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.

 notprop wrote:
So respect your authoritah then.

I don't agree that that's the case since you don't know what anyone else's experience is, especially since this is games were are talking about not actual soldering.

I think you have taken this thread to a whole new level of absurd. Not that it needed it.

Wait...I was answering your question about why flanks was important in modern or any warfare. How is my first hand experience about the question being asked absurd?
And I do know others experiences. Soldiers talk. My grandfather experienced similar situations in WWII. (among others I've spoken to over the years)
Which goes back to AOS in that it lacks a very vital part of warfare and wargamming. Its one of the reasons I find the game unappealing. It breaks my immersion.

@ AllSeeingSkink - While I don't disagree to the imagery, in the scenario of big beasties attacking ranked units do you not imagine a loose formation would be better than a ranked one? Jason and the Argonauts style?

Horses are one thing but a Dragon verses a regiment might be like a human versus a hedgehog?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 notprop wrote:
So respect your authoritah then.

I don't agree that that's the case since you don't know what anyone else's experience is, especially since this is games were are talking about not actual soldering.

I think you have taken this thread to a whole new level of absurd. Not that it needed it.

Wait...I was answering your question about why flanks was important in modern or any warfare. How is my first hand experience about the question being asked absurd?
And I do know others experiences. Soldiers talk. My grandfather experienced similar situations in WWII. (among others I've spoken to over the years)
Which goes back to AOS in that it lacks a very vital part of warfare and wargamming. Its one of the reasons I find the game unappealing. It breaks my immersion.

No you were dismissing some other chaps point because you suggest know best as an authority. I disagree that your authority cannot be questioned.

Ancient armies had to fight elephants, which is something of an equivalent to a zombie dragon.

The best tactic was loose skirmishing groups of light infantry, with no armour and light missile weapons such as javelins and bows.

Apart from the lack of heavy plate armour and warhammers these loose formations were probably fairly similar to AoS groups, only they had to be careful not to get caught by formed infantry or cavalry, since being spread out they lacked mutual support and heavy weapons, and were easily defeated by formed troops.

Indeed.

....and the burning pigs. Though I would suggest a dragon would just think of a pig, burning or not, as an aperitif.

 notprop wrote:
@ AllSeeingSkink - While I don't disagree to the imagery, in the scenario of big beasties attacking ranked units do you not imagine a loose formation would be better than a ranked one? Jason and the Argonauts style?

Horses are one thing but a Dragon verses a regiment might be like a human versus a hedgehog?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 notprop wrote:
So respect your authoritah then.

I don't agree that that's the case since you don't know what anyone else's experience is, especially since this is games were are talking about not actual soldering.

I think you have taken this thread to a whole new level of absurd. Not that it needed it.

Wait...I was answering your question about why flanks was important in modern or any warfare. How is my first hand experience about the question being asked absurd?
And I do know others experiences. Soldiers talk. My grandfather experienced similar situations in WWII. (among others I've spoken to over the years)
Which goes back to AOS in that it lacks a very vital part of warfare and wargamming. Its one of the reasons I find the game unappealing. It breaks my immersion.

No you were dismissing some other chaps point because you suggest know best as an authority. I disagree that your authority cannot be questioned.

Large warbeasts aren't a fantasy thing. Elephants are quite large and were used in warfare. Concentrated missile fire and formation movements stopped them.
Someone asked about modern warfare. I told them my first hand experiences which also happen to match up with everyone else I've spoken to.
If you have different experiences or evidence, please, bring it forward. If you want to ignore first hand accounts of warfare, that's your call. But I urge you to go research the topic on your own and learn about it so you're not coming from a position of ignorance. You will find that my experiences do reflect the reality.

 notprop wrote:
While I don't disagree to the imagery, in the scenario of big beasties attacking ranked units do you not imagine a loose formation would be better than a ranked one? Jason and the Argonauts style?

Horses are one thing but a Dragon verses a regiment might be like a human versus a hedgehog?

Well obviously it's all theorising because these things don't exist But yeah I think many times a ranked formation would do a better job (on some occasions at least). I think a loose formation would just be brushed aside, it might take less casualties, but it also wouldn't do anything to halt the beast. A ranked formation can present a unified block of sharp pointy things and actually provide some weight to counter the momentum of the beast and a block of archers can unleash volleys to put the hurting on.

Maybe if the beast was just going for a stroll through the woods a loose formation might have a better chance of bringing it down, but I figure since they're actually in a *battle*, there must be some tactical reason to stop the beasty.

That's kind of what was cool about WHFB, a giant charges in to a unit of weaklings and either impacts heavily enough to break the formation, or gets tarpitted, or maybe overwhelmed.

