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.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 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.

This is how a skirmish without ranged weapons would go:




Such a fascinating thing to watch. noticed how a single man being hit in the... FLANK... lost the battle. Im at work so can't listen again but I remember him explaining the battle pretty well. He has some other great videos too.

Its worth noting how unaware people are of many things in this video. In real life, as he notes, most would break and run away when the man next to them is flanked however since its abut fun they fought to the death.

"Such a fascinating thing to watch. noticed how a single man being hit in the... FLANK... lost the battle."

really?

I saw a broken line retreating and one man hitting another because he had lost support - something that was never really included in WFB - though it was in the WRG rules that formed the basis of WFB

and it seems odd that you appear to be picking this fight - and using this video - since AoS replicates more accurately the 'FLANK' attack than WFB did

 marielle wrote:
"Such a fascinating thing to watch. noticed how a single man being hit in the... FLANK... lost the battle."

really?

I saw a broken line retreating and one man hitting another because he had lost support - something that was never really included in WFB - though it was in the WRG rules that formed the basis of WFB

and it seems odd that you appear to be picking this fight - and using this video - since AoS replicates more accurately the 'FLANK' attack than WFB did

I have mentioned that Fantasy sucked for AIS too... assuming I thought highly of Warhammer Fantasy (I didnt)...

No support = exposed flank = defeat. Pretty basic. Works in all levels of fighting. But it also shows how easy it is to be unaware of the situation at even a small scale fight. AOS has nothing like this, especially since you must charge the closest model which greatly restricts the ability to exploit a gap you create in a unit etc. This video was just to show how silly AOS is when it comes to dog pile fights and melee in general and how easy it is for people to jab you in the side.

Both AOS and Fantasy fail because they attempt to portray these wars as a horde of individuals fighting each rather than bodies of men fighting. Even in small scale fights it turns in 2 bodies fighting until the over running stage.

I also can't watch with sound due to work, but these are unarmored militiamen who weren't trying anything tactical. The enemy was able to surround them, just like age of sigmar, and brought more attacks to bear.

Also of note, none of these men were actively attempting to harme someone. Nobody was under serious threat of being stabbed in the face, or drug to the ground and beaten. This is a reenactment of battle where nobody wants to hurt their opponent, all you need to do is touch them. This reenactment doesn't represent actual combat in the slightest, but does show examples of the statistics at play in age of sigmar.

Note, there are groups in Europe who are training full contact with medieval techniques to relearn ancient forms of warfare. Watch those guys slam eacth other around in the documentary "reclaiming the blade"

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I also can't watch with sound due to work, but these are unarmored militiamen who weren't trying anything tactical. The enemy was able to surround them, just like age of sigmar, and brought more attacks to bear.

Also of note, none of these men were actively attempting to harme someone. Nobody was under serious threat of being stabbed in the face, or drug to the ground and beaten. This is a reenactment of battle where nobody wants to hurt their opponent, all you need to do is touch them. This reenactment doesn't represent actual combat in the slightest, but does show examples of the statistics at play in age of sigmar.

Note, there are groups in Europe who are training full contact with medieval techniques to relearn ancient forms of warfare. Watch those guys slam eacth other around in the documentary "reclaiming the blade"

Oh yes, he mentions since they aren't slamming each others faces or fearing for their lives it's a lot different to real combat, but he says it gives an idea of how combat works. In his situation he is well aware of how the enemy could aim for the face (a spare point with 1 hand aimed high can be dangerous to the user though) and how since there is no fear of death they fight until one side is completely dead etc. But it still gives you an idea of fights are done.

the fighting you see in the video, is as close to the real thing as you will get. Reenactments like that video have proven many things about what warfare was likely like in the past and how things could be effective. Unfortunately you can't get men and pit them against each other in real combat to get real results but that's probably a good thing. If you think this doesnt represent formation combat you need to read a book. they go through ALL the phases of a formation fight with spears... so they must be doing something right...

It honestly sounds like you are one of those people who watches a game show, says "huh, why doesn't he simply do this, this and this, it's easy" with little reading on the subject. Because most of what you say is false in almost every book or article I have read on the matter.

I will watch reclaiming the blade tonight. DO these people fight one on one or do they fight in huge formations made up of mostly normal people fighting each other? Or they a bunch of dudes in full armour fighting one on one? Because if it is the latter it is meaningless for formation warfare as one on one is a duel and well duels are not war.

"No support = exposed flank = defeat. Pretty basic. Works in all levels of fighting. But it also shows how easy it is to be unaware of the situation at even a small scale fight. AOS has nothing like this, especially since you must charge the closest model which greatly restricts the ability to exploit a gap you create in a unit etc. This video was just to show how silly AOS is when it comes to dog pile fights and melee in general and how easy it is for people to jab you in the side.

