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.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I think the point is that people should lighten up - it's just a game.

Oh and how would you feel if one of your great games had it's world destroyed

Go re-read my sig.

I'm a Dogs of War player, so you can just shut the hell up until your precious Skaven get perma-Squatted.

How big was the game and is it still allowed in a GW? Currently in the usa you can't play warhammer fantasy at a GW. It took a lot of money to play warhammer fantasy but probably not as much for 'dogs of war'. Not only that but it's a specialist game whereas Fantasy was a primary one. It was the flagship game for GW at a point. I mean it's like Disney without mickey mouse or DC comics without superman. It's kind of a bigger and more in depth game.

-----

Oh sorry I'm getting back on topic then. The biggest issue with the rules was 'no points' amounts. Lots of different army books, the BRB was 4 pages which isn't a lot of army-wide rules (doesn't explain lots of odd situations so it's prone to people taking advantage of anything) and the childish rules humor. That's mostly it from a rules standpoint.

Game?


That's an official Warhammer Armies book for WFB 5E.

Try (then) fully-supported Warhammer Fantasy Army dating back to the very early days of Warhammer Fantasy, with support withdrawn during WFB 7E. The point that the models no longer have official rules for WFB or AoS.

Your Skaven got officially translated to AoS, so you have no right to complain.

As fo Fantasy being the flagship, that hasn't been true since 40k2 came out - long before you started playing.

The fact of the matter is that AoS is the new edition of Fantasy. Period.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Did I say the other side was faster? Number of attacks isn't speed.

So attacks a humanoid can make 3 potentially lethal strikes in the time another humanoid makes one potentially lethal swing, but this isn’t because of speed. Or it might be some element of speed, separate from speed as it’s captured in WS and In. It might be aggression, and we’ll just choose to ignore that aggression is more likely to produce models who strike first, but doesn’t in WHFB, because reasons.

Have you really not seen any bit of fiction, where spear wielding or even ranged weapon wielding soldiers were cut down by a swordsman, because they didn't react fast enough?

My entire post was 105 words, less than The Hungry Caterpillar, and you couldn’t manage to read it all before you got distracted. I’ll repeat my question, because hope springs eternal.
“Just ask yourself if you've ever heard of a combat, either in the real world or in any fantasy series, that described one side having the advantage of attacking first, not because of weapons like spears, but because they had better 'reactions'. Then it described the other side making more attacks per model, because they were 'faster' despite their slower reactions. And after that happened, then the first side suddenly got their 'reaction' advantage back again.”

Having a good weapon with reach helps, but it isn't an instant win.

In the WHFB ruleset, a good weapon doesn’t even help. It isn’t a factor at all in determining who goes first.

The split between Initiative, Attacks and Weapons skill isn't a thing that can be defended in absolute terms, because it’s clearly a messy nonsense. Even the placement of them in the stat table was a nonsense harking back to a very different time in wargaming - Iniative is the first stat of the three used in a combat, it's second last in the table. Attacks are the second stat used, it's at the back too. WS is the last one used, it's the second stat listed.

Accept it as was it is – a legacy design that worked well enough, that didn’t interfere too badly with the design strengths elsewhere. Defending it in itself, either by pretending it simulates something or adds strategic depth, is an effort to justify bad design. Three stats, with poor to non-existent differentiation, just to determine who lands more hits, is bad design.

@JohnHwangDD: Oh cool dude they killed ONE faction in a game and you could just move on to a different faction and still play the game. Had skaven died I'd have been angry but they killed the whole game. If you liked the old game there was 15 factions that went down the crapper. Yeah you can play them in AoS but if you don't like AoS GW won't let you play Warhammer Fantasy (at least in my country) at their store.

Also yeah I do have a right to complain because I spent lots of money on an army instead of doing other things. That took years and probably over a thousand dollars to do and their big announcement is 'Fantasy is dead! Play our new game or get out!' That's going to miff fantasy players period.