I guess I've never really like skirmish games though WHFB (like 40k) had scaling issues though, the actual number of troops in a block of infantry was small compared to what you'd expect in reality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Ancient armies had to fight elephants, which is something of an equivalent to a zombie dragon.

The best tactic was loose skirmishing groups of light infantry, with no armour and light missile weapons such as javelins and bows.

Apart from the lack of heavy plate armour and warhammers these loose formations were probably fairly similar to AoS groups, only they had to be careful not to get caught by formed infantry or cavalry, since being spread out they lacked mutual support and heavy weapons, and were easily defeated by formed troops.

Interesting. I was under the impression not a lot was known for sure about Elephant tactics, but it was thought they were easily scared by in battle and didn't fare well against javelins.

Haven't people already given many examples on how flanking does indeed give an advantage in AoS, just not one tied to a specific Flanking rule? Here are some I found in this thread but I've read others writing more stuff in other threads.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:


Now, I was asked about balance as a way to steer clear of my question put forth about tactical validity. I will ask again, can you name one table top wargaming tactic that exists that doesn't give a statistical or tactical advantage in age of sigmar?

Are you asking if AOS has typical wargamming stuff missing?
No bonuses for flanking.

If I am hitting a flank they are either pulling that direction or not moving. That will keep them from possibly getting the bonuses for terrain or the capture ground sudden death victory condition. If I out flank attack fro two sides they divide their attacks and have almost no chance to retreat. So there are definite bonuses to doing either of those things.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:


And, what bonus does the game give for flank attacks for those? What are the bonuses for maneuvering in those games? With AoS, my bonuses for maneuvering based on terrain utilization, propper use of area of effect bonuses from different units, gaining statistical advantages by limiting enemy rebuttal, and denial of the enemy's ability to bring in reinforcements due to the safe zone surrounding my units (3" area you can never enter in the movement phase, the various distances a unit in reserves must maintain upon arival, and the 9" bubble you can't summon within) so there are your easy to understand, apparently under utilised, bonuses for tactical maneuvering.

 MWHistorian wrote:
..Large warbeasts aren't a fantasy thing. Elephants are quite large and were used in warfare. Concentrated missile fire and formation movements stopped them.
Someone asked about modern warfare. I told them my first hand experiences which also happen to match up with everyone else I've spoken to.
If you have different experiences or evidence, please, bring it forward. If you want to ignore first hand accounts of warfare, that's your call. But I urge you to go research the topic on your own and learn about it so you're not coming from a position of ignorance. You will find that my experiences do reflect the reality.

Yeah and you dismissed them for not being a soldier, they could be anyone with any experience.

Your experiences reflect your reality not everyone else's. Try to bring that to the discussion rather than carte blanche assuming it trumps all others.

Talk about ignorance.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 notprop wrote:
While I don't disagree to the imagery, in the scenario of big beasties attacking ranked units do you not imagine a loose formation would be better than a ranked one? Jason and the Argonauts style?

Horses are one thing but a Dragon verses a regiment might be like a human versus a hedgehog?

Well obviously it's all theorising because these things don't exist But yeah I think many times a ranked formation would do a better job (on some occasions at least). I think a loose formation would just be brushed aside, it might take less casualties, but it also wouldn't do anything to halt the beast. A ranked formation can present a unified block of sharp pointy things and actually provide some weight to counter the momentum of the beast and a block of archers can unleash volleys to put the hurting on.

Maybe if the beast was just going for a stroll through the woods a loose formation might have a better chance of bringing it down, but I figure since they're actually in a *battle*, there must be some tactical reason to stop the beasty.

That's kind of what was cool about WHFB, a giant charges in to a unit of weaklings and either impacts heavily enough to break the formation, or gets tarpitted, or maybe overwhelmed.

I guess I've never really like skirmish games though WHFB (like 40k) had scaling issues though, the actual number of troops in a block of infantry was small compared to what you'd expect in reality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Ancient armies had to fight elephants, which is something of an equivalent to a zombie dragon.

The best tactic was loose skirmishing groups of light infantry, with no armour and light missile weapons such as javelins and bows.

Apart from the lack of heavy plate armour and warhammers these loose formations were probably fairly similar to AoS groups, only they had to be careful not to get caught by formed infantry or cavalry, since being spread out they lacked mutual support and heavy weapons, and were easily defeated by formed troops.

Interesting. I was under the impression not a lot was known for sure about Elephant tactics, but it was thought they were easily scared by in battle and didn't fare well against javelins.