Both AOS and Fantasy fail because they attempt to portray these wars as a horde of individuals fighting each rather than bodies of men fighting. Even in small scale fights it turns in 2 bodies fighting until the over running stage."

ok - WFB is a based on a scale of 1-20 and AoS is - as I understand it - 1 -1 - so one has to allow for abstraction

the problem I have is with 'FLANK' is that flanks are less important than order

if a unit is in good order it can fight just as well to the flank front or rear - and even to all fronts at once - the problem with this mythical flank issue is that because of perceptions based on previous rulesets where there is an assumption that simply by being out-flanked a unit is automatically at a disadvantage - rather than the outflanking unit making the outflank a disadvantage - just because I have you on the hip does not mean that you will land on your back

AoS deals with this problem rather cleverly with the rules relating who can fight and when they can fight - and also with units being able to form and reform, retreat from combat flexibility of formation etc

it's not perfect but perhaps the issue might be resolved when players move away form the WRG model of fixed armies and army books and towards a more open system of personalised armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
" Nobody was under serious threat of being stabbed in the face, or drug to the ground and beaten. This is a reenactment of battle where nobody wants to hurt their opponent, all you need to do is touch them. "

tell that to the guy who had 'made in england' printed backwards on his forehead (due to the rubber bung on the arrow) when he stopped to mop his brow in a sallet helmet - while storming a castle for the public's pleasure

 marielle wrote:
"No support = exposed flank = defeat. Pretty basic. Works in all levels of fighting. But it also shows how easy it is to be unaware of the situation at even a small scale fight. AOS has nothing like this, especially since you must charge the closest model which greatly restricts the ability to exploit a gap you create in a unit etc. This video was just to show how silly AOS is when it comes to dog pile fights and melee in general and how easy it is for people to jab you in the side.

Both AOS and Fantasy fail because they attempt to portray these wars as a horde of individuals fighting each rather than bodies of men fighting. Even in small scale fights it turns in 2 bodies fighting until the over running stage."

ok - WFB is a based on a scale of 1-20 and AoS is - as I understand it - 1 -1 - so one has to allow for abstraction

the problem I have is with 'FLANK' is that flanks are less important than order

if a unit is in good order it can fight just as well to the flank front or rear - and even to all fronts at once - the problem with this mythical flank issue is that because of perceptions based on previous rulesets where there is an assumption that simply by being out-flanked a unit is automatically at a disadvantage - rather than the outflanking unit making the outflank a disadvantage - just because I have you on the hip does not mean that you will land on your back

AoS deals with this problem rather cleverly with the rules relating who can fight and when they can fight - and also with units being able to form and reform, retreat from combat flexibility of formation etc

it's not perfect but perhaps the issue might be resolved when players move away form the WRG model of fixed armies and army books and towards a more open system of personalised armies.

Well the thing is would you stand in formation if soldiers are hitting your side? See in AOS it's unrealistic because you can simply change formation during combat. You aren't even in a formation but a blob (and in most cases blobs lose). It is also pretty historically well documented that a flanking army tends to lose pretty quickly. You are correct that is because people break down in discipline once that happens, but they break down in discipline for a good reason, because they don't want to die.

Flank is directly related to order, because if your flank is showing it means fellow soldiers have broken and therefore you will die if you dont get out of there. If you manage to flank the enemy you have got them in a bad place.

I understand that AOS does not have to be realistic nor does it attempt to, it's just the fact that someone is denying the importance of having an exposed flank that annoys me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

" Nobody was under serious threat of being stabbed in the face, or drug to the ground and beaten. This is a reenactment of battle where nobody wants to hurt their opponent, all you need to do is touch them. "

tell that to the guy who had 'made in england' printed backwards on his forehead (due to the rubber bung on the arrow) when he stopped to mop his brow in a sallet helmet - while storming a castle for the public's pleasure

Do they actually have events with rubber arrows? that would be cool to see.

What they do in reclaiming the blade is use techniques that old world soldiers wrote down on how they killed people and take kendo sticks etc while wearing protective gear and practice full contact they way the boom says to. This includes group and single combat scenarios. Also, the people in the video were using spears with no technique whatsoever. If you were to hold a spear the way they did, any soldier worth their salt would swat it down suing leverage and push the newly unbalanced opponent over while stabbing them over the shield.

As I said, I have over a decade of mixed martial arts experience, and have studied martial weapon fighting techniques since I was a kid (there is a reason I am into the nerdy things I am)

The unit wasn't flanked, they failed a bravery test when one of their number went down, lost a couple more, then we're overwhelmed by the now more numerous enemy.