Honestly wouldn't care if skaven were perma-squatted at this point. The game is now a massive joke of itself in AoS. AoS isn't a game I play. It's like replacing the original trilogy of Star Wars with the Prequel trilogy and forcing everybody to buy it.

I understand Warhammer Fantasy is just a game to some but I invested a lot of time, money and effort into it and it was my favorite fantasy universe by a lot. Everybody has one game, movie, comic, etc. universe that is super special to them and for me Warhammer Fantasy was that. Had skaven died I would've cared but not as much as I would've gotten into vampire counts with AoS they didn't even try. They didn't even make points values as a sense GW truly gave up trying to make a game and just said, 'Here you fans come up with something....or just play with some random forces as we don't care as long as you give us money.'

Do you even read what you post? You get to complain when you have a fully-supported army but I don't? Your investment matters, but mine doesn't? That's beyond hypocritical. I'm done with you.

 sebster wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Did I say the other side was faster? Number of attacks isn't speed.

So attacks a humanoid can make 3 potentially lethal strikes in the time another humanoid makes one potentially lethal swing, but this isn’t because of speed. Or it might be some element of speed, separate from speed as it’s captured in WS and In. It might be aggression, and we’ll just choose to ignore that aggression is more likely to produce models who strike first, but doesn’t in WHFB, because reasons.

You could just as easily interpret it as one large strike that can kill roughly kill three guys. It doesn't have to be quick consecutive blows.
The main problem with the combat system it that it was fairly abstract. It needs a bit of interpretation.

There was one thing I always thought was backwards though, and that was how wounds were resolved. Like, shouldn't it be roll for armor THEN roll for damage? Maybe they were trying to copy DnD's saving throws or something.

As for agression, yes, it does increase the likelihood of striking first. Orcs even had a rule where they got +1 initiative on the charge. Keep in mind that blindly charging forward may open up a weak spot though, which could be exploited by a more quick-witted opponent though. Much like a marshal arts master against a drunk.

 sebster wrote:

Have you really not seen any bit of fiction, where spear wielding or even ranged weapon wielding soldiers were cut down by a swordsman, because they didn't react fast enough?

My entire post was 105 words, less than The Hungry Caterpillar, and you couldn’t manage to read it all before you got distracted. I’ll repeat my question, because hope springs eternal.
“Just ask yourself if you've ever heard of a combat, either in the real world or in any fantasy series, that described one side having the advantage of attacking first, not because of weapons like spears, but because they had better 'reactions'. Then it described the other side making more attacks per model, because they were 'faster' despite their slower reactions. And after that happened, then the first side suddenly got their 'reaction' advantage back again.”

I did read your post, and I gave my answer. The answer was "most fights in fiction"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:


In the WHFB ruleset, a good weapon doesn’t even help. It isn’t a factor at all in determining who goes first.

That's not entirely true. There are some weapons that modify when you get to attack.
Some weapons gave an ini bonus, some reduced initiative in exchange for more strength.

And weapons do help. Do mean to tell me that you never benefited from the strength bonus provided by halberds, or the extra Attacks given by spears?


The three stats are differentiated.
Initiative is when you get to attack, attacks was how much damage you could potentially deal and WS was your likelihood of hitting. Those seem pretty different to me.

I agree with CthuluIsSpy, but.. truth to be told, I wish any game system other than RPGs like DnD* and Pathfinder* took in account the advantage of a weapon with reach.

I mean about the "who strikes first". In the old WFB, I could have seen in the old WFB, say, cavalry take sort of "impact blows" (on the other way around) because they charcged a pikewall


* In those, at least in some version, if you charge an enemy with a "reach advantage" (is bigger, has a polearm) you generally get struck once (or more with specific character builds) unless you are very good in tumbling or dodging blows. Now, the scale level for a wargame is totally different, but you see the point I hope.

In a mass battle game, which theoretically models the behavour of hundreds or thousands of troops, close attention to initiative adn weapon length is far too detailed. It's worth doing in a skirmish game with only a few models interacting at any time.

