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.

@Klerych

Total War is strategic on strategic map and tactical on battle map. They are different genres because you drop buildings from the sky etc but you can show how whfb is closer to TW battle element and AoS is closer to Warcaft battle element which is not exactly a favourable comparision for AoS. Warcraft has other things going for it that made it classic but when it comes to units fighting, it is clearly a less tactical thing. Also I'm obviously not talking about input here and the whole clicks per minute schtick and focus on how unit interact etc.

Replacing whfb that was like a mix of Medieval TW and Empire TW (the most tactical so far) battle part with monsters and magic added to the mix with warcraftish AoS is imo just backwards. Maybe AoS is going to be all time classic in its respective genre (whatever that is) just like whfb was but one replaced the other and will always be judged from that perspective.

Your preference for round bases over regiments is fine and I wish you many happy hours with AoS before it inevitably bites the dust The topic is tactics though and that suffered with the move from regiments to blobs without any mechanism to make up for it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bobal wrote:
I understand the feeling of some people on that game, hard transition from 8th edition.

But personally AoS brought me back to the table, which I left with 8th edition coming up, for the same reasons people criticize AoS.
I found there was no tactic, and after deployment phase, I knew which unit would fight which. I just wanted to teleport in the middle all units, throw my bucket of dice and have the result of the game.

I'm exagerating a bit the feeling I had back then, but it's just to tell people disappointed about AoS that they should give it some time first, and then keep on playing 8th if it suits them better

Cheers

8th was a step back but why not fix it instead of killing it dead and replacing with something entirely different. Just a mail order maybe as a specialist game with AoS as flagship (set sail for fail heh), I don't know, whatever.

Or kill it dead sure why not, opportunity of the lifetime, clean slate, no armybooks no nothing. Show those PP scrubs how games are made, man the think tank with Phil Kelly as tank commander for the ultimate easy to play hard to master all scale ultimate battle game where books write themselves out of sheer awesomness. Then they vomit AoS, it's imo a crushing disapointment even if you say feth whfb and just an epitome of mediocority and questionable design.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Or kill it dead sure why not, opportunity of the lifetime, clean slate, no armybooks no nothing. Show those PP scrubs how games are made, man the think tank with Phil Kelly as tank commander for the ultimate easy to play hard to master all scale ultimate battle game where books write themselves out of sheer awesomness. Then they vomit AoS, it's imo a crushing disapointment even if you say feth whfb and just an epitome of mediocority and questionable design.

Honestly, if they had Ward still and he helmed the new edition, I feel like we would have the ultimate "easy to play, hard to master [...] ultimate battle game" (not sure if it would handle all scales).

Also, one of the things I've noted myself about AoS is how much closer to Total War it actually is than 8th edition... maybe I'm weird but even though Total War is what inspired me to actually dive into WHFB in the first place, AoS "feels" a lot more like it. Maybe it's just the fact that units leave their perfect square formation when they join battle and become a big moshpit of people instead of geometric shapes?

Also, the most tactics I've ever had to worry about in Total War is sending which units to attack which enemy unit and where to position my guys in the fortresses. After I send the initial orders, it's pretty much just "watch the cinematic" mode. Whereas with Warcraft 3, you have to decide which unit attacks what, when to pull a unit out (pull it out too early and you lose it's damage output, pull it out too late and it dies), when to trigger abilities (if your position is poor on some hero abilities, it could be useless/totally ineffective. or use something like Resurrection or the Death Knight ultimate at the wrong time and it's not gonna have quite the impact on battle that you hoped for!), whether a battle is worth retreating from and regrouping or if you can sacrifice the units that are currently engaged to maximize damage. I've never been able to just sit back and watch a Warcraft 3 battle happening, it's always much more involved and there are a lot more decisions to be made...

I guess the point I'm trying to make, is that maybe you want to say AoS is more like Total War, where WHFB8e was more like Warcraft 3? Which seems odd to say but to me that's the point you're trying to make.

I already explained in what aspects whfb is like Total War and AoS is like Warcraft for me. I guess you can find aspects in which it's the opposite, why go such lenghts though man, warcraft has magic TW don't, whfb is like Warcraft. Anyway not going to repeat the same crap ad infinitum but if you find Warcraft deeper than Total War then no wonder you prefer AoS now.