That scene was an example of gameplay for age of sigmar.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
What they do in reclaiming the blade is use techniques that old world soldiers wrote down on how they killed people and take kendo sticks etc while wearing protective gear and practice full contact they way the boom says to. This includes group and single combat scenarios. Also, the people in the video were using spears with no technique whatsoever. If you were to hold a spear the way they did, any soldier worth their salt would swat it down suing leverage and push the newly unbalanced opponent over while stabbing them over the shield.

As I said, I have over a decade of mixed martial arts experience, and have studied martial weapon fighting techniques since I was a kid (there is a reason I am into the nerdy things I am)

The unit wasn't flanked, they failed a bravery test when one of their number went down, lost a couple more, then we're overwhelmed by the now more numerous enemy.

That scene was an example of gameplay for age of sigmar.

The people in the video are fighting exactly like normal people (soldiers varied from professional to unprofessional throughout history) would have used them. In the prodding phase that is how you use a spear. Do ti too hard and your spear gets stuck in the enemy shield and you then have to use a rear ranks weapon. Explain please, how, in that situation, you would swing down on their spear, while at the same time stabbing them, without a guy next to him simply stabbing you as you performed this maneuver? It almost sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about...

See it sounds like you are talking about 1 on 1 fighting, but soldiers dropped their spears/pikes for 1 on 1 fighting in favour of a smaller weapon for better defense (if running away was no longer an option). It also sounds like you have no experience being in a body of people trying to fight another body of people (even if it is fake). Combat is messy and you dont have room or space for fancy maneuvers like you are talking about. In formation fighting you are limited to one method of attack... stabbing. You can't move too much or you expose the person next to you for attack. This is not about one man doing something, it is about a team doing something. I bet your maneuver would get your men cut down in reality.

Remember too, soldiers back then aren't martial artists dancing or boxing on the battle field, they where hundreds or thousands of men in formation trying to scatter the other formation.

Your AOS example is terrible, because in history when some people fled from a formation most of the formation broke too (because in real world you aren't aware of whats happening 40 soldiers to the left etc) so it is in no way accurate to what would happen. Once some flee in a formation discipline is broken and they are all gone.

Also spears are heavy on the end, you have to hold them the way they are to not only balance it but to not lose it (assuming 1 hand).

You are also doing exactly what I said you would:

"Look at them, haha, it's so simple, just do X and it will be easy and fine"... No dude not at all.

Look, I get AOS isn't trying to be tactically deep but rather fast and fun but please stop denying what history has shown like you know better because of a decade of martial arts.

Also that is exactly how you hold a spear with one hand...

 Sqorgar wrote:

…
Before anyone starts comparing game depths, we should really agree on a definition of "deep gameplay".
…

That is a good idea.

Restricting the discussion to wargames, because that is what DakkaDakka is about, I would say that the purpose of a game is to present the players with interesting choices.

Depth means having more choices and more interesting choices to make. It arises from two main factors.

One of these is the number of elements of warfare that are included in the rules. For example, it is usual in war-games for units to be able to move around and attack each other. However, a war-game involving a siege engine battering a fortress would not have any movement or combat, only shooting. The defender wouldn't have any choices, and the attacker's choice would be the angle to shoot his trebuchet. To make this more interesting, you could add repair rules for the fortress.

A game in which a tank is attacked by an infantry man with a RPG is somewhat similar to the siege scenario but it involves movement and flanking (oh dear), giving more possibilities that the players must consider and choose between. It therefore creates a deeper game.

To develop our tank game idea, we can add line of sight, terrain, morale, ammunition limitations, command and control, weather, day/night, overrun attacks by the tank, close assault tactics by the infantry man, mechanical breakdown, different types of ammunition, non-critical hits, training levels, experience rules for campaign scenarios.

The second factor is the amount of detail included in the rules section for each element of the game. For example, our tank game needs to give movement rates for the tank and the infantry. It could also give acceleration/deceleration rates for the tank, because such a large vehicle cannot move as nimbly as a man on foot, and this would be a tactical factor. At close quarters, the turning speed of the tank would also be important.

Different infantry men could have individual movement rates to reflect fitness, weight of equipment carried, and the degree to which they are trying to move fast or keep in cover. This could interact with the terrain rules and affect LoS, morale and accuracy of the tank's shooting. Even with just one infantry man in your 'army', these new rules create an army list building mechanism in which the player must choose between a faster movement rate, heavier weapons, and more ammunition.

Obviously you can take this too far, and introduce a rule for breaking a bootlace while running, with modifiers for different types of terrain and logistic status.

My point is that depth clearly can be increased by the complexity of the rules, but there also needs to be fun. Too much detail can turn a game into an accountancy slog. Too little detail can make it merely a simple accountancy exercise.

 Sqorgar wrote:

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 n ot be incorrect either way.

