Switch Theme:

Help me understand how AOS battlefield management is superior to traditional wargames  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





West Michigan, deep in Whitebread, USA

AoS doesn't really have a whole lot of actual wargaming terrain, rather it has the equivalent of "special buff/debuff buildings" in an realtime strategy game that you place to support your army.

(IMHO) a good wargame needs terrain that not only just blocks movement, but also hampers it. Woods slowing movement while giving cover and blocking line of sight, areas of rubble and scree affecting movement, etc. AoS all too often take place on skull-studded sports fields with less than half a dozen pieces of terrain. Hell, sometimes I think I use more terrain on a 3x3 or 3x4 skirmish table than on most 4x6 AoS tables.

I love to put down tons of cool terrain in an agreeable and interesting setup to both players, and THEN roll for table edges, so both armies have to plan on the fly with the hand they are dealt. There is absolutely no terrain meta tied to either player.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/19 02:03:34




"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





I tend to use a lot of terrain anyhow, but i can see where if the terrain piece is part of an army, then yeah, pay points, if its just part of our battlefield, then nope. We try to model our battlefields after real places in some cases, but have done some historical refits of old warhammer world battles (like curently trying fall of the silver pinnacle again) we are actively looking for a skaven player who would be willing/interested in the war under cripple peak.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/19 02:23:12


 
   
Made in gb
Stubborn White Lion




What happened auticus? From memory you were one of its staunchest defenders over on warseer at launch?

I agree though it's not really a wargame at all in the traditional sense. I love it and have a blast but have had a couple games of FB 5th recently and realised how I missed the movement phase really mattering. They scratch different itches for me and though I prefer the fluff and feel of 40k to AoS (fantasy battle will always be my fave in this regard though) I consider AoS to be the superior of the two (very similar) games.

As is usually the case with GW rulesets you'll get out of it what both players put in. I see potential for listbuilding shenanigans in AoS but it doesn't have to be that way and if lists are built a little more...TAC then it's a very different and more tactical experience in my view.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

I think his meta being apparently filled with TFG tournament people who shout down anything that isn't tournament standard, combined with the once again emphasis on point-based listbuilding, soured him on it again because he enjoyed the original concept of AOS not what it was forced to become.

That said, I think auticus wants to play a game that has more emphasis on actual tactics rather than listbuilding. Old WHFB had this to a point (it still had listbuilding) when you had blocks of troops that had to be maneuvered around terrain or use terrain to their advantage (e.g. a unit behind a wall got more cover, or a unit had to wheel around a forest because they would be slowed down to go through it). Kings of War has it to a point but is decidedly less popular depending on area and can feel very bland due to it trying to be as well balanced as possible. Historical wargaming other than WW2 has it (e.g. Ancients, Napoleonic, games from an era where you still had units organized marching on the battlefield as opposed to more modern skirmish-level unit tactics).

However, as he's indicated in the past his meta is pretty much GW or bust, with few exceptions (I believe he's mentioned there are Kings of War players as he was giving that a shot but feels it's a little too generic), so while he might find much more enjoyment playing for example Hail Caesar (ancients) or Black Powder (~18th century) that would do him no good if his area doesn't give a gak about anything like that. Which, given how often he and I end up commiserating about the bad effect cliques and communities have on the games played, I completely understand.

I honestly think it's a sad turn of how things, in general, have gone. Gamers want to feel superior by coming up with combos/strategies. They want to feel that they "win" before playing. Things like detailed terrain rules can throw a wrench into the emphasis on coming up with all of your combos before the game begins and executing them like a procedural program.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/19 14:12:36


- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




What happened auticus? From memory you were one of its staunchest defenders over on warseer at launch?


Back in the days of warseer (and I was banned from warseer for "trolling" by supporting AOS lol) the game was open to however you wanted it to be. Community points programs were supported by the community and there was a lot of positive energy behind it.