Obviously you can play TW and never do anything more than click what attacks what, it takes only going to battles with significant advantage, not making varied armies or not playing maximum difficulty. Just like some matchups in whfb were less tacticaly demanding than others. I'd love to see you playing Empire TW like how you describe you do though and witness how far you get like that.

Moshpit after clash in TW is a visual thing mainly and you still get a morale modifier that can rout the unit with a flank/ rear charge. Just like AoS... oh wait.

I'm sorry, I just disagree. Total War battles are all about planning and executing the plans, WarCraft is all about the action and furious adaptation on the go. You only look at the scale and loose formations, but WarCraft IS micromanagement. It's the very example of micromanagement-centered game, so you simply just can't rule it out for your little comparison and you can't belittle the amount of skill that WC3 or SC2 take to master or the amount of actions you have to do during a battle there (definetely more than in TW, by the way).

Yes, AoS does have fewer models and they're in loose formation just like in WarCraft, but that's -literally- the only comparison you can make between those two. Now if you compare WC to Warmachine... now that's a game that shares a lot. What you could compare it to the way you did, is Age of Empires. There the tactics are closer to AoS - few unit skills, little benefit for any kind or engagement where your scissors don't hit enemy's paper while avoiding his rock, but in that comparison AoS has upper hand, because there is more depth.

These comparisons with Total War and Warcraft are completely useless to me because I have never played either game.

Is it possible to compare AoS with the kind of historical fighting it is patterned on, and with other types of skirmish games?

 Klerych wrote:
I'm sorry, I just disagree. Total War battles are all about planning and executing the plans,

Oh yes that's whfb 7h right there.

WarCraft is all about the action and furious adaptation on the go. You only look at the scale and loose formations, but WarCraft IS micromanagement. It's the very example of micromanagement-centered game, so you simply just can't rule it out for your little comparison and you can't belittle the amount of skill that WC3 or SC2 take to master or the amount of actions you have to do during a battle there (definetely more than in TW, by the way).

Yes, AoS does have fewer models and they're in loose formation just like in WarCraft, but that's -literally- the only comparison you can make between those two. Now if you compare WC to Warmachine... now that's a game that shares a lot. What you could compare it to the way you did, is Age of Empires. There the tactics are closer to AoS - few unit skills, little benefit for any kind or engagement where your scissors don't hit enemy's paper while avoiding his rock, but in that comparison AoS has upper hand, because there is more depth.

Yes I can belittle anything I want to belittle especialy a hysterical clickfest. Obviously there is strategic and some tactical depth to games like warcraft but the whole multitasking fast decision making time pressure strategising is just bs, remove the clickfest from the equation and suddenly million people would be able to make those decisions just as fast assuming knowledge of the game intricacies. High apm ability with a mouse is a skill ofc just as quick masturbating is a skill but that doesn't mean I have to value it high or that the requirement for it has to make the game deeper in my eyes.

Obviously they have more actions per minute than TWs, you build a fething base during the battle ffs. It adds so much to the strategy and tactics as a few majestic clicks on building screen in TW after you check the opponenet with a spy. It's just on the go as you said only I'd replace furious with hysteric.

Btw I won Wargame EE matches with 2 decisions per minute at some points into the match. It must be completly dumb I guess.

Btw 2 I like the odd classic rts here or there but those are just weird and would be a relic of the past if it wasn't for an odd fix on starcraft here or there.

Let it be Age of Empires though, I chose Warcraft just for being close thematicaly. I agree that AoS has an upper hand against classic rtss but not much.

There's a role for click fests in games because time pressure is a great way to develop tension, like in Space Hulk, but in real life a commander can't be everywhere making all the decisions and that is why there is a chain of command in which lower level commanders make the decisions relevant to their area of responsibility.

Taken to the ultimate level, an individual soldier makes the decision whether to parry with his shield or to stab or swing with his sword. Except in very detailed games, those kind of tactical decisions are abstracted from the player's view.

AoS is abstracted at the level that it matters if you position your individual soldiers within18 inches or three inches or an inch or whatever of an enemy soldier depending on their ideal weapon range. This is kind of what a skirmish game ought to do, IMO.