I'd say it's the number of meaningful choices, the amount of moves you plan ahead and skill ceiling, idk how obvious the game is. It's ofc not an easy task to compare different types of games but while chess is indeed finite and AoS somehow infinite, in practice the most efficient choice in the latter will get obvious fast. Even in 40k after deployment (which imo is the deepest thing you do on the table) it gets more or less obvious which unit have to head for cover, which has to advance and what needs to shoot what. Threre still a lot of room for outplaying your opponent but nowhere near the options you have in chess.

Abstracted games like chess have the advantage of not having to take immersion and realism into account and just focus on meaningful mechanics. My general position is that battles simulated on the tabletop are not really a mind bending affairs in general and you need either a detailed representation or adding smart abstract mechanisms to create meaningful gameplay. AoS suffers from being both simple and limited by its wargame nature and has no mechanism to make up for it.

I can't speak for Campaign for North Africa because I never read the rules (though always wanted to try it lol) but theoreticaly it's not obvious that it's a deeper game than Advanced Squad Leader (though both are certainly deeper than AoS, mainly because everything mildly serious is). That's because adding rules doesn't automaticaly means depth and you can get too far, after a point you're just complicating things without adding meaningful gameplay. GW excells at that btw with tons of special rules that bring little to the table except flavour, micromanaging of units that doesn't really matter etc.

In fact I would discuss whether the variety of boards/ units in AoS really matters that much or rather false variety. Every unit is just the same piece just some move little faster or can move over terrain or attack over distance and the actual unit types are few just like in chess. There's ofc size of the unit to take into account but that's basic math. Terrain has some impact but again quite obvious and in chess the board combined with abstract movement and interactions creates more complex situations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I also can't watch with sound due to work, but these are unarmored militiamen who weren't trying anything tactical. The enemy was able to surround them, just like age of sigmar, and brought more attacks to bear.

Also of note, none of these men were actively attempting to harme someone. Nobody was under serious threat of being stabbed in the face, or drug to the ground and beaten. This is a reenactment of battle where nobody wants to hurt their opponent, all you need to do is touch them. This reenactment doesn't represent actual combat in the slightest, but does show examples of the statistics at play in age of sigmar.

Note, there are groups in Europe who are training full contact with medieval techniques to relearn ancient forms of warfare. Watch those guys slam eacth other around in the documentary "reclaiming the blade"

Well I was in 5 or 6 full contact 100+ battles with actual swords (not sharpened obviously though lol, except spears), chainmail/ plate armorur etc and 25+kg bows with "safe" arrows (block of wood with something soft on the end, still painful as feth) with blood spilled and visits to ER also countless training ~10 on 10 skirmishes and I agree with mr. Swastakowey that you seem to don't know what you're talking about. Even in skirmish the tunel vision is high as you have to really concentrate on the barely visible fast moving object in front of you and the attack on flank is devastating not to mention rear where your automaticaly out, in fact I instinctively retreated a few times seeing lots of pointy objects on my side. Now you can say I wasn't exactly a seasoned battle veteran of old but I was technicaly good, young and fearless (read stupid) - as evidenced by my multiple fights without any protection against copy medieval weapons including sharp spears once even with the mentioned safe arrows flying - and the sensation of lack of control when flanked was still overwhelming.

The video did not show a flanking attack, period. If on side had a couple of people hide in the woods to come out behind them, then maybe. I don't have a lot of experience with large group combat, I don't need it to see that the video isn't a representation of combat but s dramatisation of combat. The people in the video made dozens of attacks in the span of a few minutes while moving back and forth to obtain better position for their attacks. If you had to do that on the table you would lose your mind.

The single attack on someone's "flank" meant way less to the outcome of the fight than the fact that one side got a slight numbers advantage and were able to overwhelm the enemy's ability to defend themselves.

So in other words, two groups of similarly capable soldiers fought on open ground, one got a slight advantage in number due to a couple of lucky openings and were able to overrun their opponents.

So, again, in game turns one side lost more models and were surrounded. The next turn they were beaten, not because they were outflanked, but simply due to not having the bodies left to stop it from happening. Also, when the formation fully breaks down and they are chasing the losing side, that is what a failed battleshock phase looks like

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Restricting the discussion to wargames, because that is what DakkaDakka is about, I would say that the purpose of a game is to present the players with interesting choices.

The purpose of all games is to present players with interesting choices. Wargames have a few other important aspects as well. They are social, they are competitive, they are a hobby, they are narrative, they are simulationist, and they are physical and spatial. So a good wargame is not necessarily a good game if it makes it up in the other areas.

Depth means having more choices and more interesting choices to make. It arises from two main factors.