AoS potentially has pretty large numbers of interactions, since most units are 6 to 12 figures but easily can number over 30 (Skinks, for example.) I think that's too many troops to count initiative, and I think the stat line in AoS is already too long even without adding another factor.

In the case of large, powerful models, it doesn't seem right that they would be able to deliver several attacks simultaneously.

All 3 stats could have been a single stat or at best two, but if we go minimalist WS, S, T, I, A, Save could be rolled into either one or two stats.

The main problem with all GW lines comes down to design indecision, what are these games? the have the numbers of mass battles and the rules (and stats) for skirmish heroic combat and set on a table suitable for large skirmish games, two elements that should be mutually exclusive set on a board that is either too small or kinda big for either design direction (and the 30mm minis are not really suitable for massed combat but hey).

The "squatting" discussion is a really important discussion we should do, but I am afraid most of us does not really have the experience for it.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In a mass battle game, which theoretically models the behavour of hundreds or thousands of troops, close attention to initiative adn weapon length is far too detailed. It's worth doing in a skirmish game with only a few models interacting at any time.

AoS potentially has pretty large numbers of interactions, since most units are 6 to 12 figures but easily can number over 30 (Skinks, for example.) I think that's too many troops to count initiative, and I think the stat line in AoS is already too long even without adding another factor.

In the case of large, powerful models, it doesn't seem right that they would be able to deliver several attacks simultaneously.

Are you sure is that difficult? I mean think about WFB. Would have been so difficult to handle

"Units with spears and halberds add +1 to their initiative in the turn they receive a charge from cavalry".

I ask, mind it - maybe there is some clunkiness I ignored, I did not think this through.

Yes, it could work that way. That's not the way I would do it since my expectation is that when hundreds of men are fighting, all of the men on one side won't go before all of the men on the other side.

For example, in WRG Ancients, units with halberds and other such two handed cut and thrust pole arms (2HCT weapons) give a -1 DRM to the attack factor of anyone facing them. This is based on the idea that the extra reach of pole arms and their ability to chop the head off enemy weapons, give a slight advantage. Spears get a +1 factor against cavalry, and Pikes +2 (or something, I can't remember the details...) because cavalry don't like charging into a bristling wall of spikes.

However this system does not allow side 1 to kill hundreds of side 2 before side 2 gets a hack back, which is what happens in games like WHFB which have a definite strike rank based on initiative.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, it could work that way. That's not the way I would do it since my expectation is that when hundreds of men are fighting, all of the men on one side won't go before all of the men on the other side.

For example, in WRG Ancients, units with halberds and other such two handed cut and thrust pole arms (2HCT weapons) give a -1 DRM to the attack factor of anyone facing them. This is based on the idea that the extra reach of pole arms and their ability to chop the head off enemy weapons, give a slight advantage. Spears get a +1 factor against cavalry, and Pikes +2 (or something, I can't remember the details...) because cavalry don't like charging into a bristling wall of spikes.

However this system does not allow side 1 to kill hundreds of side 2 before side 2 gets a hack back, which is what happens in games like WHFB which have a definite strike rank based on initiative.

I am curious now - if you do not consider this a derail, could you care to elaborate the DRM thing? And what is a "factor"?

I'll check the rules tonight before I answer, as it's years since I played.

Does discussion of discontinued factions really fit this thread? I thought this was to discuss mechanics issues in AoS?

Following the discussion on polearms, since AoS seems to be more skirmish focused, I would approach it from that angle. GW trying to do "mass battles" has always been a mess (Your horde unit has 50 members? WTF?). The question should probably be looked at from the perspective of giving them a niche without overpowering all other choices (even though, historically, that's pretty much what they did :-)). Maybe something like +1 Init and if they don't move other than to change facing and additional +1 S to charges to the front. Pikes would probably be +2 and +2.

"Units with spears and halberds add +1 to their initiative in the turn they receive a charged from cavalry".