As far as we can tell from the limited historical accounts, elephants weren't scared by formed bodies of troops in the same way as cavalry might be, perhaps because elephants are so much larger and tougher than horses, as well as being more frightening to the enemy. They were subject to problems like going on a rampage in any direction including back towards their own side, due to fear, pain of wounds, and losing their drivers. However, the impact when an elephant hit a heavy infantry block like a phalanx or cohort of Roman legionaries was massive, whereas loose groups of unformed light troops would simply evade and continue with missile attacks that could kill the crew and wear down the beast or turn it off course.

 notprop wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
..Large warbeasts aren't a fantasy thing. Elephants are quite large and were used in warfare. Concentrated missile fire and formation movements stopped them.
Someone asked about modern warfare. I told them my first hand experiences which also happen to match up with everyone else I've spoken to.
If you have different experiences or evidence, please, bring it forward. If you want to ignore first hand accounts of warfare, that's your call. But I urge you to go research the topic on your own and learn about it so you're not coming from a position of ignorance. You will find that my experiences do reflect the reality.

Yeah and you dismissed them for not being a soldier, they could be anyone with any experience.

Your experiences reflect your reality not everyone else's. Try to bring that to the discussion rather than carte blanche assuming it trumps all others.

Talk about ignorance.

So, you have nothing to offer the conversation expect constantly attacking me?
The poster didn't have experience or knowledge of modern combat. I answered the question with first hand experience. And yes, I do think that first hand experience trumps ignorance. Crazy, I know.

Please drop it and let's get back on topic.

Constant unwelcome posts, sweet irony from the chap who posts in every AoS thread.

Sorry, I hurt your feelings.

Back on topic please !

 MWHistorian wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, mwhistorian, in modern warfare, how often do soldiers flank up? Exactly. In a skirmish game when 10-20 guys are moving around looking for an enemy they aren't going to do so staring straight ahead in a block. That is stupid. There will be guys who's job it is to look behind and to the side in case someone is sneaking up. In this world daemons will materialise from nothing against a moments notice, and chameleonic lizard people will step from the trees and soundlessly kill a whole platoon whenever they feel like. The tactics you're proposing as to how you win wars would have lost every single conflict in the warhammer world. Why would they use them?

Wait, are you trying to lecture a combat veteran on modern warfare?
Oh boy.
Yes, flanking is still a very very important part of modern warfare.

I served 10 years in the airborne infantry and we flanked all the time from platoon level all the way to battalion level. Yes flanking is a very important part of modern warfare

I did indeed mean to say rank up, and I am sorry for the confusion. Also, an elephant can't drop from the sky and breath poison gass while not feeling fear or pain and swallowing people whole. The point with age of sigmar is if you like the look of a phalanx, make a phalanx! If you don't think it's the right tool for the job, don't use it!

The fog of war is a real concept, I understand that to be the case without having witnessed it my self. But like you said, in a best case scenario you do have people watching the flanks and rear when on the move. When you are controlling the units on the table those decisions are yours and the game allows you to make them without needing a rule for them. Ambush specialists get bonuses to their combat capabilities when they get the drop on things is a much cleaner system than writing down what the bonuses are in the core rules and then saying later what gets those bonuses.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I did indeed mean to say rank up, and I am sorry for the confusion. Also, an elephant can't drop from the sky and breath poison gass while not feeling fear or pain and swallowing people whole. The point with age of sigmar is if you like the look of a phalanx, make a phalanx! If you don't think it's the right tool for the job, don't use it!

I haven't made myself clear. Read my link and it will explain it in more depth than I can here, but I'll try.
I understand that fantasy has things that don't exist in real life. Counter measures would have to be developed against those threats. What I'm saying is that even with such fantastical elements, the core reality has to be there.
For example. You can't break fundemental laws of reality without an explanation. You can't have soldiers not tire or not need food, without explanation because it breaks with the real world. How this applies to military situations are, you can't have an army without a baggage train unless there was something else that explained how that was possible. Teleporting supply chests, I don't know. There are certain rules of war that can't be broken without a logical and well thought out reason why. (like flanking, ambushes, chain of command, etc)
Let's take your air dropable poison breathing elephant. Does Side A have access to flying creatures as well? Are they able to prevent said poisonphants from dropping into friendly lines? Why? Why not? Do they have very good anti-air? Is this a totally new weapon and Side A hasn't had time to make a countermeasure? If so, then they're screwed no matter what, like Byzantines using flame throwers against the Arab fleets. (Cool story, but wouldn't make a good wargame. Kind of like the newest Eldar dex.)
What I'm saying is that war is complex and there are will be measures and countermeasures that must change. If AOS's open formations are open, let there be a reason for it. Without it, it just seems lazy and without much thought put into it.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I did indeed mean to say rank up, and I am sorry for the confusion. Also, an elephant can't drop from the sky and breath poison gass while not feeling fear or pain and swallowing people whole. The point with age of sigmar is if you like the look of a phalanx, make a phalanx! If you don't think it's the right tool for the job, don't use it!