When official points became a thing and they were unbalanced in my opinion a lot more than several of the community attempts (which were tighter) that basically forced me along the path of playing a game that was continuing down the rabbit hole of being imbalanced and pushed a lot of false choices on you. You either played one of the meta armies, or you accepted that your face was going to get rubbed in pooh based on what excel spreadsheet you brought to the table.

Additionally when AOS was first released we had no idea what direction was going to be taken in terms of additional rules, etc... so it was wide open to all kinds of possibilities. The new models I liked a lot and was excited for.

And since then they triple-downed on gamey ccg mechanics for their backbone with heavy abstractions and the terrain not really impacting the game very much. They essentially made a warmahordes sibling. And I really did not like warmahordes for the reasons I mention above. That soured me a lot. They have thrown people like me a bone with 2nd edition AOS by allowing forests to block line of sight (though when that came out we still had to slough through a lot of anger posts about how that would screw the game over and wasn't fair but since then I think people have realized that it wasn't that big a deal)

My area has a very very strong tournament meta. Games like xwing and magic the gathering are huge. Most of the tournament guys are fine. Some like to crossover, and some of those crossover guys get very angry and can cause a lot of issues in our public narratives. There are indeed a small handful of TFG that make my life as an event organizer hell, but they make up like 5% of the entire population. However, they are the loudest and also pull people out of our events either because those people don't want to deal with the stream of anger or they agree they want all events, even narrative events, to follow tournament (adepticon) standards.

I actually really like Kings of War today and play it but the community here is... tiny. We have now had five kings of war days since Sept and all five times only two people showed up with armies.

In comparison, our AOS event has 24 players. So for the most part yes it is GW or play with yourself in your garage/basement. Or play using VASSAL online. I am working on my own system and publishing via STEAM (turn based fantasy battles video game with a campaign mode)

On the topic at hand, it would seem the dakka users here do not think the AOS terrain is superior to traditional. The thread on twitter was basically - you need to play with a lot of large custom pieces that block line of sight and prevents movement. If you do this then the game is fine and we don't need additional rules that no one wants.

The idea that you should pay for army specific terrain that heavily impacts the game, I can get behind.

I think the game still severely needs rules for minor things like rivers, rough terrain that slows you down, etc. That can be applied in a generic sense.

However that is from my desire to have some more emphasis on maneuver return as opposed to just being able to teleport where you want or in a lot of army's cases, just run forward and charge in turn 1 because the terrain doesn't really stop you anyway.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/19 15:08:22


 
   
Made in de
Battlefield Tourist






Nuremberg

I don't mind the idea of paying for faction specific terrain that has an in game use either, if anything that adds some flavour to points based play. Though equally I am happy with faction specific terrain as pure visual flavour for the battlefield.

But not having rules for general terrain is sad. Especially given the potential diversity of terrain in the new setting. Probably the only thing I like very much about the AoS setting is the potential for the different realms to be really visually crazy magical places with interesting and thematic terrain. I remember the old terrain generation tables from 6th ed fantasy and 3rd and 4th ed 40K, where you had tables to roll on for Badlands, Jungle, and Agriworld or Deathworld and so on. Awesome stuff and to me a sort of aspirational challenge to make a set of terrain that would meet all the possibilities on the table.

   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





West Michigan, deep in Whitebread, USA

"This is complete bullgak! Terrain screwed up all my carefully laid plans of winning!"

Well.....yeah. It's called reality.

I'm sorry if people think the difference between a battle on Chamon and one on Ghyran should be some atmospheric rules and the colors of the battlemat under the random Azyrite ruins scattered around (lightly, mind you-so as to not unnecessarily hinder movement or line of sight).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/19 17:32:19




"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Something I do think should be considered about terrain though and its ability to hinder, some armies are consisting of creatures that some types of terrain simply would not bother. just a minor thing really. but thought to bring it up.
   
Made in us
Clousseau




That was a thing always though. Ethereal creatures don't care about terrain. Thats part of their flavor. I'm ok with that.
   
