior tactical depth. Like Auticus said, it's different functional tactics but the depth is there for both games.

Hitting the flank in AoS does nothing. No morale penalty, no advantage to the attacker, nothing. You might as well have hit the front for all it does.

mikosan wrote:Holy smokes, the whole AoS has no tactics is still a thing? Lol
Honestly, played since 5th ed. and have to say that with 7th and 8th the game was on rails. So what if flanks granted bonuses, because once deployment was over two experienced players could just discuss the outcome with relative certainty due to the restrictive nature of movement. Never understood how an enemy unit outside of your units arc of sight could march block, even though I couldn't see them. See, where some people see tactics I just saw dumb restrictions that made no sense. To me the older editions tactics were defined by what your units "couldn't" do which I didn't know I hated until AoS and the more free flowing gameplay. Sure it may not be everyones cup of tea, but different strokes for different folks. Game on whatever you want so long as you have fun, I say.

I am too tired to reply to this but TL;DR AoS tactics are pushing models about in piles. WHFB made you think. Did you advance or wheel? Charge and risk leaving your flank open or wait, but know you will be charged next turn? One last round of shooting or a melee struggle? What about the warmachines, how do you deal with those? Are there any chinks in your line where skirmishers could get through? How do you deploy so as not to be slowed by terrain but to have cover from those archers? Is your cannon better at the back or further forwards firing as a battery gun? Do you move your muskets up and forgo a round of shooting or do you accept you will not be hitting as easily due to long range? Can you bait your foe forwards and then smash them in the flank or would they see the trap? Will those light cavalry try to wheel and charge your main unit in the rear?
WHFB was a game that required a lot of thinking and outsmarting your opponent. AoS lacks this vital element as units can move and shoot freely, regardless of terrain, facing or melee.

WFB has more (fiddly, unrealistic) mechanics, but less actual tactics than AoS. It falls into the trap of having rules for consequences, doubling the effect unnecessarily, and flank bonus is a good example of that.

Wow, that is SO inaccurate. WFB was more about the psychological press of combat, much like real regimental combat actually was. THAT is where the stuff like flank bonus comes in. AOS is synergy stacking, which is what I used to do with my blue/white deck in M:TG. Saying that refused flanks, spearheads, combined arms attacks, and positioning/formation arrangements are not tactics but multiple buff bubble linking IS, now that's a stretch.

Except, it's not. Pseudo-medieval warfare is about concentration of power, hence ranked combat and heavy infantry vs light. Attacking on the flank *is* a tactic to concentrate attack power at a smaller point, but it's across the battleline, not on a single target unit. Tacking on a +1 is a bad mechanic. AOS doing away with that is a good thing.

Definitely agree to disagree. Look at the domino effect of one unit breaking from a flank charge as the attacking unit pursues into fresh flanks, emboldened by the victory. Panic ensues as a flank of the entire battleline collapses. One of the issues I had with 7th Ed. was that they exploited this to a degree that goes above and beyond. AOS didn't do away with it because it was a bad tactic/strategy, they did away with it because it wasn't in 40K, WarmaHordes, or Magic: The Gathering.

That is Psychology (which was underused), not Combat Resolution (overdone).

But combat resolution directly affected Psychology, just as it did in actual regimental combats. Look at pretty much ANY of Alexander of Macedon's battles as examples. More people were killed from breaking and fleeing than were killed in the actual press of fighting.

Yeah, not that many people died from fighting. The real slaughter happened when one of the armies fled and got cut down.

WHFB captured that perfectly. Well, at least until they introduced steadfast, which screwed everything up by making infantry harder to break.

Thing is a lot of people prefer the idea of troops killing in the fight rather than being cut down as they retreat. People prefer the idea of their uber warriors standing ground against all odds and holding fast to weather the storm of the enemy attack in a noble and valiant effort to fight back against all odds.


Unless your skaven then you half want them to run away and then charge back again and then run away some more


Lets not forget if we are being faithful to RL ancient warfare then we should be removing most casualties before and after the battle as people die from disease, poor sanitation and their wounds rather than in the battle itself.

 Overread wrote:
Thing is a lot of people prefer the idea of troops killing in the fight rather than being cut down as they retreat. People prefer the idea of their uber warriors standing ground against all odds and holding fast to weather the storm of the enemy attack in a noble and valiant effort to fight back against all odds.