I'm actually kind of surprised that the spear units don't get a bonus to receiving charges in AoS. The only bonus that most of these units gain is a bonus to the number of ranks that can fight. Maybe that's a legacy of WFB, or not wanting to have too many conditional bonuses.

In comparison, lance armed cavalry does get a bonus when it charges (although cav with swords doesn't get a charging bonus).

Of course it was either "receive a charge" or "are charged" Edited!

But as a general rule, one should decide what weapons and armours (the latter are more intuitive) are supposed to do.

There should be a difference if a weapon is one or two handed?
There should be a difference if the weapon is a polearm?
There should be a difference if the shield is greater or smaller?
There should be a difference if the same one-handed weapon is an axe or a sword (hopefully not implemented like in the often house-ruled awful hobbit SBG weapon rules).

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Do you even read what you post? You get to complain when you have a fully-supported army but I don't? Your investment matters, but mine doesn't? That's beyond hypocritical. I'm done with you.

No I said I don't desire to play the game anymore when AoS came to be. It's not a game for me. I said I was a fantasy player and I don't want to play AoS. It's a game made with me not in mind. Also they murdered a setting. I see myself as a Warhammer Fantasy player not as a Skaven player. You fail to realize that.

Also I never said you don't get to complain I just feel I have the right to complain as well. Sides if they killed off skaven as I said I would be pissed but I'd have moved on to vampire counts. AoS is a game I have zero interest in and far as I'm concerned fantasy is dead even with AoS around. I have zero interest to play it and I tried but I just don't want to play it. At this point I don't even care anymore. I may as well just sell my models.

I understand maybe you can just brush it off but it's just tougher to me. It was my favorite fantasy setting. Everybody has a favorite and for me that was it. It actually made me want to consider never buying from GW again. It's not like this is the first time they've burned the customers just never to that degree.

 jmurph wrote:
Does discussion of discontinued factions really fit this thread? I thought this was to discuss mechanics issues in AoS?

Yes and no.

it is not directly related to the rules (other than how poorly the discontinued factions were supported) but one cannot look at AoS in Isolation, some of its aspects are pure rules, bit others are how fluff is translated into rules.

For people wanting some more detail on combat in WRG Ancients, here is a very brief overview of 6th edition (1980.)

Troops are defined by their training and morale class, armour class, type (cavalry, infantry, etc.) and weapons carried.

Each weapon type has a basic combat factor against each armour class and troop type and formation. For instance, Pike or Long Thrusting Spear is 3 against Super Heavy Knights, 4 against Extra Heavy Knights, 5 against Heavy Cavalry, 2 against Heavy Infantry, 3 against Medium Infantry.

If charging, Pikes count the first two ranks, and half the third and fourth ranks as fighting. Spears count the first rank and half the second rank.

You then add Tactical Factors, for example (not complete list):

Steady Pikes or Long Spears receiving Impetuous Cavalry +1
Advancing downhill +1

Facing Pikes and not equipped with Pikes or LTS -1
Facing Two Handed Cut and Thrust pole arms, -1

You then add a random factor. For Regulars this is +1DA (Average Die 2,3,3,4,4,5) -1DA. For Irregulars it is +1D6 -1DA.
A and B class troops count a roll under -1 as -1.
C class count the roll as taken.
D class count a roll abover +1 as +1.

This gives you a total combat factor of the weapon factor +/- tactical and random factors.

You cross-reference this on a chart against the number of figures fighting, and read off the number of casualties. 20 casualties = 1 figure removed.

As you can see, this system works completely differently to AoS. Its disadvantage is that there is more work involved in learning it, but once learnt it is quicker to use, which is a boon for games with large numbers of figures involved. AoS when played at 30 to 50 figures a side is a much smaller game than a typical mass battle game.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
For people wanting some more detail on combat in WRG Ancients, here is a very brief overview of 6th edition (1980.)

Troops are defined by their training and morale class, armour class, type (cavalry, infantry, etc.) and weapons carried.

