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.

I think you should definitly always go for good armies, instead of bad ones, if you plan to actually play the game. When someone just paints, it probably doesn't matter as much.

I don't know what is considered to be a bad army in AoS, or one that doesn't get much support. But I am sure it exists, and with knowing little to nothing about AoS I disadvise picking it up.

Honestly, I just like matched play because it gives easy access to missions from the new core book. It’s a great way to play pick up games, and even if not completely competitive I still have fun with playing the game, a lot more fun than I had trying to enjoy 40k. It’s just a personal thing, but I find I love the movement phase shinnanegans and pile in stuff a lot more than I did in 40k

I suggest to just play towards the objectives, and I say this because, for some reason, it took me a while to figure it out in AOS

Karol wrote:
I think you should definitly always go for good armies, instead of bad ones, if you plan to actually play the game. When someone just paints, it probably doesn't matter as much.

Whatever the game - AoS, 40k, WWII, etc - the chief reason (other than simply liking the models/lore) to pick a weaker army is the challenge of it.

Karol wrote:
I don't know what is considered to be a bad army in AoS, or one that doesn't get much support. But I am sure it exists, and with knowing little to nothing about AoS I disadvise picking it up.

Honestly none of them really get any support past launch.
What you get is a pack of 3-5 figures for Underworlds/Beastgrave/War Cry with a rules download on the GW site for using them in AoS. But none of them are in the "OMG! I have to have that because POWER!" category.
Or you get an expansion like Malign Sorccery that everyone can make use of.

Yeah, there generally arent huge changes to army power after a battle tome launched in AoS. Which is very different to 40k.

You'll get some points tweaks, but this is rarely enough to make a difference to what tier an army is. Like, saving enough points to take an extra 5 Liberators in a Stormcast army is not going to meaningfully improve your chances of beating Bonereapers or DoT.

ccs wrote:

Karol wrote:
I think you should definitly always go for good armies, instead of bad ones, if you plan to actually play the game. When someone just paints, it probably doesn't matter as much.

Whatever the game - AoS, 40k, WWII, etc - the chief reason (other than simply liking the models/lore) to pick a weaker army is the challenge of it.

Any other game but Warhammer I'd say this has merit. But there's no fun IMHO in playing something so poorly balanced compared to the rest that it's like pushing a rock up a hill constantly. When picking a bad army means that anyone even remotely trying will kick your ass no matter what just because of what you picked, yeah no. That's a surefire way to get someone fed up. When it's literally not you but the fact you picked X and X is in a bad spot.

ccs 786538 10774365 wrote:

Whatever the game - AoS, 40k, WWII, etc - the chief reason (other than simply liking the models/lore) to pick a weaker army is the challenge of it.

In w40k this does not work at all. Picking a bad army for challange, means you get steam rolled by other armies over and over again. That is like trying to wrestle in a 10kg higher weight group or go for the older age class in wrestling when you are a december kid, and everyone else was born around january.
At some point it stops being a challenge and just becomes very unfun

ccs 786538 10774365 wrote:
Honestly none of them really get any support past launch.
What you get is a pack of 3-5 figures for Underworlds/Beastgrave/War Cry with a rules download on the GW site for using them in AoS. But none of them are in the "OMG! I have to have that because POWER!" category.
Or you get an expansion like Malign Sorccery that everyone can make use of.

Well as I said, I do not know what is the bad army in AoS right now, or what is even as considered one. I do know though, that it has to exist. Also updates are tricky thing to compare between good and bad armies. How many new things does the triple KoS summoning of doom list need, comparing to a faction that is considered a meme? Plus stuff that everyone gets only really buffs the top tier armies, I am almost sure of it, even if I base this on what happened in w40k in 8th ed.

If everyone has access to this Maligne Sorcery thing, then the best armies are going to have better options to use the rules, cheaper options, more efficient options to use, and just plain more options to pick from to use the rules. To make an example from w40k. Having a stormshield on draigo did not make GK uber, but getting 2pts stormshields on DW veterans did substentialy buff the army at a point in 8th ed.

Wayniac wrote:

ccs wrote:

Karol wrote:
I think you should definitly always go for good armies, instead of bad ones, if you plan to actually play the game. When someone just paints, it probably doesn't matter as much.

Whatever the game - AoS, 40k, WWII, etc - the chief reason (other than simply liking the models/lore) to pick a weaker army is the challenge of it.

Any other game but Warhammer I'd say this has merit. But there's no fun IMHO in playing something so poorly balanced compared to the rest that it's like pushing a rock up a hill constantly. When picking a bad army means that anyone even remotely trying will kick your ass no matter what just because of what you picked, yeah no. That's a surefire way to get someone fed up. When it's literally not you but the fact you picked X and X is in a bad spot.

Well guess what? If that uphill struggle doesn't appeal to you? Then don't build that army! It really is that easy.
(now of course you might get screwed over as the editions change & things shift from good/decent to :( - but you can't plan for that beyond playing multiple different armies. I mean, what're the odds that all of your armies get shafted....)

But rest assured, there's people out there (like me) playing WHFB/AoS/40k who WILL accept the challenge & will have fun doing so. We'll even do much better than you'd expect.

Maybe if it is your second army. But with your first, you are not going to know what is good and what is bad. And most of all you are not going to expect that spending 800$ on one army, gives you a nice thing to play with, while the other 800$ spend on a different army is going to make you want to kill yourself.

And the stuff like edition changes, design changes etc are just a bonus to it.