I don't disagree, but it is still a little vague. Would you say that "more choices" represents more frequent choices or a wider variety of choices? And would you say that "interesting choices" could be external to the direct gameplay, such as creating a more accurate simulation of warfare or adhering to a narrative? For example, Infinity's rules seem to encourage a more vertical playing space with a more spatially complex map. Even if it made the game more complex without making it more fun, wouldn't those gameplay decisions be favored by people who are more spatially minded?

So, to me, interesting decisions doesn't just extend to the choice available to the player or the outcome it has on the game, but also in the game that it shapes by its very existence.

A game in which a tank is attacked by an infantry man with a RPG is somewhat similar to the siege scenario but it involves movement and flanking (oh dear), giving more possibilities that the players must consider and choose between. It therefore creates a deeper game.

It makes a subset of decisions more involving, but that does not necessarily apply to the entire game. For instance, in Chess, if you rolled a die and that's how many units you could move on your turn - that would add variety and complexity to the game, but the depth of the entire game would be reduced.

My point is that depth clearly can be increased by the complexity of the rules, but there also needs to be fun. Too much detail can turn a game into an accountancy slog. Too little detail can make it merely a simple accountancy exercise.

Forgive me if I'm not accurately summing up your position, but you believe more rules (complexity) in favor of a more accurate simulation of warfare (detail) is, at least for you, the mark of a deep wargame?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

I'd say it's the number of meaningful choices, the amount of moves you plan ahead and skill ceiling, idk how obvious the game is.

Let's define your immediate concerns and decisions as tactics, and your long term plans and goals as strategy.

Abstracted games like chess have the advantage of not having to take immersion and realism into account and just focus on meaningful mechanics.

So the difference between an abstract game and wargame is that abstract games do not factor simulation into their gameplay, while wargames have rules that contribute to a more detailed simulation, taking immersion and realism into account? Would you then agree that the majority of the rules in an abstract game are almost entirely gameplay orientated, while the majority of rules in a wargame are almost entirely simulationist? But could you not say that Chess is also a wargame? Or the Command and Colors games? Diskwars? Dust Tactics? Risk? Where is the line when gameplay purity gives way to simulation and a game becomes a wargame?

AoS suffers from being both simple and limited by its wargame nature and has no mechanism to make up for it.

Actually, rather than simple, I believe AoS tends more towards the abstract end of the equation. Instead of trying to simulate warfare, it is trying to evoke narratives. The Protectors, for example, can subtract 1 from the hit rolls of enemy missile attacks that hit either them or a unit behind them - this is not simulating a specific aspect of warfare, but instead it gives character to the Protector and creates story moments in the battle. The Protectors leaped in front of the arrows, swinging their glaives and deflecting the missles, but a few still made it through, hitting the Liberators behind them.

In fact I would discuss whether the variety of boards/ units in AoS really matters that much or rather false variety.

That would be relatively easy to test. I think unit choice, terrain setup, realm rules, and scenerio chosen contribute quite a bit to the variety in how the game plays. There is also a narrative element to it as you have Stormcast battling Chaos across the fire realm in an effort to open the the realm gate to Azyr. I think every element of AoS is built around creating a sort of cinematic gaming experience. In fact, I think the Sudden Death rules are less about balancing the sides and more about building a battlefield narrative that gives a cinematic justification for unbalanced sides.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
The video did not show a flanking attack, period. If on side had a couple of people hide in the woods to come out behind them, then maybe. I don't have a lot of experience with large group combat, I don't need it to see that the video isn't a representation of combat but s dramatisation of combat. The people in the video made dozens of attacks in the span of a few minutes while moving back and forth to obtain better position for their attacks. If you had to do that on the table you would lose your mind.

The single attack on someone's "flank" meant way less to the outcome of the fight than the fact that one side got a slight numbers advantage and were able to overwhelm the enemy's ability to defend themselves.

So in other words, two groups of similarly capable soldiers fought on open ground, one got a slight advantage in number due to a couple of lucky openings and were able to overrun their opponents.

So, again, in game turns one side lost more models and were surrounded. The next turn they were beaten, not because they were outflanked, but simply due to not having the bodies left to stop it from happening. Also, when the formation fully breaks down and they are chasing the losing side, that is what a failed battleshock phase looks like

So, over 3,000 years of history is wrong?
Mine and many others personal experience is also wrong.
But your few years martial arts, which has little to do with soldiering in massed combat trumps everything else?
I think we need to move on.
Flanking is vitally important to real warfare.
End.
What we need to talk about, is how that and other aspects of war and wargamming are missing or are shallow in AOS.
Defining what "Depth" is, is an excellent start. I like the definition with a greater variety of meaningful choices. And this comes down to the crux of AOS. Some people like the simplicity and lack of depth. Others (including myself) do not. Neither is right or wrong. But to say that AOS is as tactically deep as other (popular) wargames is incorrect.

