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 don't think AoS is some tactician's dream. Far from it. (I love it for other reasons, and tactics is not one of my strongpoints admittedly). But I do see some of the nuances for formations, as follows.

If everyone deploys in "blobs" (no ranked formations) then yes, flanking a unit makes no difference except maybe keeping the enemy champion away from your men.

But - if your opponent is deploying in blobs then they are not maxamising the amount of models they could be getting into combat in head-to-head battles.

If they do try and maxamise their frontage for head-to-head fights (for example a 7x3), then charging that flank means you limit the amount of models that can pile in back against you.

Secondly, you (a) cannot pile in out of coherency, and you (b) must pile in towards the closest model (if you choose to pile in), this can mean if you attack a unit from multiple angles they may be unable to pile in because it would spilt the unit in 2 (an illegal move).

That's all the tactical advantages from flanking I see in AoS games. Suitable, but it is there.

I think the tactic part comes from combos, not placing units. A unit alone works in a way, but if someone uses it and 2-3 other units and a special warscroll it can suddenly do more things. Placment of individual units is less important, but placment of unit formations or combo characters is the way to win. At least I think that is howt GW wants people to play the game. Helps them sells stuff too, as someone can't realy play with one or two units most of the time, but requires multiple ones to get buffs from combo warscrolls.

Makumba wrote:
I think the tactic part comes from combos, not placing units.

Hence one of the reasons the game is criticized as tactically shallow.

 Swastakowey wrote:

I agree. To be clear I was not trying to be snarky or anything, it's just I hear a lot from a few people here about how these things happen in their games which is very contrary to all the games I have seen (and I have seen many since I have pushed painting hard these last few weeks) and unfortunately I find it hard to believe these stories are actually true.

Nothing wrong with a light game (to an extent) but again, I feel like some AOS players here are being very contrarian in their views for whatever reason. It would be nice to see a battle report showing these tactics and situations being stated. It's all well and good some of the things happening in theory or on paper... but it's more telling how these theories and ideas come out in actual game play (which is a huge part of playtesting a game too) because it seems that they do not often come into play in my experience.

This doesn't demonstrate any great tactical genius, but I think it's pretty representative of Age of Sigmar. It's a 4 player game, contains secret alliances and such (part of the scenario), and as you can see, the guys (and gal) playing it are having a pretty good time It's somewhat similar to the way we play the game.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/09/age-sigmar-battle-report-4-player-megabattle.html

 Talys wrote:


This doesn't demonstrate any great tactical genius, but I think it's pretty representative of Age of Sigmar. It's a 4 player game, contains secret alliances and such (part of the scenario), and as you can see, the guys (and gal) playing it are having a pretty good time It's somewhat similar to the way we play the game.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/09/age-sigmar-battle-report-4-player-megabattle.html

This does have a lot of the AoS "flash" around it. Players who are looking for some laid back time with many back and forth, some "oooh, aah, cool" moments with terrain and cinematic clashes of units will find a lot to like in this video. For me, it catches well the spirit of the game.

@CoreCommander - yeah, that exactly. Which is actually exactly what I want out of a secondary time-killer game.

I still feel I'm learning the ropes with AoS, but I'm starting to see a few 'ooh, nice' moments sneak in.

Unit synergy is a large part of it - and like other games with similar interactions, the more elements involved the easier it gets to prevent / bring down, but the more effective they are once everything's in place.

In our games locally people are starting to get a feel for movement and the 'control zone'. I know I'm certainly trying to bear certain things in mind but things that crop up tend to be more luck than judgement - but I feel they're getting more frequent.

 CoreCommander wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
You should do some battle reports with pictures of these tactfully amazing battles you keep talking about. All I have seen in these games tactics wise is choosing combat order and making sure you charge the right enemy...

Will be interesting to see yours since they are so different to the battles I have been seeing while I paint.