Made in de
Huge Bone Giant






Given the nature of the setting, that really doesn't need to be a hindrance, though. If you want a sharknado to hamper flying creatures, or a ghost trap that is in some way detrimental to ethereal creatures, you can have it.

That's part of the art of writing terrain rules. You need to identify what types of units are in the game, write rules to cover all of them (except if you explicitly want some unaffected as was traditionally the case with ethereal creatures) and encourage the use of a decent mix of them during games. It's a good way to rein in listhammering and allow the actual game to be played out during the game.

I think Age of Sigmar and 8th ed 40k are poorer games for marginalizing terrain as much as they do. So much so that I can't help but think of them as fancy CCGs more than wargames.

Nehekhara lives! Sort of!
Why is the rum always gone? 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






I generally don't like that sort of thing though, those units pay points for the ability to fly so taking it away is just slapping them in the face.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in de
Huge Bone Giant






Units pay points to move their six inches on the ground, too. But no one disputes that those models shouldn't be slowed down by water.

It may take a measured approach to designing terrain rules, movement modes and costing them, but I don't see why making a special movement mode a tactical advantage instead of a universally desirable rule has to be a bad thing.

Nehekhara lives! Sort of!
Why is the rum always gone? 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






A 6" fly move costs more than a 6" ground move; the ability to fly is worth more specifically because it allows avoidance of obstacles that would slow stuff on the ground. On an open field it is not worth anything until close enough that flying over enemies matters. It is inherently a tactical trade off since it costs more points. Were more slowing terrain to be introduced the cost of being able to fly would need to go up, which would increase the tactical cost. Being getting around effectively is a trade off to not being as good in combat when they get there.

But don't get me wrong; there's places/ways where I think flyer penalties would be great. Realm rules that negatively affect flyers I would like to see more of. Things that penalize flyers in ways other than movement are a great option. But the more I think about it the more I think having terrain that restricts movement on the stuff that is not supposed to have restricted movement isn't very fun. Better to have the penalty take a different form.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/20 00:33:49


Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





West Michigan, deep in Whitebread, USA

I think another reason to not have good terrain rules is an extension of "no models-no rules". GW wants everything on the table to be something bought from GW.



"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."  
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Yeah, the reality is that we probably won't get water rules until GW releases a water terrain kit.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in be
Monstrous Master Moulder






auticus wrote:


Twitter is a bad place to try and have a conversation.


I think you summed up the problem there.

Any talk on anything being superior on social media is bound to become a colossal sh*t show.


But on the actual topic at hand, this game very much is focused around the GW terrain. Can't blame them for that, it's what 90% of the player base (including me) runs with most of the time. It being standardized in AoS2 is something I don't consider a negative. There are definitely gaps (and as most pointed out, that's mostly got to do with there not being models yet to represent certain things), but there is a reasonable coverage for different rules concerning terrain like:

Actual rules to use:

*Assisting with casting
*Providing cover
*Slowing ground forces down (yes that is SUPPOSED to happen when crossing fences, most people need to be reminded by me when they just throw their models over it) via obstacles and fences. Forests just no longer do that.
*Teleportation
*Killing troops when they cross it (ie, dangerous terrain)
*Break line of sight (forests these days, but custom huge terrain can do that too).
*Buff troops through sacrifice
*Generate additional command points as a resource.
*Provide extra protection by giving wound negation.
*Debuff troops by reducing their bravery.

Obviously missing.
*Anything to do with water features.
*Anything that slows or hinders flyers (although representing choking clouds might be hard on a battlefield, unless they release some type of vulcano like models).




Bottom line: they already have quite a few rules in there and there are options to make your own terrain and just apply one of the many rules too it. Terrain however, is often looked at as a hindrance by a lot of players, as it screws over their combos often or reduces the damage of their units. The ground works is there, but player behaviour during games often means it's underused (and therefor might as well not be there, as a lot of people seem to feel about it).