Look at all major sports. The most important thing is a simple basic concept/game that is playable by kids in the yard to professional teams. The higher the level, the more specific rules organizers put in play. Just like AoS.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
The video did not show a flanking attack, period. If on side had a couple of people hide in the woods to come out behind them, then maybe. I don't have a lot of experience with large group combat, I don't need it to see that the video isn't a representation of combat but s dramatisation of combat. The people in the video made dozens of attacks in the span of a few minutes while moving back and forth to obtain better position for their attacks. If you had to do that on the table you would lose your mind.

The single attack on someone's "flank" meant way less to the outcome of the fight than the fact that one side got a slight numbers advantage and were able to overwhelm the enemy's ability to defend themselves.

So in other words, two groups of similarly capable soldiers fought on open ground, one got a slight advantage in number due to a couple of lucky openings and were able to overrun their opponents.

So, again, in game turns one side lost more models and were surrounded. The next turn they were beaten, not because they were outflanked, but simply due to not having the bodies left to stop it from happening. Also, when the formation fully breaks down and they are chasing the losing side, that is what a failed battleshock phase looks like

I was ansering your last few posts just can't multi quote on this crap phone.

Anyway you certainly proved a tactic to be good which is tiring the opposing disputant in a discussion Not sure how deep it is though heh.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

TrollSlayerThorak'Khun'Na wrote:
Look at all major sports. The most important thing is a simple basic concept/game that is playable by kids in the yard to professional teams. The higher the level, the more specific rules organizers put in play. Just like AoS.

You mean all those games that have clearly laid out rules for fair matches so those can be decided by skill?


Also football has facing.

Plumbumbarum wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TrollSlayerThorak'Khun'Na wrote:
Look at all major sports. The most important thing is a simple basic concept/game that is playable by kids in the yard to professional teams. The higher the level, the more specific rules organizers put in play. Just like AoS.

You mean all those games that have clearly laid out rules for fair matches so those can be decided by skill?

Also football has facing.

Guessing you missed the point...

Street hockey with friends up to professional hockey on the ice, all the same basic game, but the professional version has far more rules. Just like AoS with friends to AoS in tournaments.

TrollSlayerThorak'Khun'Na wrote:

Guessing you missed the point...

Street hockey with friends up to professional hockey on the ice, all the same basic game, but the professional version has far more rules. Just like AoS with friends to AoS in tournaments.

Except in that case the more advanced rules exist and the casual group are stripping away the rules for ease of play. Something that takes no effort at all to do.

With AoS someone had to sit down and write up the rules that were used for the tourney in the OP, presumably taking quite a bit of time and effort.

Now if GW had a 4 page ruleset and more in depth one with a point system then left it to the players to decide which to use there would be no problem.

When you see the outcome of a skirmish, why does there have to be mechanics for the outcome, instead of saying the side that won was able to get a flank or hole to open up and pushed the advantage? When the game allows you to represent the chance for victory however you want it to, why does it matter mechanically how the victory was achieved?

My guys are making one attack roll, ONE. They can't push back and forth or target specific models. They represent the general position of the soldier on the battle field, and their overall chance of killing an opposing warrior.

I wasn't disputing what was said, I was disputing the idea that the game can't represent those situations without adding more rules that really aren't needed to play.

 jonolikespie wrote:

TrollSlayerThorak'Khun'Na wrote:

Guessing you missed the point...

Street hockey with friends up to professional hockey on the ice, all the same basic game, but the professional version has far more rules. Just like AoS with friends to AoS in tournaments.

Except in that case the more advanced rules exist and the casual group are stripping away the rules for ease of play. Something that takes no effort at all to do.

With AoS someone had to sit down and write up the rules that were used for the tourney in the OP, presumably taking quite a bit of time and effort.

Now if GW had a 4 page ruleset and more in depth one with a point system then left it to the players to decide which to use there would be no problem.

The concept of the stick and ball and playing hockey (or any sport) came first, not the NHL's rulebook. The NHL built up its rules off of hockey, not the other way around. Deeper rules are added on the more organized/professional you get.

AoS out of the box is played similarly to any sport that is a pickup game with friends. You work out balance between yourselves. Tournaments need to add deeper rules and balancing mechanisms. It's just like sports.

 jonolikespie wrote:


With AoS someone had to sit down and write up the rules that were used for the tourney in the OP, presumably taking quite a bit of time and effort.

Now if GW had a 4 page ruleset and more in depth one with a point system then left it to the players to decide which to use there would be no problem.

The idea is that tournament organisers can now use any system they like, completely free from pre-conceptions.