As much as I want it to be the other way around I too have yet to see a battle more complicated than shoot the assaulty stuff/assault the shooty stuff, try to gang up with multiple units, shoot hard units with mortal damage pew pew etc. The game is very much akin to 40k and much of the stuff that is valid for 40k is valid for AoS aswell. I know, I know there is much to be done with model positioning in AoS, especially in the assault phase, but things like the inverted T formation, triple tomato formation etc. just make me want to gaze upon something else - something that doesn't make my eyes bleed. I'd love to see an actual battle report where every decision was weighed along with several else, where maneuvering was interesting with some clear patterns to see unfolding etc., but as far as reports go for the moment - I've yet to see one. I like the game, but I still stand by my initial opinion - it is a light game intended for quick entry into the hobby (GW's or another). I'd be very happy to see a report which shows the game in a better light that I've seen it for now.

The inverted T is a prime example of how "formations" in AoS are just nonsensical rules shenaningans.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Makumba wrote:
I think the tactic part comes from combos, not placing units.

Hence one of the reasons the game is criticized as tactically shallow.

A lot of it is combos but the placement of units is very important too, because of the melee weapon ranges and pile-in rules.

These are nothing to do with flanks, though, they are ways to outnumber the enemy at the point of contact, which is much easier to do at the end of a line. IRL (and other wargames) flanking and rear attacks work because they cause morale and C&C problems for the target. That is why columns are vulnerable to flank attacks. I

Plumbumbarum wrote:

The inverted T is a prime example of how "formations" in AoS are just nonsensical rules shenaningans.

Maybe. But for the sake of objectivity, could you provide an example of a specific theoretical unit formation in any other skirmish-style wargame that isn't "nonsensical rules shenanigans"?
Genuinely curious.

In Lord of the Rings you'd line your sword and shield men up then park your spearmen behind them where they were relatively safe with their lower armour and your enemy unable to engage them in melee (it was all base to base). Your spearmen then got the advantage of adding supporting attacks to someone they were in base to base contact with.

Very basic unit formation yes, but it's pretty realistic and isn't "nonsensical rules shenanigans" but rather an actual intentional part of the rules.

I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth but I would assume that's what Plumbumbarum meant by 'nonsensical rules shenaningans', that the game never intended that to happen but people do it for a benefit rather than a system in which the designers intentionally include tactics for players to make use of.

I'd say most games don't have "nonsensical rules shenaningans" for the simple fact that most games expect and encourage their players to use the formations and tactics they deliberately included in the game.

RoperPG wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

The inverted T is a prime example of how "formations" in AoS are just nonsensical rules shenaningans.

Maybe. But for the sake of objectivity, could you provide an example of a specific theoretical unit formation in any other skirmish-style wargame that isn't "nonsensical rules shenanigans"?
Genuinely curious.

Other skirmish games I've seen don't make use of formations, atleast in the sense you're implying. Being skirmish games, with each model having unique abilities most of the time and acting independently of the others, most of the time I see screening, staying in bubble range or putting one model in front of another as to be closer to something else. I don't consider these things as "formations" as in practice they don't tend to move as a single unit and fight as a single unit and as far as model count go, they are on the lower side. They have moved in that position for some bonus needed at that moment or place (from gaming point of view). Ofcourse words like "formation" and "tactics" are stretchable as to accommodate for a given opinion. Saying that yours may differ than mine. They have some definitions in military context, but, generally, I'm not willing to go through them as such debates may devolve into word-pickings. Often one can "logically" imprint a quality on an object, but in practice it may prove fallacy. For this reason an AoS battle report demonstrating such principles would be much more helpful than just discussing them on theory.

In short, I doubt someone will manage to find you such an example as it is not consistent with the rules and game play of skirmish games (Infinity and Malifaux for example)

@Corecommander Infinity, Malifaux - heck, even Guildball are all individual models so 'unit' formations don't apply - but I couldn't think of any skirmish unit games outside GW other than WMH, which is why I was asking.

@Jonolikespie That idea also works in AoS - in fact certain units appear to be designed for it.

But the 'T' formation isn't exactly a new idea - baiting units into an unfavourable position/engaging exactly where you want them to isn't a new concept, and I've seen exactly that logic used in WFB, 40K, LOTR & WMH. What might look silly is the fact that the picture isn't actually to scale (assuming those are 25mm bases, the 3" pile-in means the horizontal line collapse couldn't happen like that before the enemy reacts).
Would imagine HobbyKiller exaggerated the positioning slightly to make the theory clear, and looking at the other pictures that looks to be the case.