That, and the fact that some terrain that used to slow you down (mainly forests) no longer do that and that property has been moved to fences, seems to irk people as well. TBH, we often play forest games with kids here, and if they don't have to be shoulder to shoulder, I don't feel like it slows them down too much compared to an empty football pitch... A wall however, would.... At the risk of sounding like a politician: build more walls! (if you want to stop turn 1 charges).

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/01/20 08:57:56


The boy, I say, the boy is as sharp as a sack of wet mice... 
   
Made in de
Battlefield Tourist






Nuremberg

That does seem like a diverse set of terrain, but I am still sad that you think standardisation is good. One of the most fun things about going to tournaments for me was getting to play on unique battlefields with interesting terrain against interesting armies.

The GW terrain is very nice and stylistically coherent, so it does produce a visually attractive battlefield, but it tends to all look the same after a very short while.

   
Made in be
Monstrous Master Moulder






That's why I didn't say it was perfect... I said it wasn't negative.

For most of my games (or even pick up games), it's a good thing that there's a set amount of rules for terrain for players to fall back to during a match: there's a default position. AoS2 (well, the GHB18 that came out with it) did a good job of making sure there's that baseline set of rules.

Custom terrain can still be done, but then it should be clear what rules are used for them. I like the "standardization" of keywords like sinister, arcane, undergrowth etc to represent rules.

It's true that a lot of terrain layouts do resemble each other, but thinking back about how atrocious most gaming tables looked prior to easily available GW kits, I do think it's been an overall good evolution.

Most of my terrain is a combination of GW plastic and the pegasus hobbies gothic terrain buildings. They mix well enough to get a nice setting for my undead army and pretty much all of it comes with their own rules now.

The boy, I say, the boy is as sharp as a sack of wet mice... 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




The standardization perspective is what I have to face when trying to run events. Thanks for posting it, simply because it can be kind of frustrating when people act like I live in some kind of anomaly when it seems that how things go down in my neck of the woods is not so uncommon in a lot of other places as well.

Hell just talking with people at adepticon last year that seemed like a standard way a lot of those guys play at their stores / clubs.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





West Michigan, deep in Whitebread, USA

I just think it's be a nice thing to have an officially-respected rule for say....rivers. Plunk a Pegasus Hobbies river down on the table, and not need any house rules to have both players be able to agree on how it affects the movement of units crossing it. Perfectly fine if there is an optional table of keywords you could give it, but just a simple "halves all movement of units crossing this terrain" as a base rule.

If the players want to have it painted silver like it's a river of mercury/silver in Chamon, and give it the "Arcane" keyword when rolling on a table, totally fine. But a good place to start for things would be nice.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/20 20:56:17




"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."  
   
Made in de
Battlefield Tourist






Nuremberg

But I mean surely that is not hard. Wargames have had rules for that sort of thing since forever.

   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

 Da Boss wrote:
But I mean surely that is not hard. Wargames have had rules for that sort of thing since forever.


Wargames have, but GW games lately and for the past few years have not. So it's an uphill battle to get a group to agree to "nonstandard" rules for games.

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in de
Battlefield Tourist






Nuremberg

My mind is blown with how quickly the culture can change.

   
Made in us
Clousseau




I remember the old GW book on how to make your terrain. Great book, still on my book shelf.

I will say that 95% of the players I play with today however were not around back then, and a good chunk weren't even around for 8th edition whfb.

Using non standard non official rules in games is a very difficult sell these days. People want to know when they spend their $800 or whatever for their army that they have sat down and poured over all of the standard rules, the meta, etc.. and chose their army to be competitive at that level.

Non standard rules to a lot of people mean that their investment is getting flushed because if the non standard rules you are using were official they'd have considered that when crafting their list and buying the models for that list.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





West Michigan, deep in Whitebread, USA

auticus wrote:
I remember the old GW book on how to make your terrain. Great book, still on my book shelf.

I will say that 95% of the players I play with today however were not around back then, and a good chunk weren't even around for 8th edition whfb.