Each weapon type has a basic combat factor against each armour class and troop type and formation. For instance, Pike or Long Thrusting Spear is 3 against Super Heavy Knights, 4 against Extra Heavy Knights, 5 against Heavy Cavalry, 2 against Heavy Infantry, 3 against Medium Infantry.

If charging, Pikes count the first two ranks, and half the third and fourth ranks as fighting. Spears count the first rank and half the second rank.

You then add Tactical Factors, for example (not complete list):

Steady Pikes or Long Spears receiving Impetuous Cavalry +1
Advancing downhill +1

Facing Pikes and not equipped with Pikes or LTS -1
Facing Two Handed Cut and Thrust pole arms, -1

You then add a random factor. For Regulars this is +1DA (Average Die 2,3,3,4,4,5) -1DA. For Irregulars it is +1D6 -1DA.
A and B class troops count a roll under -1 as -1.
C class count the roll as taken.
D class count a roll abover +1 as +1.

This gives you a total combat factor of the weapon factor +/- tactical and random factors.

You cross-reference this on a chart against the number of figures fighting, and read off the number of casualties. 20 casualties = 1 figure removed.

As you can see, this system works completely differently to AoS. Its disadvantage is that there is more work involved in learning it, but once learnt it is quicker to use, which is a boon for games with large numbers of figures involved. AoS when played at 30 to 50 figures a side is a much smaller game than a typical mass battle game.

Thanks! It takes in account and compares a lot of factors, more than I am accustomed to

 jmurph wrote:
Does discussion of discontinued factions really fit this thread? I thought this was to discuss mechanics issues in AoS?

No it does not.

Super Heavy Knights v. Extra Heavy Knights v. Heavy Cavalry? Yikes! Heavy/Medium/Light infantry also seems a bit too granular.

What time period does this ruleset cover? I am curious why it needs to make such divisions. I would think that most ancient infantry would be skirmishers, infantry (usually little to no armor, but fight in formation), or heavy infantry (anything with significant armor). In terms of battlefield role, ancient generals would probably have grouped them more by how they fought- light infantry being the skirmishers and open order fighters, heavy infantry being the battle line formations. Not sure how you would distinguish "medium"- perhaps they consider the skirmishers "light", unarmored infantry as "medium", and armored as "heavy"?.

From an ancient's player point of view, Warhammer always struck me as a skirmish game. By that I meant that it is/was small scale (the wider wargaming community has a slightly different definition). Resolving individual attacks, the exact equipment and number of "men" never seemed like a mass battle game.

Ancients did though, where similar weapons are lumped together into troop types, there are no characters (generals provide moral, organization and small combat benefits) each base (several figures on the same base represents the smallest body of men) was clearly represents many men (usually around 50 men per figure) and (importantly) combat is very abstract, which makes troops feel and act like a representation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jmurph wrote:
Super Heavy Knights v. Extra Heavy Knights v. Heavy Cavalry? Yikes! Heavy/Medium/Light infantry also seems a bit too granular.

It's about standard for ancients, which usually covers from when armies became a thing to the advent of gunpowder.

WRG Ancients -- more properly War Game Rules, 3000 BC to 1485 AD, cover the period from the earliert documentary evidence of organised warfare to the end ot the Wars of the Roses, chosen because the author is ENglish and it roughly marks the end of the pre-gunpowder phase of warfare.

The armour classes are:

Super Heavy = clad more or less head to toe in rigid metal armour. Fight in close formation. Example: Late mediaeval knights in full plate, Parthian cataphracts.
Extra Heavy = clad more or less head to toe in chainmail, scale or equivalent, or partial plate plus thick non-metallic armour. Fight in close formation. Example: knights of about 1300 AD. Front rank billmen or pikemen of 15th century.
Heavy = half clad in metal armour, such as Early Imperial Roman Legionaries, Norman knights, mid-15th century longbowmen. Fight in close formation.
Light Heavy = Heavies who fight in an open formation, such as Early Imperial Roman auxiliaries.
Medium = Clad in partial non-metallic armour or none, perhaps with metal helmets and greaves. Examples: Late Greek hoplites who wore the linen cuirass. Mediaeval militia with a mixture of armour but not enought to count as heavy. Fight in close formation.
Light Medium. As Medium but fighting in open formation.
Light. Skrimished in little or no armour.