Inevitably there are tactics because it is a loose simulation of warfare and certain types of tactics such as outnumbering and flanking work like a force of nature.

It can certainly be argued that the wider variety of modifiers for factors such as flanking, fighting downhill or taking cover that are found in more complex games, add more tactical depth.

I love decision making under time pressure in my games, be it space hulk or chess but in clasic rtss it's rather a test of multitasking and dexterity and you have to babysit a 100 things that could be streamlined without hurting depth at all. Majority of rts games since warcraft/ starcraft have been gradualy trimming the fat so you don't just do something for the sake of doing it.

Can't speak for much else, but i really like the tactics and play style of the new Sylvaneth army. The fact that my game play is dictated by how i play around my Wyldwood feels really unique and powerful compared to lots of other armies around. I get bonuses for being in my Woods, my spells use my Woods, my Woods respond to my spells, If it's sudden death i can protect the wood and the wood can protect the guys inside.

It's a fun unique tactic that works really well, i really hope the Sylvaneth army gets expanded upon.

Imo moving big units around is less tactical than Moving small skirmish groups

With less restrictions comes more possibilities i think. In WHFB, i was tired of moving unsurprisingly most of the time, same for m'y opponent's turn. Now i have more choices to set up traps or decoys

That was just to say that i think aos is more tactical than expected.

Now has it been well prepared and released? Another debate

I don't think I've seen a horde once in last 3 years tbh. I always prefered multiple units exactly because there's more tactics in that.

Anyway, why not just implement the rule that every additional full unit (as per warscroll or just fixed number) hitting a unit already in combat (with another full unit) reduces its bravery by 1 (2 if cavalry)? Top of my head and would be crude but at least something and reward taking bigger units.

You shouldn't get a serious bonus for flank charges. A phalanx of warriors is trained to turn 180° and receive attacks from the rear. They almost never attempt to hold position when on the move, they form up ranks when they stop.

As a special rule for peeon civilian militia, sure. But trained soldiers in a world setting where everyone is fighting everyone else all the time and your entire nation (and probably your soul) are at stake? Flank charges shouldn't mean all that much.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
You shouldn't get a serious bonus for flank charges. A phalanx of warriors is trained to turn 180° and receive attacks from the rear. They almost never attempt to hold position when on the move, they form up ranks when they stop.

As a special rule for peeon civilian militia, sure. But trained soldiers in a world setting where everyone is fighting everyone else all the time and your entire nation (and probably your soul) are at stake? Flank charges shouldn't mean all that much.

Sorry, but there's multiple times in history that shows that flank charges are very, very effective even against trained soldiers.

And as for flipping around 180 degrees on command? That might work on a parade ground, but trying getting 100+ people to do that on command, in a way that's not going to leave half your troops facing the wrong way, in the middle of a battle is far, far more difficult.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
You shouldn't get a serious bonus for flank charges. A phalanx of warriors is trained to turn 180° and receive attacks from the rear. They almost never attempt to hold position when on the move, they form up ranks when they stop.

As a special rule for peeon civilian militia, sure. But trained soldiers in a world setting where everyone is fighting everyone else all the time and your entire nation (and probably your soul) are at stake? Flank charges shouldn't mean all that much.

What it was in whfb or what I proposed is not serious. It only simulates psychology of having a fight on your back. You could make a case for Kings of War where you get double the attacks for flank charges and triple the attacks for rear ones, for me it's brilliant though and makes me smile each time I read how flanking is important in AoS.

In the end you can put a hundred arguments both ways fluff and immersion wise but the point is, it adds to the game's depth immensly.

As for turning on the spot, even if you assume that your ballerina example is right, I proposed a modifier to AoS when a receiving unit is already in fight.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
I don't think I've seen a horde once in last 3 years tbh. I always prefered multiple units exactly because there's more tactics in that.

Are you for real? 90% of ETC armies (and ETC was basically the only way to play WFB in Wrocław) fielded at least one horde. Most common Empire lists fielded two hordes of 35+ halberdiers. Beastmen fielded hordes of 40+ Gors and 30+ Bestigors, Dark Elves fielded at least one horde of Executioners - horde was just plain more efficient and, in competitive field, used almost always (aside from cavalry armies and ogres).