I have done the spears behind swords technique. Sword masters of loeth in front, high elf spearmen behind. With a single line of swordsmen, two lines of spearmen, the spears can all reach because their bases are less than an inch accross. My opponent has the choice of hitting the swordmasters, who do more damage individually but are harder to kill, or the spearmen who are gaining bonuses for being twenty strong but still not as crippling as the swordsmen.

With high elf banners giving bonuses for other banner carrying units within 8" it really helps the army to combing units into groups that way.

Infinity does have rules for squads of a type that offer bonuses.

 jonolikespie wrote:
In Lord of the Rings you'd line your sword and shield men up then park your spearmen behind them where they were relatively safe with their lower armour and your enemy unable to engage them in melee (it was all base to base). Your spearmen then got the advantage of adding supporting attacks to someone they were in base to base contact with.

Very basic unit formation yes, but it's pretty realistic and isn't "nonsensical rules shenanigans" but rather an actual intentional part of the rules.

I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth but I would assume that's what Plumbumbarum meant by 'nonsensical rules shenaningans', that the game never intended that to happen but people do it for a benefit rather than a system in which the designers intentionally include tactics for players to make use of.

I'd say most games don't have "nonsensical rules shenaningans" for the simple fact that most games expect and encourage their players to use the formations and tactics they deliberately included in the game.

Yes, thank you, that's better written than some boorish one liner I'd spit out lol.

RoperPG the point was mainly that the "formations" are very often mentioned by advocates as a source of tactical depth in AoS and a hidden gem of game design by gw when in fact it seems to be a side effect of going round bases because sigmarines and moar awesome poses. Also there's not much else in the rules, other games have more to them but if you prove the only alleged source of depth dry then what's left? Target priority and combos.

And no no examples tbh because games that make sense tend to be either skirmish or unit based not some weird mixup created by marketing department to allow both fast hookup and unlimted buying.

I think 'fornations' are a red herring on their own. Relative position of your minis is one of the more important aspects of the game. Formation of units is part of this, but not all of it.
Effectively, units boil down to a single model when determining charges, piling in, etc.
Getting that *one* model in exactly the right place relative to everything else is the part of the game I am focussing on right now because it is where I've noticed the biggest change in efficacy as I work on it. Whether that is shenanigans or tactics is semantics - the aim of both is levering an advantage out of a ruleset through choices and decision-making. It's just that one implies TFG, the other Kasparov.
When I used to play WFB, target priority never really featured in my planning. I always seemed to do quite well just sniping piecemeal and taking out units when I got the chance.
AoS, I have found that target priority is absolutely crucial. Due to the more numerous inter-unit effects that the game contains, just leaving one guy alive in a keystone unit can lose you the game.
The trick there is figuring out the weakest link that you can eliminate this turn without overstretching or exposing yourself.
Combos are the flip side of that. It's all well and good figuring out a killed combination, but I've seen enough games of WMH to know that the good general isn't the one who figures out the ridiculous synergy, it's the one that knows how to react when unit B gets gibbed and you're left with A and C.

I do get your point, but - and this might just be me - as I said above, whether something qualifies as shenanigans/tactics seems to depend wholly on viewpoint.

Well if you already like the game then all power to you, I'm a fan of thoughtful play wherever possible. It's just not the best vehicle for it which is the entire point.

And yes part of what I wanted to say is that if one played with some equivalent of inverted T in 40k or whfb, casuals would roll eyes over the table and scream tfg but suddenly it's all depth and strategy in AoS. I'm not against playing like that but it just doesn't come across as some super thought out design and doesn't make sense immersion wise either.

Then there's the question, after the unavoidably imbalanced armies clash, initiative is rolled off and crucial attack order comes to play, how much will the efficiancy you described affect the outcome of the game. And if can you ever tell.