Which is what the unbreakable rule and leadership bubbles were for.
You don't want your soldiers breaking and getting cut down? That's what tactics are for. Play better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:

Lets not forget if we are being faithful to RL ancient warfare then we should be removing most casualties before and after the battle as people die from disease, poor sanitation and their wounds rather than in the battle itself.

What makes you think your forces on the table aren't what's left after all that?
Also, Undead don't care about disease and I'm sure most armies have some sort of healer or alchemist to stop exactly that.

Yeah, some people watched 300 too many times, or whatever Conan movie they grew up on.



Regardless, the crux of the sidebar was addressed. Now, back to why people aren't playing AOS


1. Better systems to play the same style of game
2. Prefer a different style of game
3. Prefer a better value for buy in
4. Same pool of customers that AOS is marketed towards would rather play WOW or something else on PC/Console.

A lot of this also comes down to scale. 28mm (and now we're at 32mm) scale is not as great for army tactics. People viewed their armies not as "armies" but as micro manageable skirmish level clashes where each model to a lot of people should represent a guy.

A lot of people are also not interested in recreating historically accurate battle simulation. They want to play a game based on other popular games of today's time and era loosely based on the idea of warfare.

Love it or hate it but magic: the gathering and magic: the gathering with models are hugely over right now and have been for many years.

Synergy buff bubbles and games that represent combo chaining and the like are what joe-gamer wants more than a game steeped in historical combat simulation.

For those that want historical combat simulation we have hail caesar and kings of war, which is where I'm spending a lot of my time. I'd play WHFB 6th but I can't get that to fly with the people I play with because its considered dead to them and they want an active game thats supported by a company, so that forces my hand.

auticus wrote:
A lot of this also comes down to scale. 28mm (and now we're at 32mm) scale is not as great for army tactics. People viewed their armies not as "armies" but as micro manageable skirmish level clashes where each model to a lot of people should represent a guy.

A lot of people are also not interested in recreating historically accurate battle simulation. They want to play a game based on other popular games of today's time and era loosely based on the idea of warfare.

Love it or hate it but magic: the gathering and magic: the gathering with models are hugely over right now and have been for many years.

Synergy buff bubbles and games that represent combo chaining and the like are what joe-gamer wants more than a game steeped in historical combat simulation.

For those that want historical combat simulation we have hail caesar and kings of war, which is where I'm spending a lot of my time. I'd play WHFB 6th but I can't get that to fly with the people I play with because its considered dead to them and they want an active game thats supported by a company, so that forces my hand.

Conquest looks pretty neat too. I'm not a fan of how they handle morale though.

I was excited for conquest but its lack of releasing has curbed that enthusiasm.

I'm still going to play it or at least collect a faction because the models were ace.

 Just Tony wrote:
Yeah, some people watched 300 too many times, or whatever Conan movie they grew up on.

Or Malazan Book of the Fallen or David Gemmel, Lord of the Rings or any one of a large number of fantasy style battle stories.


Personally I'd welcome them remaking Warmaster Age of Sigmar edition. I always felt that scale works best not just for representing rank and file and rank and file style battle; but also allowing powerful monsters and dragons and beasties to really let loose with their power. Seeing a dragon blaze several rank and file spearmen not just 4 or 5 in AoS or Fantasy as it is now.

One of my greatest wishes is for the return of warmaster.

 Overread wrote:
Or Malazan Book of the Fallen or David Gemmel, Lord of the Rings or any one of a large number of fantasy style battle stories.

LOTR? You mean the movie where you can actually see armies shock horror FLEEING rather than stand and fight to the death?

Well the thread question is why we aren't playing AoS. The very nature of that question is going to prompt some negative feedback.

The answer, for a large chunk of us, is that it's not strategically interesting or particularly deep.

And that IS the answer, it seems, for many (and certainly me). One can hate that or think it's a stupid opinion, but that's the reason we/I aren't playing. If one cannot accept that reason, then maybe this isn't the right thread to participate in.

auticus wrote:
One of my greatest wishes is for the return of warmaster.

I rebased most of my warmaster stuff for minihammer since I stopped playing warmaster altogether once we got the much improved hail caesar (in addition to DbMM for simpler rules)

This means I can carry a mat, two armies and everything on a smaller bag and play in most tables (garden, kitchen, etc.). Since I have to fly to see my brother that's my prefered setup.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

auticus wrote:
A lot of this also comes down to scale. 28mm (and now we're at 32mm) scale is not as great for army tactics. People viewed their armies not as "armies" but as micro manageable skirmish level clashes where each model to a lot of people should represent a guy.