I haven't made myself clear. Read my link and it will explain it in more depth than I can here, but I'll try.
I understand that fantasy has things that don't exist in real life. Counter measures would have to be developed against those threats. What I'm saying is that even with such fantastical elements, the core reality has to be there.
For example. You can't break fundemental laws of reality without an explanation. You can't have soldiers not tire or not need food, without explanation because it breaks with the real world. How this applies to military situations are, you can't have an army without a baggage train unless there was something else that explained how that was possible. Teleporting supply chests, I don't know. There are certain rules of war that can't be broken without a logical and well thought out reason why. (like flanking, ambushes, chain of command, etc)
Let's take your air dropable poison breathing elephant. Does Side A have access to flying creatures as well? Are they able to prevent said poisonphants from dropping into friendly lines? Why? Why not? Do they have very good anti-air? Is this a totally new weapon and Side A hasn't had time to make a countermeasure? If so, then they're screwed no matter what, like Byzantines using flame throwers against the Arab fleets. (Cool story, but wouldn't make a good wargame. Kind of like the newest Eldar dex.)
What I'm saying is that war is complex and there are will be measures and countermeasures that must change. If AOS's open formations are open, let there be a reason for it. Without it, it just seems lazy and without much thought put into it.

I think the reasons is simply that it's easier to learn and makes for quicker games. Remember, GW's internal mantra for a long time when training people was the 4 F's... Fast, Furious, Fun and Fours. In other words, they want the games to go fast, have lots of action, be fun for the players and the base mechanic be as simple as rolling a 4 or higher to see if something works.

Formations add to the complexity of movement and charges? Cut them. Flank charges add complexity? Cut them. Strength and Toughness adds complexity? Cut them. Force org charts keep you from playing what you want? Cut them. Points make putting a list together take more than 30 seconds? Cut them. Adding Heroes into units requires more rules? Cut that.

I think GW intentionally cut everything that added complexity and left us with a quicker game that's easy to learn and still has enough strategic/tactical decision making to satisfy the AVERAGE gamer. I still get to pick what I deploy, how I interact with terrain, what spells I cast, what General I take, where I move, who I target, whether or not to charge, etc. The decisions might not be as involved as they used to be, but they're still there.

I think it's important to remember that GW isn't trying to create a well reasoned out rules package to accurately reflect a real world battle scenario. They're trying to sell models. 8th Edition was bad at selling models, so they tried something in a different direction that seems to be doing a better job (based on anecdotal evidence from retailers on a variety of forums AND from gamers who say more people are playing at their stores) of selling models.

Lythrandire

You can't do a phalanx in AoS. You can do a directionless phalanx shaped block.

If both immersion and gameplay reasons point to vulnerable flanks/rear of units/ models being better then the argument that it's fantasy is kind of desperate imo. It's fantasy so why can't the units shoot their swords from helmet catapults, ride their shields and throw their horses.

Also even if you added facing but allowed unengaded models to turn to incoming charge, the game still would be better and your "detailed" and "accurate" formations would actualy get, hm, almost detailed and accurate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I did indeed mean to say rank up, and I am sorry for the confusion. Also, an elephant can't drop from the sky and breath poison gass while not feeling fear or pain and swallowing people whole. The point with age of sigmar is if you like the look of a phalanx, make a phalanx! If you don't think it's the right tool for the job, don't use it!

I haven't made myself clear. Read my link and it will explain it in more depth than I can here, but I'll try.
I understand that fantasy has things that don't exist in real life. Counter measures would have to be developed against those threats. What I'm saying is that even with such fantastical elements, the core reality has to be there.
For example. You can't break fundemental laws of reality without an explanation. You can't have soldiers not tire or not need food, without explanation because it breaks with the real world. How this applies to military situations are, you can't have an army without a baggage train unless there was something else that explained how that was possible. Teleporting supply chests, I don't know. There are certain rules of war that can't be broken without a logical and well thought out reason why. (like flanking, ambushes, chain of command, etc)
Let's take your air dropable poison breathing elephant. Does Side A have access to flying creatures as well? Are they able to prevent said poisonphants from dropping into friendly lines? Why? Why not? Do they have very good anti-air? Is this a totally new weapon and Side A hasn't had time to make a countermeasure? If so, then they're screwed no matter what, like Byzantines using flame throwers against the Arab fleets. (Cool story, but wouldn't make a good wargame. Kind of like the newest Eldar dex.)
What I'm saying is that war is complex and there are will be measures and countermeasures that must change. If AOS's open formations are open, let there be a reason for it. Without it, it just seems lazy and without much thought put into it.