I think it would be easier to convince the non-believing crowd that AoS is indeed tactically deep if you can provide actual games where it shows that. Telling so and so is fine and all but personally for someone like me who hasn't played a game I wouldn't be convinced unless it's a battle report. From the battle reports I've seen so far, I'm not impressed.

jonolikespie wrote:In Lord of the Rings you'd line your sword and shield men up then park your spearmen behind them where they were relatively safe with their lower armour and your enemy unable to engage them in melee (it was all base to base). Your spearmen then got the advantage of adding supporting attacks to someone they were in base to base contact with.

Very basic unit formation yes, but it's pretty realistic and isn't "nonsensical rules shenanigans" but rather an actual intentional part of the rules.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I have done the spears behind swords technique. Sword masters of loeth in front, high elf spearmen behind. With a single line of swordsmen, two lines of spearmen, the spears can all reach because their bases are less than an inch accross. My opponent has the choice of hitting the swordmasters, who do more damage individually but are harder to kill, or the spearmen who are gaining bonuses for being twenty strong but still not as crippling as the swordsmen.

With high elf banners giving bonuses for other banner carrying units within 8" it really helps the army to combing units into groups that way.

Can anyone in the "AoS is not tactically deep" crowd respond to this for me? I'm genuinely curious where the bar is at, as to someone trying to catch up a bit on this thread, it seems to have been met.

If you define tactics as having unit formations and placement meaning something, this is one very clear example of AoS having tactical decisions (and by no means the only one, I do similar things with Eternal Guard screens for Dryads). Age of Sigmar is also the first game I have played were you can actually Calvary charge in waves. The ability to retreat with one unit of cavalry while charging (to cover them) with another is phenomenal, and something you could never do in WHFB. Being able to actually employ hit and run tactics seems like it should also refute AoS is not tactically deep hypothesis, no?

Obviously this is the internet and I have little expectation of actually changing anyone's mind, but for people who are reading and not participating I'd like them to be able to make an informed judgement.

 jonolikespie wrote:
In Lord of the Rings you'd line your sword and shield men up then park your spearmen behind them where they were relatively safe with their lower armour and your enemy unable to engage them in melee (it was all base to base). Your spearmen then got the advantage of adding supporting attacks to someone they were in base to base contact with.

Very basic unit formation yes, but it's pretty realistic and isn't "nonsensical rules shenanigans" but rather an actual intentional part of the rules.

I d

You can do exactly this in AoS because spears generally have 2" range.

Question then, can someone else hit back at your spears through your shield wall (as in over intervening models)?

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Then there's the question, after the unavoidably imbalanced armies clash, initiative is rolled off and crucial attack order comes to play, how much will the efficiancy you described affect the outcome of the game. And if can you ever tell.

Back around the time of 6th becoming 7th WFB, one of the turn offs I had from WFB was the level of inevitability. When you have tournament-style list tinkerers playing and refining, you can see the win coming a mile off. You saw the movements, you saw the plan unfolding, and mid-late game the trap closed and the opponent's army just crumpled without much need for dice rolling. That was always where my love of WFB came from.
But then I started playing and watching more and more games where one side was having no fun at all because they knew it was done and dusted.

One of the things that I like about AoS is the random element of turns means you can never be absolutely sure of what's happening from turn to turn. It means that there comes a point where you can't plan too far in advance because it requires the ability to react. It takes pressure off, frankly. I play with a rough game plan in mind, but I'm only planning the next turn, rather than 3 or 4.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Question then, can someone else hit back at your spears through your shield wall (as in over intervening models)?

Yes and no, depending on weapon range of the attacker, positioning of the spearmen and how you rule LOS.
Smart player will use that formation against a unit armed with 1" weapons and ensure that the shields are in B2B with the spears about 5mm behind them, because then the spearmen are safe.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Question then, can someone else hit back at your spears through your shield wall (as in over intervening models)?

If they also have spears or weapons with similar range, yes. You can choose to attack any unit within your weapon range, it does not necessarily have to be the closest one (ie the sword and shield guys).

That right there seems tactically shallow then and not overly realistic, being able to swing through someone...

I'm guessing you can shoot through people too as long as you have LoS, which is literally can you see a model behind another.

That removes quite a bit of screening and LoS blocking tactics.

 jonolikespie wrote:
That right there seems tactically shallow then and not overly realistic, being able to swing through someone...