SHK = mounted SH knights. Dismounted knights become SHI (Infantry.)
HC = Heavy Cavalry.
and so on for the other armour classes. Artillery, elephants, and war wagons are different. Camelry and Chariotry count the same as their Cavalry equivalents.

This may seem too granular, but there are other rules for ancients that do it differently. For example, De Bellis Antiquitatis (WRG, 1990) classifies troops by formation and function, ignoring armour. in DBA, a dismounted SHI is a "Blade" unit, the same as a Roman Legionary or a New Kingdom Egyptian axe man.

in WRG Ancients's defence, there are some periods such as 15th century, when a battlefield might genuinely see knights in full plate, billmen in half plate, archers in chainmail hauberks. town militia in padded gambesons and helmets, and light troops with little or nothing to protect themselves. The designers thought these differences were worth expressing in the rules.

To relate this back to the topic, in AoS troops are not classified at all. They simply have stats of movement and To Save. There aren't any formations, so that bit is irrelevant.

I think that classification speaks to a rather technological understanding, which is appropriate to historical subjects - but not really necessary for the fantastical.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
You could just as easily interpret it as one large strike that can kill roughly kill three guys. It doesn't have to be quick consecutive blows.

In some cases it could be, such as ogres, and in other cases it could represent having multiple ways to attack, such as a hydra. But in many cases the model with multiple attacks was a humanoid, with slightly above average strength, and nothing to indicate

The main problem with the combat system it that it was fairly abstract. It needs a bit of interpretation.

Yeah, it was fairly abstract in a simulation sense, but quite detailed in a rules sense, with 4 stats involved in attack and 4 stats involved in defence, with special rules added on top of that. It was hardly a big problem, and WHFB had so many other strengths that it didn't matter much, but it was clearly a bit of nonsense design and it shouldn't have been a surprise when they finally moved to something simpler and cleaner.

There was one thing I always thought was backwards though, and that was how wounds were resolved. Like, shouldn't it be roll for armor THEN roll for damage? Maybe they were trying to copy DnD's saving throws or something.

Yeah, I understand why they wanted the other player to get to roll a 'saving throw', to have some feel over whether his soldier's lived or died. But why it had to be an 'armour save' and not a 'toughness save' is the weird one. Have the attacker roll to hit and to beat armour, then have the target roll to see if his toughness saves him.

I did read your post, and I gave my answer. The answer was "most fights in fiction"

Seriously, name a fight in any fiction in which they said 'this guy had better reactions and so he got the first attack in, but missed because he wasn't as skillful, then the other guy attacked with more skill, and also made more attacks in the same time, but then after those attacks the first guy's reactions helped him get a new attack in.'

That's obviously a very specific example, but I'm willing to work with you here. Just give me a combat in any fantasy fiction which differentiates reactions, weapon skill and frequency of attacks. In even the most general sense.

Afterall, if you think that describes most fights in fiction, then you'll have no problem describing one of them.

That's not entirely true. There are some weapons that modify when you get to attack.
Some weapons gave an ini bonus, some reduced initiative in exchange for more strength.

Okay yes, two handed weapons mean you go last, and some magic weapons give a bonus to initiative. But those are minor exceptions to a very strange part of the rules - the general principle for everything else, swords, hand weapons, spears, halberds, flails... is that they don't impact initiative at all, it is all down to the initiative of the creature.

And weapons do help. Do mean to tell me that you never benefited from the strength bonus provided by halberds, or the extra Attacks given by spears?

You've misread. We were talking about who goes first in combat, you said a good weapon helps but it isn't an auto-win. I said a good weapon doesn't even help - a spear doesn't help you go first in any way.