We have always played it as a single WHFB mini meant anything from 20 to 50 actual soldiers, or a battery in case of artillery, etc.

I am sure it was in the rulebook at some point.

A 10-man unit staying in rigid formation makes no sense.

SAGA to me is the perfect game size to play round-base, free-flow units.... which is why our AoS games are always approx 30 minis per side (and often half that). AoS at tournament level points feels totally wrong.

The last time I saw reference to that scale (1 model = 20+ men) was 5th edition which was the 1990s. From then on that was removed from rulebooks though older players carried on suggesting that.

However I know from my own experience that most players from 2000 on did not see it like that, they saw individual models and did not have an army feel at 28mm.

auticus wrote:
One of my greatest wishes is for the return of warmaster.

I would play warmaster big time if it became popular.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Or Malazan Book of the Fallen or David Gemmel, Lord of the Rings or any one of a large number of fantasy style battle stories.

LOTR? You mean the movie where you can actually see armies shock horror FLEEING rather than stand and fight to the death?

The good guys - which everyone imagines their own army to be - is never falling back though.

 Xenomancers wrote:

auticus wrote:
One of my greatest wishes is for the return of warmaster.

I would play warmaster big time if it became popular.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Or Malazan Book of the Fallen or David Gemmel, Lord of the Rings or any one of a large number of fantasy style battle stories.

LOTR? You mean the movie where you can actually see armies shock horror FLEEING rather than stand and fight to the death?

The good guys - which everyone imagines their own army to be - is never falling back though.

Wrong. The "good" guys, fall back from the ruins of Osgiliath when the Orcs cross the river and are overrun. And, to the extent that they can, they fall back and regroup several times at the Siege of Minas Tirith (mostly inside the city, before Rohan shows up), and the Rohirrim fall back to the main Keep at Helm's Deep before Gandalf shows up.

There is a difference between being fleeing and calling for a full retreat because you are out matched. Also - There were dragons.

The big difference here is they called for the retreat. Unlike the Orks who fled while their command ordered them to stay outside of Minas Tirith.

They were fighting a defensive battle. You can't call for a full retreat in a castle. There's just nowhere to run to, except for a better defensible position.

Sieges are not the same as open battles on a field, where there is somewhere to run to for both armies.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
They were fighting a defensive battle. You can't call for a full retreat in a castle. There's just nowhere to run to, except for a better defensible position.

Sieges are not the same as open battles on a field, where there is somewhere to run to for both armies.

Osgiliath was not in the castle. It was a forward defensive position - realistically you are supposed to fall back into the castle when you get overrun in this situation. There is a scene when the leadership at Osgiliath calls for the retreat. They were fighting until that point. Never saw anyone fleeing before they called the retreat.

Wow so much talk about which system has more depth but no proof. Even when someone says "this" doesn't explain how it is more or less depth.

Just saying something doesn't mean it's true. You want to be correct EXPLAIN WHY it is.

Just saying Wheeling or Piling In doesn't mean that is more depth. Just saying SHOOT THROUGH ANYTHING takes away depth. How? Explain so nobody else can say you are wrong.

So much said on both sides and NOBODY PROVED anything. Stop with the one or two lines that mean and prove NOTHING. Want to be correct then explain it properly and then we can have a proper debate.

All this is proving is both sides are petty right now.

Well, being able to shoot out of or into combat means there's not really any point in tying up a shooty unit with expendable cannon fodder.

In WHFB, and even in 40k, using a throw away unit to stop a unit from firing at your soldiers was a viable and useful tactic. It doesn't matter if they don't kill anything, because that's not their job.

And getting your elite units into melee quickly was a way to protect them from shooting too, which again was a viable tactic. Its why I don't really like 40k 8th ed's falling back rule, because it undermines this interaction and there's not really any penalty. There should really be an attack of opportunity, or a roll off based on the move stat or something.

You can't do that in AoS.

Wheeling is a consequence of the unit facing system. Since you always have a front, and you can only move forward, wheeling was a way of making complex moves with a block, so that they aren't stuck going in a straight line.
You still can't use wheeling to scoot your block over the side though. To do that, you need to do a reform, which slows their movement.
As you have such movement restrictions, you had to be very careful where you place your regiments. You don't want to put them somewhere where they can't move forward without effectively wasting a turn reforming, for example.