You both don't think that is a TERRIBLE thing for a community?

It sounds all well and good the way you put it but the practicality of people actually putting together a system and agreeing on it is... iffy at best. At worst it kills local communities.

My impression of this is going to be biased since I'm Australian and GW gaming in general is in trouble down here but my local scene is dead. We had a good, healthy fantasy community under 8th. We worked hard to build it back up after the release of 8th almost killed it but we had a consistent group that was just as large as our regular 40k group, even if tourney attendance was still lagging behind the 40kers.

I have seen 1 game of AoS played locally since it dropped but most people locally treat it like the plague and they cite the lack of points as the reason. Yes people could build one themselves but no one is willing to try because it is a lot more effort than just going and playing a different game they have models for and no one is sure if what they put together would even be any good. Simple fact is we aren't game devs.

 jonolikespie wrote:
You both don't think that is a TERRIBLE thing for a community?

It sounds all well and good the way you put it but the practicality of people actually putting together a system and agreeing on it is... iffy at best. At worst it kills local communities.

My impression of this is going to be biased since I'm Australian and GW gaming in general is in trouble down here but my local scene is dead. We had a good, healthy fantasy community under 8th. We worked hard to build it back up after the release of 8th almost killed it but we had a consistent group that was just as large as our regular 40k group, even if tourney attendance was still lagging behind the 40kers.

I have seen 1 game of AoS played locally since it dropped but most people locally treat it like the plague and they cite the lack of points as the reason. Yes people could build one themselves but no one is willing to try because it is a lot more effort than just going and playing a different game they have models for and no one is sure if what they put together would even be any good. Simple fact is we aren't game devs.

If you don't have a group willing to play the game with an open mind and attempting to make it work, it won't work, just like anything under those circumstances won't work. Balance between friends/group is very simple. You don't need to write a whole comp packet. You don't need to be a sports game dev to figure out pickup basketball.

MongooseMatt wrote:

The idea is that tournament organisers can now use any system they like, completely free from pre-conceptions.

It's a bad idea though.

I get it. I really do. The 'gamers in the driving seat, organising their own games' works. It's great fun. But it requires the right environment, the right playgroup, and often, time. It's best suited for a bunch of like minded mates at ones house at a weekend, with lots of beer and pizza and a bbq (or suitable alternative if you live in a rubbish weather country like the UK).

But for tournaments? No. Tournaments represent 'organised play'. The great strength of organised play is a universal, systemic, ordered, defined and consistent rules set. Not 'yeah well, figure it out yourselves'. You need a playbook which everyone follows and where everyone plays by the same rules. Having an official set of rules, or an official set of 'formats' as privateer press does gives great strength and resilience to the tournament scene. Everyone knows where they stand, everyone can just prepare, come along, and get going. It's known, and quantifiable. No arguments. No differing interpretations. Or various 'visions'.
Letting everyone free to do their own rule sets sounds nice, but it has dicey consequences. It is akin in a way to opening the gates to the city before a horde of barbarians. YNot because they'll ruin it somehow. Though I don't trust ninety percent of home brewers to do s decent job anyway. You end of with everyone shouting, and no one leading. No, the problem is, if everyone uses whatever ststem they like, you remove and destroy the key strength of tournaments - this idea of a universal, systemic, ordered, defined and consistent rules set. What results is a split, fractured community that has had its common ground razed and torn up. At worst, you also sow discord, division and argument.This is not good for stability, growth or sustainability. Or maintaining any kind of common perspective.

Thing is: I really like 'player in the driving seat' type games. But I appreciate their limitations. I love tournaments, and I love 'organised play'. But for me, one of pp's failings is a lack of assymetric and interesting scenarios and game types, the type of which we can do so readily with a homebrew. Historical gamers have been playing this way for decades. I am genuinely thankful I met the mates I did, and have been able to experience this other way of playing. For small groups that can easily come to a consensus. Brilliant. For once offs, it's great. For a league, or a campaign. Sure. The second you get organised though, and want something bigger, or something tgr community as a whole can get behind, it falls down. Because you no longer have a community. You have a whole bunch of different people doing different things. This is fine for different people doing different things. But for something organised - 'there can only be one'.

Deadnight wrote:
What results is a split, fractured community that has had its common ground razed and torn up. At worst, you also sow discord, division and argument.This is not good for stability, growth or sustainability. Or maintaining any kind of common perspective.

Said it much better than I could have. I should probably stop posting after 3am...

Deadnight nailed why a lot of us have had problems with AoS.
Brilliantly said friend.

Deadnight wrote:
Tournaments represent 'organised play'.

That is how they are seen currently, but there's no evidence that it is the only way to conduct tournaments.