I think the reasons is simply that it's easier to learn and makes for quicker games. Remember, GW's internal mantra for a long time when training people was the 4 F's... Fast, Furious, Fun and Fours. In other words, they want the games to go fast, have lots of action, be fun for the players and the base mechanic be as simple as rolling a 4 or higher to see if something works.

Formations add to the complexity of movement and charges? Cut them. Flank charges add complexity? Cut them. Strength and Toughness adds complexity? Cut them. Force org charts keep you from playing what you want? Cut them. Points make putting a list together take more than 30 seconds? Cut them. Adding Heroes into units requires more rules? Cut that.

I think GW intentionally cut everything that added complexity and left us with a quicker game that's easy to learn and still has enough strategic/tactical decision making to satisfy the AVERAGE gamer. I still get to pick what I deploy, how I interact with terrain, what spells I cast, what General I take, where I move, who I target, whether or not to charge, etc. The decisions might not be as involved as they used to be, but they're still there.

I think it's important to remember that GW isn't trying to create a well reasoned out rules package to accurately reflect a real world battle scenario. They're trying to sell models. 8th Edition was bad at selling models, so they tried something in a different direction that seems to be doing a better job (based on anecdotal evidence from retailers on a variety of forums AND from gamers who say more people are playing at their stores) of selling models.

Meaning it's a relatively shallow game! Thank you.

That's the whole point. You are right that there is still some strategic and tactical depth and maybe even enough skill ceiling to allow tournament play etc. It's just more shallow than other games and misses the expectations of the huge part of their player base.

If you enjoy it because it's quick and simple, all power to you, it's just claims that it has all the depth of the old game and more, or is some revolution or a hidden gem of game design that get those discussions going.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Lythrandire

You can't do a phalanx in AoS. You can do a directionless phalanx shaped block.

If both immersion and gameplay reasons point to vulnerable flanks/rear of units/ models being better then the argument that it's fantasy is kind of desperate imo. It's fantasy so why can't the units shoot their swords from helmet catapults, ride their shields and throw their horses.

Also even if you added facing but allowed unengaded models to turn to incoming charge, the game still would be better and your "detailed" and "accurate" formations would actualy get, hm, almost detailed and accurate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I did indeed mean to say rank up, and I am sorry for the confusion. Also, an elephant can't drop from the sky and breath poison gass while not feeling fear or pain and swallowing people whole. The point with age of sigmar is if you like the look of a phalanx, make a phalanx! If you don't think it's the right tool for the job, don't use it!

I haven't made myself clear. Read my link and it will explain it in more depth than I can here, but I'll try.
I understand that fantasy has things that don't exist in real life. Counter measures would have to be developed against those threats. What I'm saying is that even with such fantastical elements, the core reality has to be there.
For example. You can't break fundemental laws of reality without an explanation. You can't have soldiers not tire or not need food, without explanation because it breaks with the real world. How this applies to military situations are, you can't have an army without a baggage train unless there was something else that explained how that was possible. Teleporting supply chests, I don't know. There are certain rules of war that can't be broken without a logical and well thought out reason why. (like flanking, ambushes, chain of command, etc)
Let's take your air dropable poison breathing elephant. Does Side A have access to flying creatures as well? Are they able to prevent said poisonphants from dropping into friendly lines? Why? Why not? Do they have very good anti-air? Is this a totally new weapon and Side A hasn't had time to make a countermeasure? If so, then they're screwed no matter what, like Byzantines using flame throwers against the Arab fleets. (Cool story, but wouldn't make a good wargame. Kind of like the newest Eldar dex.)
What I'm saying is that war is complex and there are will be measures and countermeasures that must change. If AOS's open formations are open, let there be a reason for it. Without it, it just seems lazy and without much thought put into it.

I think the reasons is simply that it's easier to learn and makes for quicker games. Remember, GW's internal mantra for a long time when training people was the 4 F's... Fast, Furious, Fun and Fours. In other words, they want the games to go fast, have lots of action, be fun for the players and the base mechanic be as simple as rolling a 4 or higher to see if something works.

Formations add to the complexity of movement and charges? Cut them. Flank charges add complexity? Cut them. Strength and Toughness adds complexity? Cut them. Force org charts keep you from playing what you want? Cut them. Points make putting a list together take more than 30 seconds? Cut them. Adding Heroes into units requires more rules? Cut that.

I think GW intentionally cut everything that added complexity and left us with a quicker game that's easy to learn and still has enough strategic/tactical decision making to satisfy the AVERAGE gamer. I still get to pick what I deploy, how I interact with terrain, what spells I cast, what General I take, where I move, who I target, whether or not to charge, etc. The decisions might not be as involved as they used to be, but they're still there.

I think it's important to remember that GW isn't trying to create a well reasoned out rules package to accurately reflect a real world battle scenario. They're trying to sell models. 8th Edition was bad at selling models, so they tried something in a different direction that seems to be doing a better job (based on anecdotal evidence from retailers on a variety of forums AND from gamers who say more people are playing at their stores) of selling models.