Initiative is when you get to attack, attacks was how much damage you could potentially deal and WS was your likelihood of hitting. Those seem pretty different to me.

Those are mechanical differences. Obviously the stats have mechanical differences. The point is that those mechanical differences represent nothing meaningful in how combat actually works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
Are you sure is that difficult? I mean think about WFB. Would have been so difficult to handle

"Units with spears and halberds add +1 to their initiative in the turn they receive a charge from cavalry".

I ask, mind it - maybe there is some clunkiness I ignored, I did not think this through.

It's clunky because there's potentially 10 individual ranks of action for each combat. Actually there's 12 if you include ASF and ASL. In reasonably complex combat with multiple characters and a few unique types, there's a bit of time spent going 'anyone at In 7? No, okay anyone at In 6? Okay, you've got two guys and I've got 1. You roll first...'

Having a rule that modifies some of Initiative stats in some circumstances isn't too much more detail in itself, but it is adding more detail on to an already creaky system.

Consider instead that there's no initiative stat. Everyone strikes at once, except for some models and some weapons that get a Strikes First rule, and some models and some weapons get a Strikes Last rule. Then you could say that spears receive Strikes First against models that charged that turn.

 DarkBlack wrote:
From an ancient's player point of view, Warhammer always struck me as a skirmish game. By that I meant that it is/was small scale (the wider wargaming community has a slightly different definition). Resolving individual attacks, the exact equipment and number of "men" never seemed like a mass battle game.

If you wanted an issue with GW rules in general, this might be a good one too: the rules writers (or the ones cutting their paychecks, depending on your level of cynicism) seem to want big massive scrums with dragons and giant tanks and robots, but they also want you to keep track of which exact Guardsman is carrying the Codpiece of Ollanius Pius and where he's standing in relation to his squadmates.

And arguably, I'd say that lack of overall vision is what hurts AoS: you have rules that are meant to completely upend the teatable (going from mass-battle rank and flank to loose formation skirmish) but include weird concessions to legacy players that are detrimental to the experience (measuring from models instead of bases), a game that's meant to be casual/non-competitive but requires either a lot of playtesting and army tuning with your buddy or good system mastery to set up games that aren't one-sided stomps, and trying to do a Warmahordes/Malifaux-style game without really understanding the rules framework that makes those games work.

 Manchu wrote:
I think that classification speaks to a rather technological understanding, which is appropriate to historical subjects - but not really necessary for the fantastical.

I agree. If anything, the more fantastical the fantasy rules are, the better, otherwise all you have is a mediaeval wargame with whacky figures.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I think that classification speaks to a rather technological understanding, which is appropriate to historical subjects - but not really necessary for the fantastical.

I agree. If anything, the more fantastical the fantasy rules are, the better, otherwise all you have is a mediaeval wargame with whacky figures.

IMO, there's a gamut of rules for fantasy. From flying elephants to fully-chromed chromey dragons. I would not be opposed to a medieval wargame with flying elephants.

The fantasy variant of WRG Ancients counted a Dragon as a flying elephant armed with a fire syphon.

Of course, there is a limit how far you can deviate away from the basic battle format before you don't have a war game any more.

My thoughts are coming out slowly this morning.

What I mean is, you can take WRG Ancients and just put Orcs and Elves and so on into it, and rate their armour and so on by the historical rules. Use say the Crusader army list for Elves, and the Aztec list for ORcs, or whatever. A giant dinosaur can be an elephant. And so on.

You can add specific fantastic rules, such as the ability to affect weather, perhaps, or the ability to raise dead units as zombies.

But once you get to the point of actual armies being useless, you don't have a battle game that recreates fights as seen in LotR and Narnia. Maybe you've got a kind of skirmish game like AoS or Of Gods And Mortals.

Too true. I just like the consistency of Monsters as elephants and flying elephants rules-wise, even if the Fluff description varies by army faction.