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.

It also doesn't help that GW takes a fairly unfocused approach to game scale and scope. On the one hand, it generally groups models into units that have some unit characteristics such as LD, but then shifts to individual models stats and actions for combat. So it gets all the fiddliness of 1:1 scale (complete with multiple rolls, generally 3 per attack to resolve a single model's success) but then shifts gears for resolving other parts of the game (so the whole unit might runaway, despite some models performing well).

Given the WH's goto rule structure developed during D&D's emergence, it seems to have drawn from D&D's shift in scope (and early WH iterations even used all the funky dice!), but still tried to hang on to it's wargame origins and produced a hybrid that is showing its age.

Frozenwastes makes a very good point, though. the rules continue to develop to facilitate model sales and are wholly secondary to that goal. Questions of scope, scale, etc. don't really enter the equation.

 jmurph wrote:
It also doesn't help that GW takes a fairly unfocused approach to game scale and scope. On the one hand, it generally groups models into units that have some unit characteristics such as LD, but then shifts to individual models stats and actions for combat. So it gets all the fiddliness of 1:1 scale (complete with multiple rolls, generally 3 per attack to resolve a single model's success) but then shifts gears for resolving other parts of the game (so the whole unit might runaway, despite some models performing well).

Given the WH's goto rule structure developed during D&D's emergence, it seems to have drawn from D&D's shift in scope (and early WH iterations even used all the funky dice!), but still tried to hang on to it's wargame origins and produced a hybrid that is showing its age.

Frozenwastes makes a very good point, though. the rules continue to develop to facilitate model sales and are wholly secondary to that goal. Questions of scope, scale, etc. don't really enter the equation.

To me, "skirmish game" means that there are no units, just individual models. But, you could make the argument that AoS qualifies as that, if you're playing some version of "Herohammer". The Khorne Bloodbound battalion, for instance: eight models, in a combination of Bloodsecrator, -stoker, Exalted- and Aspiring Deathbringers, Slaughterpriest and Skullgrinder.

That still feels like a weak qualifier, though.

 Mangod wrote:

To me, "skirmish game" means that there are no units, just individual models. But, you could make the argument that AoS qualifies as that, if you're playing some version of "Herohammer". The Khorne Bloodbound battalion, for instance: eight models, in a combination of Bloodsecrator, -stoker, Exalted- and Aspiring Deathbringers, Slaughterpriest and Skullgrinder.

That still feels like a weak qualifier, though.

Honestly. AoS with just hero models would be pretty much a skirmish game. To me at least.

 DarkBlack wrote:

 Mangod wrote:

To me, "skirmish game" means that there are no units, just individual models. But, you could make the argument that AoS qualifies as that, if you're playing some version of "Herohammer". The Khorne Bloodbound battalion, for instance: eight models, in a combination of Bloodsecrator, -stoker, Exalted- and Aspiring Deathbringers, Slaughterpriest and Skullgrinder.

That still feels like a weak qualifier, though.

Honestly. AoS with just hero models would be pretty much a skirmish game. To me at least.

Yeah, but does that possibility alone make it a "skirmish game"? And does anyone play it that way?

AoS is not in any way a skirmish game. It's an army-level game just like 40k. Skirmish-level games do not have rules for unit cohesion, as it's not in their scope for units to be fielded as such.

In my mind (and the usual general consensus) a skirmish game is where each player has a warband of less than 20 figures, each operating as a character on their own, as if the game were two competing RPG player parties clashing.

That's why they usually have additional rules for climbing or falling, or for models getting back up after they have lost their last wound or HP. The type of things that would drastically slow down an army-scale game.

 Mangod wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:

 Mangod wrote:

To me, "skirmish game" means that there are no units, just individual models. But, you could make the argument that AoS qualifies as that, if you're playing some version of "Herohammer". The Khorne Bloodbound battalion, for instance: eight models, in a combination of Bloodsecrator, -stoker, Exalted- and Aspiring Deathbringers, Slaughterpriest and Skullgrinder.

That still feels like a weak qualifier, though.

Honestly. AoS with just hero models would be pretty much a skirmish game. To me at least.

Yeah, but does that possibility alone make it a "skirmish game"? And does anyone play it that way?

No to both. Just saying that particular game would be a skirmish game, definitely not all AoS though.

I don't think it's about numbers. To me (feel free to differ) a skirmish is an unplanned encounter - like the cavalry and motorbike examples above.

I like the Oxford Dictionary definition:

1An episode of irregular or unpremeditated fighting, especially between small or outlying parts of armies or fleets

 DarkBlack wrote:
My googlefu failed to find a thread on this topic and it's been bugging me for some time, so here goes:

I often see people dismiss AoS as a "skirmish game" (less with it's rise, but still). How anyone feels about AoS aside, it is many things but a "skirmish game" it is not. The way I see it anyway.

People seem to be calling it a skirmish game because of how units are arranged. Which is then a label for a rather simple thing that denies other aspects.
In my mind a skirmish game is something like Infinity of Malifaux. Defined by the scale and the kind of encounter. In short I would say a skirmish game is something where you only have one unit (team would describe it better), rather than an army.

Which is a kind of wargame in it's own right. Not just a word for "not my beloved rank&flank".

I've never heard 40k described as a skirmish game, despite of how it's units are orgnized. hence KillTeam.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/skirmish

Your conversation hinges on how you use the word.

My personal interpretation of your post here is that you are trying to figure out if AOS/ 40K are skirmish level played because of freedom of the movement of the troops(?)

Or Are you asking if AOS is a skirmish level game(?)