No, the problem is, if everyone uses whatever ststem they like, you remove and destroy the key strength of tournaments - this idea of a universal, systemic, ordered, defined and consistent rules set.

In your opinion.

This is not good for stability, growth or sustainability. Or maintaining any kind of common perspective.

The basic rules and the models are the common perspective. Whether one group uses points and another uses wounds, it's not going to change the fact that they are both playing Age of Sigmar. It's like playing Quake with mods. It's still Quake, but you can choose how to have fun with it. Some people like Capture the Flag or Counter Strike more than Deathmatch - and the differences between AoS mods will likely be far less extreme.

The second you get organised though, and want something bigger, or something tgr community as a whole can get behind, it falls down. Because you no longer have a community. You have a whole bunch of different people doing different things. This is fine for different people doing different things. But for something organised - 'there can only be one'.

I couldn't disagree more. I think that because tournaments tend to be built around only one type of player, it is not surprise when that one type of player is all that shows up. However, it is a mistake to assume that there's only one way to define tournaments.

Going back to the video game realm for a second, MMORPGs used to be a very broad category with a bunch of wildly different ideas, settings, and playstyles. Then World of Warcraft came out. It was so popular and brought so many new players to the genre, that their expectations started to be MMORPGS = WoW, such that other MMOs, like Everquest 2, started adding WoW features after the fact due to complaining. The MMOs that differed the most from WoW tended to either die or become niche in a genre they used to be mainstream in. The end result is that now, MMOs are basically a dead genre, and the only games that can succeed in that genre now are more WoW clone than not.

Part of the reason the other MMOs died off is because the subscription model prevented other people from investing in multiple games at one time, meaning only the most successful of the MMOs could maintain a playerbase. This is not unlike the expense required in buying and painting models at frequent intervals - the time and expense involved in being a Warhammer or Warmachine fan leaves little room for competition. And the majority of miniature games are structured in virtually identical ways.

My point is that maybe wargame tournaments are the way they are because some major game came along, probably 40k, which set expectations a certain way, introducing a bunch of new players to the genre, and ended up defining what is acceptable. That's not to say there is only one way to do things, just that the popular way is so dominant that it ultimately scares people who are accustomed to the old way. And because it is virtually impossible for a competitor to come along and do it a different way, old mannerisms are never challenged. Games Workshop doing this with Age of Sigmar has a real chance of creating a more varied and diverse gaming landscape, and we should applaud that effort.

Personally, I'd love to play in a tournament, so long as I didn't have to play against tournament players. That says to me, at least, that it is not the only option possible, but because tournaments are how they are, it is the only option available. I'm not willing to write off different possibilities.

Everyone should listen to the new Heelen Hammer and Facehammer podcasts. They played in the Clash tournament. AoS in tournament play is not that difficult to figure out.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
When you see the outcome of a skirmish, why does there have to be mechanics for the outcome, instead of saying the side that won was able to get a flank or hole to open up and pushed the advantage? When the game allows you to represent the chance for victory however you want it to, why does it matter mechanically how the victory was achieved?

My guys are making one attack roll, ONE. They can't push back and forth or target specific models. They represent the general position of the soldier on the battle field, and their overall chance of killing an opposing warrior.

I wasn't disputing what was said, I was disputing the idea that the game can't represent those situations without adding more rules that really aren't needed to play.

This is true.

To be frank, though, you could just roll dice and whoever scores higher is the winner of the entire battle, without bothering even to lay any figures on the table. But AoS and other tabletop games are about moving the models around in order to gain tactical advantages.

Generally, the larger the scale of the game, the less point there is in micro-managing what your units are doing. In Marechal de l'Empire (Polemos 6mm Napoleonic rules) for example, you do not have to form square against cavalry. It is assumed if you rolled low and the attacking cavalry rolled high so you lost, that your infantry failed to form square in time, or something. But in this game, a unit is an infantry brigade consisting of a single base representing 1,000 to 3,000 troops. You might easily have 100 such units in your army. You are the C-in-C and cannot be expected to micro-manage a unit that represents under 0.5% of your total force. That is for the sub-commander running down through corps, to division, to brigade generals.

AoS however is a small scale skirmish with roughly 30 to 50 individual figures per side, many of which are grouped into units. There may be fewer individual models in an entire game of AoS than there are officers in a single brigade base of Marechal de l'Empire, which is only one of 500+ Units involved in the battle.

The point of AoS is how you manoeuvre individual models. Potentially everything that gives you more options with your models is enhancing the game. That is why the game has rules for the difference in length between a spear, a sword and a dagger.

Has anyone seen the AoS event pack for Warhammer World?
Take 100 models, the 'winner' is the individual with the most 'I enjoyed my game with..' votes at the end of the weekend, but the overall win/loss results will be used in future fluff.