Aside from those odd "experimental" lists I have never seen an army that did not use at least one horde unit. They were just simply better due to the humongous benefits over smaller units.

 infinite_array wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
You shouldn't get a serious bonus for flank charges. A phalanx of warriors is trained to turn 180° and receive attacks from the rear. They almost never attempt to hold position when on the move, they form up ranks when they stop.

As a special rule for peeon civilian militia, sure. But trained soldiers in a world setting where everyone is fighting everyone else all the time and your entire nation (and probably your soul) are at stake? Flank charges shouldn't mean all that much.

Sorry, but there's multiple times in history that shows that flank charges are very, very effective even against trained soldiers.

And as for flipping around 180 degrees on command? That might work on a parade ground, but trying getting 100+ people to do that on command, in a way that's not going to leave half your troops facing the wrong way, in the middle of a battle is far, far more difficult.

But of those instances, how many were caught by surprise? Also, we're talking about units as low as 10 models, not thousands of warriors in one giant blob.

In the last edition, a unit could watch another unit of say cavalry circle around to the side of them from mere feet away and would be totally blindsided just as if the horses had appeared out of thin air. Why couldn't you shield up another side, or all sides like the tortuga formation? Why wouldn't they break ranks to kill the devil out of a much smaller unit? Why would they not get the benefit of the dying zone suntzu spoke of when they believe they had no chance of survival because they are being routed toward the rest of the enemy forces.

I stand by my statement.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
But of those instances, how many were caught by surprise? Also, we're talking about units as low as 10 models, not thousands of warriors in one giant blob.

In the last edition, a unit could watch another unit of say cavalry circle around to the side of them from mere feet away and would be totally blindsided just as if the horses had appeared out of thin air. Why couldn't you shield up another side, or all sides like the tortuga formation? Why wouldn't they break ranks to kill the devil out of a much smaller unit? Why would they not get the benefit of the dying zone suntzu spoke of when they believe they had no chance of survival because they are being routed toward the rest of the enemy forces.

I stand by my statement.

Well, now we get to the question of scale. Obviously, you look at a game of 8th Edition, and see a 1:1 scale. But if they were the case, then almost every battle fought in the Old World (on the table top, at least) was between warbands of usually 200 models or less.

When I look at a unit of, say, 20 Greatswords, I instead see a much larger scale - 1:10, or even larger (Warmaster was a better representation of this). Which then distorts the ground scale and the time scale, since the actual vs. simulated ranges of movement and shooting increase as the scale does as well. So you aren't seeing a unit of 5 cavalrymen charging into the side of 20 guys from six inches away. You're watching 50 cavalrymen charge into the side of 200 men, probably crossing some 250 yards in 15-20 seconds. If your infantry are focused on what's going on in front of them, and concentrating on moving in formation and not dispersing too much, they could easily be taken in the side.

I'd also like to point out that the Testudo formation was used mostly against missile fire, and was rather useless in close combat. Spear and pike wielding troops might form a schiltron, but doing that leaves them more vulnerable to infantry and missile fire. And don't forget that you, the player, are technically the only one with a god's-eye-view of the battlefield. Your units don't have that advantage. They might not even react. Again, Warmaster had a better representation of this with its Orders, where you had the potential of a commander's instructions being ignored. This went on to affect Warmaster Ancients, and then on to their descendants - Hail Caesar and Black Powder.

You can stand by your statement all you want - it doesn't matter when that original assessment is flawed.

And it is supposed to be a game, not a military tactics reenactment.

 Klerych wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
I don't think I've seen a horde once in last 3 years tbh. I always prefered multiple units exactly because there's more tactics in that.

Are you for real? 90% of ETC armies (and ETC was basically the only way to play WFB in Wrocław) fielded at least one horde. Most common Empire lists fielded two hordes of 35+ halberdiers. Beastmen fielded hordes of 40+ Gors and 30+ Bestigors, Dark Elves fielded at least one horde of Executioners - horde was just plain more efficient and, in competitive field, used almost always (aside from cavalry armies and ogres).

Aside from those odd "experimental" lists I have never seen an army that did not use at least one horde unit. They were just simply better due to the humongous benefits over smaller units.

We gave up on 8th very early as a tourney competitive game and played it casualy (which ofc doesn't mean we wanted it stupifyed AoS style) and by the book. The crazy magic for example is something I always connoted with warhammer, battle mages throwing powerful global spells so it was our vehicle for fluffy batlles. Most of the playing goes on in mine or my friend's house and since I bought it I got to lazy to pack the minis and go 35km to the shop so we have our own "meta" of few people, hordes were used early but disappered fast. One reason was that I for example have multiple armies but not that big and hordes made the unit count too smal and the game less tactical. We tried etc and Swedish comp afair and it's nice to know those are out there but having the luxury to play 7th whenever I want was enough so far.

As for benefits, I'm actualy not a fan of super optimised list. I'm not like all the anti waac crybabies either and am happy that there are people actively breaking the system but my lists for various games are usualy medium power wise as it shifts the weight of the game to the table itself. Which is funny btw because I was already described as butthurt waac by AoS advocates who apparently can't grasp the concept of casual player that likes to think over beer and pretzels. Just like when I was described as a kneejerk hater that can't get over whfb loss, see given the gaming conditions I mentioned I'm basicaly happy, no more overpriced armybooks only open rulesets, KoW 2.0, whfb 7 and whatever comes by. It's obviously crap that the wider regional community might split or players might go as it's good to know there are players out there but personaly atm I'm not affected.

I just look at AoS and see an uninspiring, simple and shallow game written with minimum effort by a sales department posing as rules writers and creative.








Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bobal wrote:
And it is supposed to be a game, not a military tactics reenactment.

Which is another argument pro flank charge bonuses because those would benefit game depth without complicating the rules.

And I see a more open ended ruleset that is easy to grasp, but allows people to strategize during deployment and think tactically once dice start rolling.

If you are flanking an enemy with two units, they either split attacks, or try to focus down one unit. Then the person controlling the flanking units gets to hit with more soldiers, thereby causing more casualties and making the battleshock phase a bigger concern. If you don't want to be flanked, you need support squads to help keep other units at bay, if you want to have better luck with flanking you bring chariots and cavalry to try and encircle your opponent.

On the idea of cavalry and chariots, they get bonuses for the most part for charging with melee varients, and bonuses for being outside combat range for shooty variants. These make the best use of the retreat mechanic. In 8th ed, you were limited by number of turns. That made a unit being unable to fight for a turn not worth the bonus. Now though, they get to fight like they did in real life, swing in on a flank, kill some stuff, circle out so they don't get dragged down and killed. Shooty ones get to circle around shooting with impunity, and when things get hairy, RUN!

Why does AoS only have to be compared with WHFB?

They aren't the only two wargames in the world.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
And I see a more open ended ruleset that is easy to grasp, but allows people to strategize during deployment and think tactically once dice start rolling.

If you are flanking an enemy with two units, they either split attacks, or try to focus down one unit. Then the person controlling the flanking units gets to hit with more soldiers, thereby causing more casualties and making the battleshock phase a bigger concern. If you don't want to be flanked, you need support squads to help keep other units at bay, if you want to have better luck with flanking you bring chariots and cavalry to try and encircle your opponent.

On the idea of cavalry and chariots, they get bonuses for the most part for charging with melee varients, and bonuses for being outside combat range for shooty variants. These make the best use of the retreat mechanic. In 8th ed, you were limited by number of turns. That made a unit being unable to fight for a turn not worth the bonus. Now though, they get to fight like they did in real life, swing in on a flank, kill some stuff, circle out so they don't get dragged down and killed. Shooty ones get to circle around shooting with impunity, and when things get hairy, RUN!

Another nice description of why AoS is a simple and shallow, one would think you guys will make points pro not against it heh.

Inflicting moe damage because you have more units at a place than opponent is such basic stuff that anyone using a brain will have the tactics figured out after few games. Special rules on warscrolls might prolong it a bit but not much and mostly just some combos and one trick ponies will emerge.

In more tactical games, bonuses for outmanouvering your opponent shift the weight from units power level to proper thought out movement. You can ofc go too far with it but AoS is safe here heh.

Even 40k is times better, at least the powerful shooting provides shooting ranges game and flanking works thanks to importance of cover and versus vehicles. And 40k is a simpleton.

What I disliked about 8th ed is how flanking and combat resolution worked. I understand that it was meant to speed up the game, but it was terribly executed. Suddenly soldiers were unable to just turn on their heel to the side and brace for impact from a charging enemy they obviously must have seen. Or running away after one turn of combat just to be outright wiped out.

The example with one man defeating 200... dice will make it so hard that you should be crowned a king if you manage to pull it off in AoS, as it's easier to wound in general.

And obviously you haven't had any experience with competitive play, otherwise you'd remember all those situations when a dark elf dreadlord on a pegasus, wearing the cape, cloak and ogre blade (and a bunch other items) charged a unit of 60 skaven, won the combat resolution by a billion wounds caused and none taken (he was nigh-indestructible) and then, when they broke and ran away, he caught up to them (because he was on a pegasus) and killed them all.

I saw that dreadlord cut through whole units of Ironguts, Mournfang cavalry, hordes of empire state troops, beastmen, skaven and others. It was literally one unit destroyed a turn unless his rolls were terrible. And then there was the rest of his army. The only unit I saw that did not get outright butchered were the... uh... dwarfs with two-handed hammers, forgot their name.

He won fights with almost every hero and unit he has charged (and with flying that's not a problem), so I refuse to even listen to people saying that this is some big issue that started in AoS.

But that's an entirely different issue, one of GW crap rules writing in general especialy when it comes to army books. The fact that whfb wasn't that good just acceptable with an odd spark of brilliance makes the so much worse in comparision AoS even worse in general imo. Not to mention that if you start to look for ways to break the game, AoS opens possibilities that an average black hearted whfb waac jock wouldn't even dream of in his puny 8th.

Also that rules are deeply tactical doesn't mean it will show up in every game. It might but depends on many factors and whfb thanks to the variety of playstyles had matchups that were point and click and boring too plus crap balance made it so much easier to make a board sweeping list. Even the best boardgames, it's not every game that you come up with something brilliant that makes you take it all. It's the potential and the possibilities that make it worthwile, having more things to take into account and anticipate when planning etc.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
You shouldn't get a serious bonus for flank charges. A phalanx of warriors is trained to turn 180° and receive attacks from the rear. They almost never attempt to hold position when on the move, they form up ranks when they stop.

Exactly.

The invulnerability of the phalanx against flank attacks actually explains why the romans lost almost every war against the successors of Alexander the Great, why Sciopo is known as one of the worst generals in the recorded history, why the Ptolemaic Invasion of Rome met only token resistance, and why we consequently all use hieroglyphs now.

Litcheur wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
You shouldn't get a serious bonus for flank charges. A phalanx of warriors is trained to turn 180° and receive attacks from the rear. They almost never attempt to hold position when on the move, they form up ranks when they stop.

Exactly.

The invulnerability of the phalanx against flank attacks actually explains why the romans lost almost every war against the successors of Alexander the Great, why Sciopo is known as one of the worst generals in the recorded history, why the Ptolemaic Invasion of Rome met only token resistance, and why we consequently all use hieroglyphs now.

Hahaha this. Have an exalt.

Bobal wrote:

But personally AoS brought me back to the table, which I left with 8th edition coming up, for the same reasons people criticize AoS.

This really gets to the heart of it. The reasons some people don't like AoS are the same reasons that other people do like AoS.

On the bright side, almost every tabletop fantasy game is a point-driven, list building game. There are no other games like AoS (partly because companies would predict, correctly, that a big chunk of the wargaming community would think it's totally the stupidest idea ever).

This means all the people who are looking for something like AoS will have a new home (that's not me, by the way). Time will tell, but just from my gut feeling from listening to folks who have tried it and liked it and from follow-up sales of relatively expensive items (like the campaign book), I suspect the group that finds it appealing is larger than what AoS' detractors think.