Also I doubt that if you were to play games over and over again that you would know you would lose, you would be very happy about it. I think I stoped liking to play my army around 200 lose or so, after my opponent informed me he forgot to deploy 400+points of reserves, before finishing my army.

Have we perhaps lost our way away from game TACTICS and strayed into BALANCE rants?

Tactics in warhammer is inseperable from balance; a huge part of 'tactics' is correct listbuilding and faction choice because without an army of sufficient power the tactics played out on the table do not matter.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Tactics in warhammer is inseperable from balance; a huge part of 'tactics' is correct listbuilding and faction choice because without an army of sufficient power the tactics played out on the table do not matter.

Agreed. Tactics is the practical response to balance. The two are inextricable.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Tactics in warhammer is inseperable from balance; a huge part of 'tactics' is correct listbuilding and faction choice because without an army of sufficient power the tactics played out on the table do not matter.

Agreed, but once the game begins you can no longer tweak your list. At that point surely the list building takes a step to the side and now its about manoeuvring; positioning; deployment choices; screening; target selection; objective prioritisation. There's a lot to talk about that comes after the list and which also might influence list building in turn, which might not be apparent if one only talks about the list.

Karol wrote:
Maybe if it is your second army. But with your first, you are not going to know what is good and what is bad. And most of all you are not going to expect that spending 800$ on one army, gives you a nice thing to play with, while the other 800$ spend on a different army is going to make you want to kill yourself.

Look kid, most people joining this hobby (miniatures gaming, not just GW minis) do some basic research before spending $$$.
They look at the forces available, getting excited by cool models.
They talk to the people they expect to be playing with (most of whom will give solid advice because it's in their own interest to have more players in the game/supporting the shop)
They go online & find out what people generally think of the armies. They look up stats & stuff online.
You can even try them out now on this thing called Tabletop Simulator found on Steam.
They might not have all the nuances down, but they can tell weak/strong apart.
THEN they spend $.

That generally goes one of two ways. Sometimes a compromise of the two.
1) They try & buy the most powerful army out there atrm. Because players new to the hobby have a very narrow vision. Winning = good & only goal. Losing = bad.
2) They buy the army they can afford atm. Typically high point cost/low model count for as little as they can spend.

And if playing/losing at these games makes you want to kill yourself? Then you have a problem & it's not your toys. Put them down & go seek help.

Karol wrote:
Also I doubt that if you were to play games over and over again that you would know you would lose, you would be very happy about it. I think I stoped liking to play my army around 200 lose or so, after my opponent informed me he forgot to deploy 400+points of reserves, before finishing my army.

Don't put any $ on that. I'm incredibly stubborn & not discouraged by losing at games of toy soldiers.
Keep an eye on the 40k section & I'll tell you about my Adeptus Arbites army.

I can only give my plan of attack.

My Army is a Chaos Undivided Slaves to Darkness Ravagers one. It is built on a core of Chaos Warriors x2 and Cavalry (Knights x10 or Varagaurdx3) x2. Most units have an indiviual character that I try to keep wholly within 12" over lapping groups where I can. My hero characters are usually Chaos Lord on Karkadrak, Chaos Lord on foot and Sorcerer Lord x2.

I try to set my army up in a way to best control 2/3s of the table and try to pick the 2/3 of the table I think I can best control. This is much easier with Battleplans with static or known objective locations. Less easy with random or moving objectives which greatly reduces my chances of winning as my army is relatively slow.

My army is very much an attrition army. Beyond maybe the Karkadrak Lord or a powered-up and/or double attack group of Knights/Varangaurd, I don't really have anything that hits particularly hard. Instead, I try and get to the part of the table I want to control and try to outlast my opponent. I rarely even bother charging with my warriors instead going for the extra movement running. They don't really hit very hard so unless I want to push back or start a protracted fight it is best to keep moving my warriors where I need them.

If I can cast Daemonic Power onto my Cavalry, I can sometimes cripple or at very least slow my opponent's ability to take any objectives I might hold. Again, my cavalry isn't really meant to defeat anything (as I just haven't managed it enough to add it to my plan). Its job is to slow and stagger my opponent army to prevent them from concentrating force on areas of the table I want to control. Conversely, if my cavalry can get to ranged units they try and attack ranged units.

However, I usually use my Warcry cultists for that since in Age of Sigmar my opponents screen the edges of the table a whole lot less than they would in 40k. Probably since more than 1" break in a unit can wipe nearly half of them, auras are usually wholly within in AoS and generally being melee focused means units that can reach after a pile in don't get to attack.

My army is hardly the best in AoS. I still can imagine a way to re-match OBR as they do what my army does but better. At the same time, I have actually been winning more games than losing. I think this has been largely due to I know how my army works, I know its limitations and I generally have a sound plan on how I want the to operate during the game. I also play at a casual level where many of my opponents play the army they have not the army they want (read: still collecting models to build the army they want). They are also generally just as new to the game as I am or haven't quite figured out what they want their army to do. I will admit, I have been surprised with each victory I earned. Every game in AoS I have played I felt I wasn't going to have a chanc, but played to the best of my ability and have done okay so far. I do expect once my opponents build the armies they want and figure them out, I am going to have a hard time winning games. I sorta feel I am at the ceiling in terms of power of what my army can accomplish, and that ceiling is well below some of the more competitive batreps I have watched and tournament list discussions I have read.

Which is fine, I can enjoy the fact that I have figured out how to play my army pretty well. I not particularly competitive, I just want to the game to be a game and not an activity. And I think me and my army are generally there at this point.