Meaning it's a relatively shallow game! Thank you.

That's the whole point. You are right that there is still some strategic and tactical depth and maybe even enough skill ceiling to allow tournament play etc. It's just more shallow than other games and misses the expectations of the huge part of their player base.

If you enjoy it because it's quick and simple, all power to you, it's just claims that it has all the depth of the old game and more, or is some revolution or a hidden gem of game design that get those discussions going.

Relative to what? It has more strategic and tactical depth than chess. It has less than 8th Edition. Chess sells. 8th Edition didn't. Your comments mean more if you stop using hedging language. "It's a relatively shallow game" means nothing because I don't know what you're using as a basis for comparison.

It's also not fair to say it misses the expectations of a huge part of their player base. What is a huge part? ...the vocal minority that posts online? ...the tournament goers? Have their been any proper surveys done, or is this just anecdotal evidence based on a limited number of particularly noisy people?

Realistically, you can say the following...

Warhammer Age of Sigmar has a simpler rule set than Warhammer 8th Edition did. Some of the strategic and tactical decisions that were important in 8th Edition are no longer important in Age of Sigmar. There are some new strategic and tactical decisions to make in Age of Sigmar that didn't exist in 8th Edition. This is expected, as they are two different games that coincidentally use the same game pieces. These changes make some people happy, while they make others unhappy. 8th Edition was not selling as well as GW would have liked and as such can be considered a failure. It is too early to tell whether or not Age of Sigmar is selling better than 8th Edition, but there does appear to be more interest at many stores that has resulted in additional sales that were unlikely to have occurred otherwise. The next set of financial reports published by GW will let us know whether or not these additional sales are commonplace or anomalies.

 Kriswall wrote:


Relative to what? It has more strategic and tactical depth than chess. It has less than 8th Edition. Chess sells. 8th Edition didn't. Your comments mean more if you stop using hedging language. "It's a relatively shallow game" means nothing because I don't know what you're using as a basis for comparison.

Every other table top game out there.

 Mymearan wrote:
Haven't people already given many examples on how flanking does indeed give an advantage in AoS, just not one tied to a specific Flanking rule? Here are some I found in this thread but I've read others writing more stuff in other threads.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:


Now, I was asked about balance as a way to steer clear of my question put forth about tactical validity. I will ask again, can you name one table top wargaming tactic that exists that doesn't give a statistical or tactical advantage in age of sigmar?

Are you asking if AOS has typical wargamming stuff missing?
No bonuses for flanking.

If I am hitting a flank they are either pulling that direction or not moving. That will keep them from possibly getting the bonuses for terrain or the capture ground sudden death victory condition. If I out flank attack fro two sides they divide their attacks and have almost no chance to retreat. So there are definite bonuses to doing either of those things.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:


And, what bonus does the game give for flank attacks for those? What are the bonuses for maneuvering in those games? With AoS, my bonuses for maneuvering based on terrain utilization, propper use of area of effect bonuses from different units, gaining statistical advantages by limiting enemy rebuttal, and denial of the enemy's ability to bring in reinforcements due to the safe zone surrounding my units (3" area you can never enter in the movement phase, the various distances a unit in reserves must maintain upon arival, and the 9" bubble you can't summon within) so there are your easy to understand, apparently under utilised, bonuses for tactical maneuvering.

That's a lot of big words for tiny things that will rarely be revant to the game outcome. It doesn't tell you how the "statistical advantages by limiting enemy rebutall" works only against big units that also happen to be formed so they have a short side or how most of the time you better just charge asap. Or how situational and unreliable it is.

Don't get me wrong, it's good there is something at least but it's a pale shadow of what is in KoW or whfb 6th/ 7th.

But if you are OK with unengaged models turning automatically, what does it matter?

Also, the game isn't shallow, it is simple. Lack of depth would equate to a game that caps how good you can be at strategy at a very low level. That isn't the case here. That block of infantry that you want to flank, every time they stop the porcupi e out to keep from being flanked. Which is what they would do if they were trying to hold ground and weren't sure where the enemy is.

Also, yes, war IS complex. We aren't playing an entire war in the span of an afternoon here folks. This is a battle. You don't need to worry about supply lines without the use of an ongoing campaign to make it relevant to later BATTLES. What you have on a table is armies meeting in full force, over the course of a day, with their supply chains and chain of command fully intact because their general has all the info needed to try and see his army through the conflict.

Supply chains, breaking down of command structure, long term effects on morale, hell even logistical restraints on reinforcements and not the native population reacts to the forces present are never something that should be settled over the course of two hours. And other than a generic ability to get behind people without them being able to turn around, those things aren't represented in the core rules of any tabletop miniatures game I've ever heard of.