Just to throw out a number, it doesn't really matter if 85% of the wargaming community thinks that the game is a non-starter, if 15% of the wargaming community thinks it's great, and it adds some new players that weren't previously wargamers. Realistically, WHFB was never going to get to the 15% mark again anyhow, no matter what GW did.

 Talys wrote:

Bobal wrote:

But personally AoS brought me back to the table, which I left with 8th edition coming up, for the same reasons people criticize AoS.

This really gets to the heart of it. The reasons some people don't like AoS are the same reasons that other people do like AoS.

On the bright side, almost every tabletop fantasy game is a point-driven, list building game. There are no other games like AoS (partly because companies would predict, correctly, that a big chunk of the wargaming community would think it's totally the stupidest idea ever).

This means all the people who are looking for something like AoS will have a new home (that's not me, by the way). Time will tell, but just from my gut feeling from listening to folks who have tried it and liked it and from follow-up sales of relatively expensive items (like the campaign book), I suspect the group that finds it appealing is larger than what AoS' detractors think.

Just to throw out a number, it doesn't really matter if 85% of the wargaming community thinks that the game is a non-starter, if 15% of the wargaming community thinks it's great, and it adds some new players that weren't previously wargamers. Realistically, WHFB was never going to get to the 15% mark again anyhow, no matter what GW did.

Why wouldn't a middleground set in the old world work to bring more players? 4 pages of rules but just more depth. Warscrolls but with point cost, balancing wouldn't be a problem because free and easy to replace. Wouldn't a widely known old world bring more people actualy than AoS? The latter seems just like an excuse to shoehorn space marines to fantasy and trademark names.

I very much disagree with the bolded conclusion, I'm not sure now but think GW lost a lot of fantasy players on 7th to 8th transition so maybe just fixing 8th would help. Anyway it imo wasn't inevitable as AoS enthusiasts think.

 Klerych wrote:
What I disliked about 8th ed is how flanking and combat resolution worked. I understand that it was meant to speed up the game, but it was terribly executed. Suddenly soldiers were unable to just turn on their heel to the side and brace for impact from a charging enemy they obviously must have seen. Or running away after one turn of combat just to be outright wiped out.

...
...

This sort of thing happens all the time in real life battles. Obviously WHFB and AoS are fantasy and are not limited to the same factors, but even so players expect a certain amount of realistic results in the game.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Klerych wrote:
What I disliked about 8th ed is how flanking and combat resolution worked. I understand that it was meant to speed up the game, but it was terribly executed. Suddenly soldiers were unable to just turn on their heel to the side and brace for impact from a charging enemy they obviously must have seen. Or running away after one turn of combat just to be outright wiped out.

...
...

This sort of thing happens all the time in real life battles. Obviously WHFB and AoS are fantasy and are not limited to the same factors, but even so players expect a certain amount of realistic results in the game.

I think it's still okay. Let's take a closer look at this:
WFB has soldiers that don't know how to turn to the side and fight on two fronts. This is ridiculous - you don't need to form schiltrom just to brace for impact from the side - someone yells right flank charge and everyone on the right side who heard him will turn to the side to not get hit in his flank. The most obvious thing of all things - human beings aren't that stupid. Another thing - literally the whole unit turns around and flees, and then enemy unit catches up to the last rank and... the whole unit disappears. Makes absolutely no sense - chasing anyone down like that would take time. Especially if it's one hero who suddenly butchers a whole unit within the time required for a soldier to hit twice with a spear. Terrible.

Now look at AoS:
Your unit suffers casualties, more than your soldiers can stomach (roll over bravery) - that many soldiers panicked and fled, seeing the terrible fate of their brethren. No sudden 180' turns and 44 men trying to run away because 6 got killed. Just two to four guys losing their nerves and fleeing the battlefield, the rest still fights, determined. They also see a unit of goblins trying to flank them. That flank re-forms to take the charge - obviously. They are aware of a whole unit of running, screaming goblins and they have enough brains to know that it's best to brace for the charge instead of apparently ignoring the enemy and exposing their sides.

That was single most slowed flaw of WFB - I am all up for benefits for flank charges, maybe lowered Ld or penalties to combat res, but not fewer attacks - they're not -that- stupid. And all the chaff/unit tilting after charge work in 8th ed only made me hate the game for that among some other things.