Why does it make sense to you that YOUR spearmen can reach over your shieldwall with their spears, but THEIR spearmen cannot do the same?

You fixated on one part of the answer and generalized it to suit your needs. If your opponent has short weapons they cannot "swing through" anyone, if they have long weapons they can do the same to you - THAT is incredibly realistic.

You must have really, REALLY, hated AoS' predecessor, Warhammer Fantasy Battles... those 5 man frontages killing models 3-4 ranks back (and thus realistically completely out of the combat still) and the character walls (where you could not kill infantry if the entire front rank consisted of characters) were horribly unrealistic.

At least AoS is a step up from that, right?

quiestdeus wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
That right there seems tactically shallow then and not overly realistic, being able to swing through someone...

Why does it make sense to you that YOUR spearmen can reach over your shieldwall with their spears, but THEIR spearmen cannot do the same?

You fixated on one part of the answer and generalized it to suit your needs. If your opponent has short weapons they cannot "swing through" anyone, if they have long weapons they can do the same to you - THAT is incredibly realistic.

You must have really, REALLY, hated AoS' predecessor, Warhammer Fantasy Battles... those 5 man frontages killing models 3-4 ranks back (and thus realistically completely out of the combat still) and the character walls (where you could not kill infantry if the entire front rank consisted of characters) were horribly unrealistic.

At least AoS is a step up from that, right?

If you could get your Spears within 2" of the Enemy Spears there is no problem. I have had Real Life experience with a Sword and Board Shield walls with 8' Spears behind them, if you don't have Spears to counter the Spears are safe until the Shield wall is gone.
We won many a war using a 2/3 Sword and Board Shield Wall and a 1/3 Spear Section.
Toss in a few Bows though and the Spears start to be challenged.
Yes Bows can fire into Melee real well and hit what they wanted to.

Tactical "depth" of a game is like a swimming pool that is graduated in steps from the shallow end to the deep end.

At the shallow end the game perhaps contains only rules for movement and melee combat with a few simple types of troops.

As you add new sections of rules to the game, you move towards the deep end of the pool.

At the deepest end the game contains rules that support all the different aspects of warfare that affect tactics, such as movement, formations, command and control, morale, supply, weather, terrain, day and night, weapon and armour types, troop types, etc etc.

From this analogy it obviously would be hard to call AoS "deep" when compared with games that include a lot more sections of rules.

I don't think this is a flaw, it is just the trade-off for a simple ruleset.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Tactical "depth" of a game is like a swimming pool that is graduated in steps from the shallow end to the deep end.

At the shallow end the game perhaps contains only rules for movement and melee combat with a few simple types of troops.

As you add new sections of rules to the game, you move towards the deep end of the pool.

At the deepest end the game contains rules that support all the different aspects of warfare that affect tactics, such as movement, formations, command and control, morale, supply, weather, terrain, day and night, weapon and armour types, troop types, etc etc.

From this analogy it obviously would be hard to call AoS "deep" when compared with games that include a lot more sections of rules.

I don't think this is a flaw, it is just the trade-off for a simple ruleset.

It is a fallacy to believe AoS is not tactically deep because of the length of its ruleset. It was either Dwellers Below or Heelanhammer who very recently did a complete review of all of the rules of Age of Sigmar (i.e., all of the unique special rules located on their respective warscrolls) and Sigmar actually has more equivalent pages of rules than the prior WHFB BRB.

I was on board with your analogy at first, but not its conclusion. If you just play by the first 4 pages of rules you have a very shallow pool, but as you begin to add more and more warscrolls and look for interactions within your race, and further, within your faction, AoS has a surprising amount of tactical depth emergent from its synergies and all of the possible unit loadouts. The primary difference between AoS and WHFB (or any other game for that matter) is that the rules are distributed rather than collocated, which I believe was an intentional design decision to keep the barrier to entry low(er).

I am not comparing AoS with WHFB, a game I despised. I am comparing it with all wargames.

AoS may well have a surprising amount of tactical depth but it will have less than a game that includes rules for C&C, morale, weather, supply, training, hidden movement, and so on, that add more depth to the game by providing mechanisms to facilitate tactics that depend on these additional factors.