You want reasons why, say it out loud during the game. "Dragons have been spotted" or "they are known to have scouts nearby" or even "we lost track of several of their units, search patterns everyone!"

You want reasons for formations "surround the archers to keep cavalry at bay" "form up a phalanx to keep them from dividing our numbers and surrounding us" or " fill in the ends of this alleyway to keep them from getting through to the artillery"

There are mechanical reasons to do all of these things, tactical reasons to make them beneficial, and tactical changes to make in order to combat them effectively. But somehow that is cheaper in some people's eyes because they want to get more benefits than are given for getting behind SOME of these options on the tabletop.

@Kriswall

Relative to other major tt wargames, I said it many times before. And chess obviously lol though it's a different kind of game.

Yes it's anectodal and a guess that it missed expectations of a huge part of a player base. Still true heh. Are you saying that the whfb player base wanted a quick and simple ruleset? They bought awful lot of army books for such a minimalist bunch.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:


Relative to what? It has more strategic and tactical depth than chess. It has less than 8th Edition. Chess sells. 8th Edition didn't. Your comments mean more if you stop using hedging language. "It's a relatively shallow game" means nothing because I don't know what you're using as a basis for comparison.

Every other table top game out there.

You've done a comprehensive comparison against every other table top game ever made? Wow. That's incredible. How long did that take and can you publish your findings?

I would be absolutely shocked to find that Age of Sigmar is the least complex tabletop game ever sold. I've seen some pretty dull games lacking any depth at all in the past. Hell, there's a tabletop game on Kickstarter right now that can fit in an Altoids tin and uses a couple of wooden counters to represent a battle between a party of adventurers and a dragon. I guess that's more tactically complex?

It feels very much like you're being a little dramatic right now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
@Kriswall

Relative to other major tt wargames, I said it many times before. And chess obviously lol though it's a different kind of game.

Yes it's anectodal and a guess that it missed expectations of a huge part of a player base. Still true heh. Are you saying that the whfb player base wanted a quick and simple ruleset? They bought awful lot of army books for such a minimalist bunch.

I'm saying that GW doesn't care in any way, shape or form what the previous WFB player base wanted because they weren't buying anything. They didn't buy enough army books and they didn't buy enough models. A company can't base it's business decisions on trying to please a customer base who doesn't buy things. A change was obviously needed and one was made. Whether the change will improve sales or not will become obvious over time.

I think the reasons is simply that it's easier to learn and makes for quicker games. Remember, GW's internal mantra for a long time when training people was the 4 F's... Fast, Furious, Fun and Fours. In other words, they want the games to go fast, have lots of action, be fun for the players and the base mechanic be as simple as rolling a 4 or higher to see if something works.

Formations add to the complexity of movement and charges? Cut them. Flank charges add complexity? Cut them. Strength and Toughness adds complexity? Cut them. Force org charts keep you from playing what you want? Cut them. Points make putting a list together take more than 30 seconds? Cut them. Adding Heroes into units requires more rules? Cut that.

I think GW intentionally cut everything that added complexity and left us with a quicker game that's easy to learn and still has enough strategic/tactical decision making to satisfy the AVERAGE gamer. I still get to pick what I deploy, how I interact with terrain, what spells I cast, what General I take, where I move, who I target, whether or not to charge, etc. The decisions might not be as involved as they used to be, but they're still there.

I think it's important to remember that GW isn't trying to create a well reasoned out rules package to accurately reflect a real world battle scenario. They're trying to sell models. 8th Edition was bad at selling models, so they tried something in a different direction that seems to be doing a better job (based on anecdotal evidence from retailers on a variety of forums AND from gamers who say more people are playing at their stores) of selling models.

+1, well posted.
And whilst it is a cut down rule set removing many of the old tactical plays and tactics, as people previously have demonstrated it still does have a level of tactical depth to it.
Is this point still in contention?

It certainly has a level of tactical depth.

That depth is necessarily less deep than more complex, slower to learn and play rule sets that have rules covering areas of warfare that are not included in AoS and affect tactics.

I mean, this is undeniable, and people should not see it as a defect. The game is meant to be relatively simple to learn and play. As well say it is a defect that more complex games are more complex. There is nothing wrong with complexity if you are looking for it.

You cannot include all of warfare in four pages of rules.

Everyone doesn't want to learn 36 pages of rules.

Lythrandire

AoS is simple and shallow. Chess is simple but deep.

I'm not ok with unengaged models turning automaticaly. But if they did and become engaged, they couldn't turn anymore and the second unit fighting it could get to their backs. Still a bonus for flanking and you'd have your soldiers turning to danger.

The rest is talking in circles. You can't have any specifics of formations, if you think all that defines a phalanx is standing in square then I'm sure AoS is everything you need. I can fill in the end of an alleyway with my ranked units and surrounding the archers in AoS is crude and inaccurate just like all the "detailed" formations there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ratius wrote:

I think the reasons is simply that it's easier to learn and makes for quicker games. Remember, GW's internal mantra for a long time when training people was the 4 F's... Fast, Furious, Fun and Fours. In other words, they want the games to go fast, have lots of action, be fun for the players and the base mechanic be as simple as rolling a 4 or higher to see if something works.

Formations add to the complexity of movement and charges? Cut them. Flank charges add complexity? Cut them. Strength and Toughness adds complexity? Cut them. Force org charts keep you from playing what you want? Cut them. Points make putting a list together take more than 30 seconds? Cut them. Adding Heroes into units requires more rules? Cut that.

I think GW intentionally cut everything that added complexity and left us with a quicker game that's easy to learn and still has enough strategic/tactical decision making to satisfy the AVERAGE gamer. I still get to pick what I deploy, how I interact with terrain, what spells I cast, what General I take, where I move, who I target, whether or not to charge, etc. The decisions might not be as involved as they used to be, but they're still there.

I think it's important to remember that GW isn't trying to create a well reasoned out rules package to accurately reflect a real world battle scenario. They're trying to sell models. 8th Edition was bad at selling models, so they tried something in a different direction that seems to be doing a better job (based on anecdotal evidence from retailers on a variety of forums AND from gamers who say more people are playing at their stores) of selling models.

+1, well posted.
And whilst it is a cut down rule set removing many of the old tactical plays and tactics, as people previously have demonstrated it still does have a level of tactical depth to it.
Is this point still in contention?

No the actual state of discussion is advocates claiming AoS is a deeper game than chess. I wonder what's next.

What part of a phalanx can have four sides facing out to keep attackers at bay in every other situation besides tabletop war games aren't you guys paying attention to?

Why does every phalanx in your eyes have to be on the move and not paying attention to their surroundings so you can generate some extra benefit? A phalanx on the move, or attacked from an UNEXPECTED QUARTER is indeed going to collapse. What you are wanting is for them to EASILY be out maneuvered and crushed in game terms. That isn't what happens. The unit turns to face people AS THEY MOVE AROUND THEM TO ENGAGE. They don't stand there in real life and let the cavalry who just ran past hit them for a while until they decide as a group to turn and face them. They certainly didn't stop protecting and fighting one side of the phalanx because someone hit the other side. Why should I be forced to consider these obvious phalacies in a table top game in order to somehow make it more interesting and realistic?

That's not at all how phallanxes performed in battle. Turning about to face an enemy was not an easy thing to do. A phallanx hit ftom the side or rear would be decimated. Look up thar battle I mentioned earlier and you'll see exactly what im talking about.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
AoS is simple and shallow.

By what measure is AoS shallow? Do you mean to say that it is shallow in comparison to something else, or that in the grand scheme of game depth, on a scale of Tic-Tac-Toe to Advanced Squad Leader, it would be in the bottom 10%?

EDIT - Forget Advanced Squad Leader. The most complex game has to be The Campaign for North Africa - a 10 player game is listed at 1,200 hours long. I fully admit that AoS does not compare.

No the actual state of discussion is advocates claiming AoS is a deeper game than chess. I wonder what's next.

Before anyone starts comparing game depths, we should really agree on a definition of "deep gameplay". Certainly, AoS is deeper and more complex than Chess in several ways, such as variety in game pieces/boards/rules, as well as the number of goals and how to succeed at them. Because of the randomness and the variable armies, player tactical decisions are less important than Chess, with identical sides and predictive gameplay. So you could say that AoS is deeper than Chess and that Chess is deeper than AoS, and not be incorrect either way.

 MWHistorian wrote:
That's not at all how phallanxes performed in battle. Turning about to face an enemy was not an easy thing to do. A phallanx hit ftom the side or rear would be decimated. Look up thar battle I mentioned earlier and you'll see exactly what im talking about.

How big was the phalanx? I am talking about the 20 odd guys you see on the table. It is not hard to turn, especially for trained soldiers standing still, watching the enemy advance. And what about the fact that they could (and did) stand in formation with weapons pointed out in order to protect an area or important person?
It was used, it had merit, it can be done any time they stopped walking, but for some reason you dont want them to do it in a game. My elven spearmen are more dextrous with faster minds and better hand-eye coordination than any human can ever achieve, why limit them to what human peasants did in the real world?

I can't understand why severely limiting options for the sake of a specific bonus is considered more tactical. And it is not because I am stubborn, it really doesn't make sense.