Using non standard non official rules in games is a very difficult sell these days. People want to know when they spend their $800 or whatever for their army that they have sat down and poured over all of the standard rules, the meta, etc.. and chose their army to be competitive at that level.

Non standard rules to a lot of people mean that their investment is getting flushed because if the non standard rules you are using were official they'd have considered that when crafting their list and buying the models for that list.


Exactly my thoughts. And I still have How to Make Wargames Terrain, too! Lots of players these days..... it's getting to the point where I could be their father in many cases, which sucks!

GW has cultivated a very narrow mindset compared to decades past, where what is in print is gospel, and you do.not.deviate. It's the smaller publishers that have the old school spirit, now.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/21 04:05:31




"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."  
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




I can be perfectly wrong, but my guess is people who Auticus say Age of Sigmar is more superior are like 40K Astra Militarium and Tau players. They want to play on Planet Bowling Ball. Something that is easier for them. So of course as Auticus said, it will be a superior system for them.

Even if they for example on Battletech hex board where you get cover for different levels, they would say it's less superior because it's not so "wide open" and easy to manuver.

Is it right? Is it wrong? No, just like how some people love playing chess, others love playing checkers. There is no right or wrong, what is just fun for them.

Agies Grimm:The "Learn to play, bro" mentality is mostly just a way for someone to try to shame you by implying that their metaphorical nerd-wiener is bigger than yours. Which, ironically, I think nerds do even more vehemently than jocks.

Everything is made up and the points don't matter. 40K or Who's Line is it Anyway?

Auticus wrote: Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".  
   
Made in us
Clousseau




That may be true for some people absolutely. The guys on twitter were reinforcing their argument by showing their tables which were not on planet bowling ball. All seemed to feature a lot of sylvaneth trees and forests though and all seemed to have a lot of custom scratch built pieces that were large and designed to block line of sight.

   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




auticus wrote:
That may be true for some people absolutely. The guys on twitter were reinforcing their argument by showing their tables which were not on planet bowling ball. All seemed to feature a lot of sylvaneth trees and forests though and all seemed to have a lot of custom scratch built pieces that were large and designed to block line of sight.




Then what I said doesn't apply to them. I guess, I am wrong once again.

Here is a question. How old are these people? I can't speak for anyone else, but while I don't like the simplicity of Age of Sigmar because it seems so childish, maybe I am just older, and my brain can't take the complexity anymore, the simpler something is, the more fun I have now. While I hate the random elements in 40K and AoS, not being so complicated when time is short and people are busy that could be another reason why.

I believe the "good old days" where people would go to someone's house/basement and play 12 hours or more are gone. I don't know if times changed, or people changed, but having very long complex games just seems out of the question now. Maybe it's lots of us have kids, or more responsibilites, so it's just best to "watch a movie instead of a Netflix binge" if that makes sense? Just no time and or energy for the games we use to play. I can't ever see Star Fleet Battles ever come back. Who really has the time for those bible books and rules?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/21 12:36:35


Agies Grimm:The "Learn to play, bro" mentality is mostly just a way for someone to try to shame you by implying that their metaphorical nerd-wiener is bigger than yours. Which, ironically, I think nerds do even more vehemently than jocks.

Everything is made up and the points don't matter. 40K or Who's Line is it Anyway?

Auticus wrote: Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".  
   
Made in us
Clousseau




If I had to guess, they all seem like they are pretty avid tournament players and appear to be early 20s to early 30s on average.
   
Made in us
Crazed Spirit of the Defiler





A wind direction and wind speed roll would be cool. Flying models could get a tailwind for extra speed, or a headwind for less speed, or sideways to throw them off course a bit.

Magma vents could cause mortal wounds for anything going over it (even flyers, it's hot when going over magma).

Agree with water, that would be fun to have. And ferries.

Narrative gamers can make this stuff for themselves, however it sure would be fun to have that in the real rules. The cover issue is still stupid in GW games, should definitely be a hit modifier and not a save modifier.
   
 
Forum Index » Warhammer: Age of Sigmar
Go to: