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.

In this blog post I discuss the perceived lack of tactics within AOS and how I feel that there are plenty of tactics - at least under my definition of tactics - https://hobbykiller.wordpress.com/2015/08/03/age-of-sigmar-theres-no-tactics-right/

Aos? Tactics? I walk forward, shoot my bows that hurt everything the same, summon more stuff, and my stuff regenerates for me because free banners. Win.

 krodarklorr wrote:
Aos? Tactics? I walk forward, shoot my bows that hurt everything the same, summon more stuff, and my stuff regenerates for me because free banners. Win.

Lol my net lists don't auto win anymore and I have to actually think about tactics a nd strategies rofls

 Motograter wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
Aos? Tactics? I walk forward, shoot my bows that hurt everything the same, summon more stuff, and my stuff regenerates for me because free banners. Win.

Lol my net lists don't auto win anymore and I have to actually think about tactics a nd strategies rofls

I kind of find that hard to believe. It's not like to have certain weapons that kill certain things better, or having your shooty guys "locked" in combat is a bad thing, or that magic is hard to cast (it's also very straight forward. Imma shoot you with dis spell, or imma give me +1 save. woop)

Good post. How you spread your units out should also matter, and what you choose to charge. Being locked in combat seems like it's a very big thing, as is being able to bring your models to bear to actually make attacks. Unfortunately the pile in rule being a bit odd and fuzzy makes it tricky to know how you're meant to play that part, and that will have an impact on how the tactics work out.

 krodarklorr wrote:
Aos? Tactics? I walk forward, shoot my bows that hurt everything the same, summon more stuff, and my stuff regenerates for me because free banners. Win.

Can't even begin to figure out a response to this that doesn't sound abusive.
But you're wrong.

RoperPG wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
Aos? Tactics? I walk forward, shoot my bows that hurt everything the same, summon more stuff, and my stuff regenerates for me because free banners. Win.

Can't even begin to figure out a response to this that doesn't sound abusive.
But you're wrong.

I mean, I very well could be. But from my experience so far, there seems to be no tactics, or a lack of compared to 40k. It could be the game, or it could be my army.

 krodarklorr wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
Aos? Tactics? I walk forward, shoot my bows that hurt everything the same, summon more stuff, and my stuff regenerates for me because free banners. Win.

Can't even begin to figure out a response to this that doesn't sound abusive.
But you're wrong.

I mean, I very well could be. But from my experience so far, there seems to be no tactics, or a lack of compared to 40k. It could be the game, or it could be my army.

could be you :/ -- I have experienced some lovely tactics from my opponents but I find synergies in AoS far more appealing now (mixing different units up for weird blobs of power, Celestial Hurricanum + dwarf engineer/empire engineer + steam tank/dwarf war machines = magic/cannon doom blob)

I played against someone recently who used a lot of flying swarm units that held my force as a buffer (foolishly I kept fighting them) and simply walked his main damage dealers to take out my heroes and wizards, suffice to say running away would have made sense :/... he even surrounded my river trolls so I could not run away and simply shot at them from afar which was neat, made me rethink on swarms being useless.

on that note is anyone attempting to make an all flying army? nothing but aerial units

Some general Tactics

1)Flank charges are still important as your opponent will get less attacks back on you depending on the shape of his line
2)Opening stages of the fight buff one infantry unit up with inspiring presence and mystic shield and tempt battle with a single unit
3)Get your large units to hurt many other units at once quickly
4)Hold units behind your lines to plug gaps and respond trouble behind the line
5)Soften up powerful units with shooting, any shooting that dosnt need line of sight and can shoot over the battle is really powerful
6)have units in your army with the intention of killing hero's as quickly as possible.

How the Skaven would use these tactics

1)Clan-rats with rusty blades and rat ogres are perfect for flank charges, retreat and flank charge can work well depending on the shape of the opponents lines
2)Again Buff up said clan-rats or rat ogres with mystic shield and inspiring presence, that way 30/4 of them can keep the enemy pinned whilst you maneuver.
3)large units of clan-rats with spears are perfect for this where as storm vermin are over kill and will probably draw too much attention in the front lines, damage buffs like gnash-gnaw on there bones will help considerably
4)Storm vermin are great to hold behind the lines to smash your opponent at the right time whilst staying out of direct line of sight for shooting.
5)Poison wind mortar's and plague claw catapults are perfect for this unless your playing nurgle.....need i say more
6)Stormfiends and jezzails are go to hero killers, line em up and knock em down.

We have found that AOS has lots of tactics and strategy to it. Small games have been made a bit longer as people try to think of what they should do.

For example, what units should assault and when, and if multiple assaults are going on (last night we had three over two different objectives), what unit should you attack with first? If I used Krog-Gar first, her response would probably be a Mounted High Elf Lord mashing in Gor-Rok's face in a different combat...

I held off buying the book until this past Saturday, the scenarios and rules (including world and terrain rules) add so much.

The simplified move, shoot, etc, comment can also be applied to any game, including 8th edition fantasy. That's what gamers do in 99% of all games out there.

Strategy comes in when you have unique rules (units do, terrain does, etc), synergy with army units (yep we've got that too), scenarios (yep, we've got that... well if you bought them), and an opponent that is pretty witty with his force as well. The assault rules create situations where you must think and be smart about your choices with multiple units/flanking units and their melee range.

That's my opinion and experience.

bitethythumb wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
Aos? Tactics? I walk forward, shoot my bows that hurt everything the same, summon more stuff, and my stuff regenerates for me because free banners. Win.

Can't even begin to figure out a response to this that doesn't sound abusive.
But you're wrong.

I mean, I very well could be. But from my experience so far, there seems to be no tactics, or a lack of compared to 40k. It could be the game, or it could be my army.

could be you :/ -- I have experienced some lovely tactics from my opponents but I find synergies in AoS far more appealing now (mixing different units up for weird blobs of power, Celestial Hurricanum + dwarf engineer/empire engineer + steam tank/dwarf war machines = magic/cannon doom blob)

I played against someone recently who used a lot of flying swarm units that held my force as a buffer (foolishly I kept fighting them) and simply walked his main damage dealers to take out my heroes and wizards, suffice to say running away would have made sense :/... he even surrounded my river trolls so I could not run away and simply shot at them from afar which was neat, made me rethink on swarms being useless.

on that note is anyone attempting to make an all flying army? nothing but aerial units

So much tactics lol.

 Motograter wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
Aos? Tactics? I walk forward, shoot my bows that hurt everything the same, summon more stuff, and my stuff regenerates for me because free banners. Win.

Lol my net lists don't auto win anymore and I have to actually think about tactics a nd strategies rofls

take a unit of corrions. wait till turn 6. win by sudden death.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
Aos? Tactics? I walk forward, shoot my bows that hurt everything the same, summon more stuff, and my stuff regenerates for me because free banners. Win.

Can't even begin to figure out a response to this that doesn't sound abusive.
But you're wrong.

I mean, I very well could be. But from my experience so far, there seems to be no tactics, or a lack of compared to 40k. It could be the game, or it could be my army.

could be you :/ -- I have experienced some lovely tactics from my opponents but I find synergies in AoS far more appealing now (mixing different units up for weird blobs of power, Celestial Hurricanum + dwarf engineer/empire engineer + steam tank/dwarf war machines = magic/cannon doom blob)

I played against someone recently who used a lot of flying swarm units that held my force as a buffer (foolishly I kept fighting them) and simply walked his main damage dealers to take out my heroes and wizards, suffice to say running away would have made sense :/... he even surrounded my river trolls so I could not run away and simply shot at them from afar which was neat, made me rethink on swarms being useless.

on that note is anyone attempting to make an all flying army? nothing but aerial units

So much tactics lol.

I have played a few games and have not played tabletop games in almost a decade.... I am sorry if I did not write out an essay on tabletop AoS tactics, maybe next year.... by the way, you are the reason WHFB died...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Makumba wrote:

 Motograter wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
Aos? Tactics? I walk forward, shoot my bows that hurt everything the same, summon more stuff, and my stuff regenerates for me because free banners. Win.

Lol my net lists don't auto win anymore and I have to actually think about tactics a nd strategies rofls

take a unit of corrions. wait till turn 6. win by sudden death.

problem with that is the person who does that usually plays by himself and automatically loses

bitethythumb wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
Aos? Tactics? I walk forward, shoot my bows that hurt everything the same, summon more stuff, and my stuff regenerates for me because free banners. Win.

Can't even begin to figure out a response to this that doesn't sound abusive.
But you're wrong.

I mean, I very well could be. But from my experience so far, there seems to be no tactics, or a lack of compared to 40k. It could be the game, or it could be my army.

could be you :/ -- I have experienced some lovely tactics from my opponents but I find synergies in AoS far more appealing now (mixing different units up for weird blobs of power, Celestial Hurricanum + dwarf engineer/empire engineer + steam tank/dwarf war machines = magic/cannon doom blob)

I played against someone recently who used a lot of flying swarm units that held my force as a buffer (foolishly I kept fighting them) and simply walked his main damage dealers to take out my heroes and wizards, suffice to say running away would have made sense :/... he even surrounded my river trolls so I could not run away and simply shot at them from afar which was neat, made me rethink on swarms being useless.

on that note is anyone attempting to make an all flying army? nothing but aerial units

So much tactics lol.

I have played a few games and have not played tabletop games in almost a decade.... I am sorry if I did not write out an essay on tabletop AoS tactics, maybe next year....

It's not about writing essays and as far as the topic of tactics in AoS go, said essay could end up exceptionaly short heh

Anyway it's about how unimpressive depth wise are the tactics you describe. Don't worry though you are not alone, every practical example I read so far in this thread or elsewhere was basic rts-like point and click stuff stuff plus some basic formation shenaningans. Example, the poster above you, as an example of how tactical AoS is, writes "what units should assault and when... what unit should you attack with first". The poster before on a short list of general tactics mentions softening powerful units with shooting(!), again choosing what to attack with what and having an unit behind the lines for support, not to mention how said poster compares hard bonuses from flanking to situational use of the fact that sometimes you can run out of place for more models in the moshpit.

All that is basic stuff and just as many people said before comes down to target priority, special rules interactions and attacking order. That is some tactics because just having different unit types warrants some but practicaly every moderatly serious game out there, no matter skirmish or unit based offers significantly more. To add insult to injury, some things like getting out of combat or shooting from cc are silly and immersion breaking.

I look forward to your answer hoping that this time it won't contain barely covered insults followed by attempts to put a spin and portray yourself as the victim, like in other threads.

by the way, you are the reason WHFB died.

Elaborte please.

It's not about writing essays and as far as the topic of tactics in AoS go, said essay could end up exceptionaly short heh

right because a month old game is going to have a lot of replies, did you even read the blog posted?.. I am no tactical expert and I believe has plenty of tactics, I mean compared to WHFB what tactics are actually lacking in AoS?... you can do almost EVERYTHING you could in WHFB :/

Anyway it's about how unimpressive depth wise are the tactics you describe. Don't worry though you are not alone, every practical example I read so far in this thread or elsewhere was basic rts-like point and click stuff stuff plus some basic formation shenaningans. Example, the poster above you, as an example of how tactical AoS is, writes "what units should assault and when... what unit should you attack with first". The poster before on a short list of general tactics mentions softening powerful units with shooting(!), again choosing what to attack with what and having an unit behind the lines for support, not to mention how said poster compares hard bonuses from flanking to situational use of the fact that sometimes you can run out of place for more models in the moshpit.

and there is the root of your anger, flanking... there is no flanking in AoS, heck all flanking did was give extra +1 to combat (or something like that, which lacks immersion, surely it should do mroe) I mean seriously you just described every WHFB game, ever it has always been a point and click game style... just because there is no flanking does not mean there are no tactics... the user above me pointed out several tactics including how flanking still mattered and the tactical use of environment, scenery, synergies (which is also tactics, like it or not) etc.. but they are all wrong because "lol, aos has no tactics"


#

All that is basic stuff and just as many people said before comes down to target priority, special rules interactions and attacking order.

lets not forget, movement, positioning, environment, scenery etc..

That is some tactics because just having different unit types warrants some but practicaly every moderatly serious game out there, no matter skirmish or unit based offers significantly more.

you have not described any or pointed out any "better" tactics that have not been explained... please do tell me what actual tactics are "missing" and cannot be recreated in AoS and that are wholly different from what you describe.

To add insult to injury, some things like getting out of combat or shooting from cc are silly and immersion breaking.

getting out of combat and shooting into CC is immersion breaking? its more realistic that way... historically it has happened PLENTY of times :/ it enhances immersion and gives more TACTICS.

I look forward to your answer hoping that this time it won't contain barely covered insults followed by attempts to put a spin and portray yourself as the victim, like in other threads.

condescending much?

--- like it or not AoS has plenty of tactics but you just fail to see and look at them and you resort to spamming " So much tactics lol. " that do nothing for the conversationg, what I explained was "tactics" apparently it was not good enough for your mighty brain and therefore you laughed at me and my comment... but its me who insults :/

I am not an expert in giving the tactical side as I was never a serious gamer but I have seen plenty of people do things and funnily they play more or less like WHFB :/ the only difference is the lack of some rules like flanking but they have added more tactics with things like shooting into CC and escaping from combat, which enhances immersion and tactics... but you disagree and will say I am wrong.

---

so please, tell me, what is actually lacking in AoS compared to previous edition that cannot be recreated? flanking? still happens.. just no bonus, ranked combat? what else exactly is missing that makes it less tactical? go on I am watiing for a bigger condescending reply from you.

I find it helpful to play the game with a positive attitude, as silly as that sounds. But really, how many of the naysayers put their models down, expected an awful game, pushed their models towards eachother till stuff was dead and said this game sucks!

Well, i can do that in any game. Pretty easy to start a video game and play it without caring or trying to make any good decisions, then get frustrated at the game and blame it for your own, self created failure. A person could ignore the fact they can jump in a mario game, how fun is that mario game going to be for that person? I feel like some people have crossed from simple dislike of the game to forcibly demonstrating to themselves that it's bad by not even honestly trying, and then proclaiming it's the game's fault they hated it.

My first game was against an opponent who i feel wasnt all that into it from the start, and as a result not many tactics were displayed, and it did feel like a silly scrum in the centre. But i recognized that it was because the player didn't care about the game or maybe just didn't know what he could do. When your opponent just moves what they brought straight at you, you're not left with many options, and it takes from the experience. It's hard to enjoy a game of smash bros if your opponent is careless and just moving towards you spamming the same move over and over again. They're wrecking the game by purposefully ignoring the fact that they could make better decisions if they actually bothered to care.

Having said that alot of things could be more straightforward and the tactics could be revealed in more depth. However as i have a great group to play with, we get excited and actively talk about possible tactics. I can imagine alot of people dont have that luxury and simply see the game as simple and wanting.

bitethythumb wrote:

It's not about writing essays and as far as the topic of tactics in AoS go, said essay could end up exceptionaly short heh

right because a month old game is going to have a lot of replies, did you even read the blog posted?.. I am no tactical expert and I believe has plenty of tactics, I mean compared to WHFB what tactics are actually lacking in AoS?... you can do almost EVERYTHING you could in WHFB :/

Anyway it's about how unimpressive depth wise are the tactics you describe. Don't worry though you are not alone, every practical example I read so far in this thread or elsewhere was basic rts-like point and click stuff stuff plus some basic formation shenaningans. Example, the poster above you, as an example of how tactical AoS is, writes "what units should assault and when... what unit should you attack with first". The poster before on a short list of general tactics mentions softening powerful units with shooting(!), again choosing what to attack with what and having an unit behind the lines for support, not to mention how said poster compares hard bonuses from flanking to situational use of the fact that sometimes you can run out of place for more models in the moshpit.

and there is the root of your anger, flanking... there is no flanking in AoS, heck all flanking did was give extra +1 to combat (or something like that, which lacks immersion, surely it should do mroe) I mean seriously you just described every WHFB game, ever it has always been a point and click game style... just because there is no flanking does not mean there are no tactics... the user above me pointed out several tactics including how flanking still mattered and the tactical use of environment, scenery, synergies (which is also tactics, like it or not) etc.. but they are all wrong because "lol, aos has no tactics"


#

All that is basic stuff and just as many people said before comes down to target priority, special rules interactions and attacking order.

lets not forget, movement, positioning, environment, scenery etc..

That is some tactics because just having different unit types warrants some but practicaly every moderatly serious game out there, no matter skirmish or unit based offers significantly more.

you have not described any or pointed out any "better" tactics that have not been explained... please do tell me what actual tactics are "missing" and cannot be recreated in AoS and that are wholly different from what you describe.

To add insult to injury, some things like getting out of combat or shooting from cc are silly and immersion breaking.

getting out of combat and shooting into CC is immersion breaking? its more realistic that way... historically it has happened PLENTY of times :/ it enhances immersion and gives more TACTICS.

I look forward to your answer hoping that this time it won't contain barely covered insults followed by attempts to put a spin and portray yourself as the victim, like in other threads.

condescending much?

--- like it or not AoS has plenty of tactics but you just fail to see and look at them and you resort to spamming " So much tactics lol. " that do nothing for the conversationg, what I explained was "tactics" apparently it was not good enough for your mighty brain and therefore you laughed at me and my comment... but its me who insults :/

I am not an expert in giving the tactical side as I was never a serious gamer but I have seen plenty of people do things and funnily they play more or less like WHFB :/ the only difference is the lack of some rules like flanking but they have added more tactics with things like shooting into CC and escaping from combat, which enhances immersion and tactics... but you disagree and will say I am wrong.

---

so please, tell me, what is actually lacking in AoS compared to previous edition that cannot be recreated? flanking? still happens.. just no bonus, ranked combat? what else exactly is missing that makes it less tactical? go on I am watiing for a bigger condescending reply from you.

I already told you that what you describe is tactics but just basic. What do other games have that AoS don't? Man. Unit based have manouvering that matters, skirmish based have hundreds of options, idk things like throws in warmachine, directional combat, detailed interactions. I can make you a list if you want but maybe just respect my time and admit that AoS is barebones from every perspective because that's an objective fact.

Flanking makes a world of difference. Pitched quasi medieval battles are not super complicated affairs when simulated on the tabletop and rules should actualy try to add layers of tactical play even slightly artificial ones. AoS on the other hand cuts out even the last sources of meaningful manouvering and no, what the other poster described as flanking in AoS is not valid and not comparable to a proper bonus that gets units flee the battlefield after a rear charge. It wasn't perfect in whfb ofc it wasn't actualy the most tactical game out there (especialy 8th) but it was worlds better still. It also wasn't point and click, have you played 7th? Obviously some matchups and lists required less tactical play but such is a nature of every game that allows gunlines, artillery etc.

I was talking about shooting out of cc which is ridiculous. Shooting into cc is ok. Getting out of combat without penalty is immersion breaking and silly for me, yes.

Yes I'm not nice either, I can be a nasty poster especialy when someone gets on my nerves and I admit that. I didn't like the way you posted somewhere else where you were throwing fools at people also you already said afair that you will love duarin and other new models without even seeing them and there you go. My short lol comment was in the tone of earlier comment from mr. Motograter and you got on recieving end of it, sorry that's actualy crap but we are discussing in this stupid camps now somehow and it can get out of hand. Anyway apologies and let's start fresh, I'm not saying you can't enjoy AoS or that it's completly devoid of tactics, I just think it's significantly dumbed down vs almost everything on the market and whfb.

I already told you that what you describe is tactics but just basic.

I disagree

What do other games have that AoS don't? Man. Unit based have manouvering that matters,

How does movement in AoS not matter exactly? it matters a lot...

skirmish based have hundreds of options, idk things like throws in warmachine,

throws? only certain units in warmachine have throws, that is more or less like special rules in AoS units :/... trolls have vomit, carrions have fly, scorpions have from beneath, I could list them all but time and all that.

directional combat, detailed interactions

time wasteful and forces people to model their miniatures in particular way which is restrictive.... like swarms for example, how does that affect them... and what do you mean by detailed interactions?

. I can make you a list if you want but maybe just respect my time and admit that AoS is barebones from every perspective because that's an objective fact.

of course its barebones but that does not mean it lacks "tactics"... chess is barebones, backgammon is barebones (and I love backgammon) and checkers is barebones, you get the point (I had an idea with a buddy where we replaced chess pieces with warhammer ones and players on a large chess board with chess rules, was the most tactical skilled miniature game we have ever played, zero randomness... all skill we even went a bit further and gave all the squares properties to enhance the game, like immunity etc... was fun, kinda made us want to make a LARGER chess styled game played with miniatures... then he left the country and I was sad making it myself :( )

Flanking makes a world of difference. Pitched quasi medieval battles are not super complicated affairs when simulated on the tabletop and rules should actualy try to add layers of tactical play even slightly artificial ones.

as does leaving CC combat

AoS on the other hand cuts out even the last sources of meaningful manouvering and no, what the other poster described as flanking in AoS is not valid and not comparable to a proper bonus that gets units flee the battlefield after a rear charge.

why would they flee after a rear charge? and why does it need to give a bonus to make it tactical? just by blocking their escape route is tactical enough, like I explained I was surrounded and could not flee and was fired into until I died, that makes flanking important as it blocks escape routes... instead of just making me auto flee, I now have to play in a way as not to get surrounded... or get flanked as it will limit my ability to escape.

It wasn't perfect in whfb ofc it wasn't actualy the most tactical game out there (especialy 8th) but it was worlds better still. It also wasn't point and click, have you played 7th? Obviously some matchups and lists required less tactical play but such is a nature of every game that allows gunlines, artillery etc.

I have not played wargames in YEARS, AoS brought me back simply because it was a fresh start and I liked the concept of their freedom, no longer am I bound by armies, I buy whatever models I like and use them, that to me is appealing.

I was talking about shooting out of cc which is ridiculous. Shooting into cc is ok. Getting out of combat without penalty is immersion breaking and silly for me, yes.

not sure if that is the rule, last I played we never shot out of CC bur we did shoot into CC which was fun... and if anything there is that "MOST IMPORTANT RULE" which people ignore, talk and make it better, if you do not like the idea of shooting out of cc... just play as such... its very easy to do, where is the rule exactly that says you can shoot out of CC, remember and absence of a rule is not a rule

Yes I'm not nice either, I can be a nasty poster especialy when someone gets on my nerves and I admit that.

so you are a khorne love child?

I didn't like the way you posted somewhere else where you were throwing fools at people also you already said afair that you will love duarin and other new models without even seeing them and there you go.

well if anyone ever felt that I called them a fool I will apolohise, I just come off as rude, buy me a beer, get to know me and you will realize I am all fluffy inside, and I most probably said I will like the steam "golems" people rumoured, I gotta say I do like the models so far, and what I mean by that is quality, I am not a big fan of sigmarines or the khornes but their are quality miniatures... (mold lines hidden away etc)

My short lol comment was in the tone of earlier comment from mr. Motograter and you got on recieving end of it, sorry that's actualy crap but we are discussing in this stupid camps now somehow and it can get out of hand. Anyway apologies and let's start fresh, I'm not saying you can't enjoy AoS or that it's completly devoid of tactics, I just think it's significantly dumbed down vs almost everything on the market and whfb

but by saying its "dumbed" down you are making its players "dumb" per say... its not dumbed down, its simplified... which is neither good nor bad, just different... its like saying GO is a dumbed down version of chess and I would love to be friends with you... I like long walks on the beach, jazz music, backgammon and spooning my enemies till they cry

peace and love bro... I just want people to move on honestly, I kinda get annoyed that I cannot have a proper conversation on tactics and such without having to do "this" if you know what I mean, I all for people opinions but what is done is done, time to move on, the winds of magic have shifted, the waaagh has changed, JUST AS PLANNED and all that...

time to accept AoS for what it is, move on and either play something else or leave the AoS players to do what they do...

Saying the game is dumbed down does not imply that players are dumb, it's just makes them people playing dumb things. I happen to play dumb things on pc from time to time but I just don't pretend they're not dumb. I tend to avoid dumb tt games though, too much time investment to waste it on bad games. Anyway.

Flanking is a basis for tactical movement since forever, from a cave fight through history to today. It's even more important in games where things having vulnerable sides and rear makes for majority of planning in the movement phase, at least it does in good games. Comparing that to option to leave cc is just posting for the sake of posting something.

Why would a unit attacked from the rear flee? That's a question you can't anticipate tbh. Maybe take some friends and provoke a skirmish street fight and revell in the comfort of just not knowing what happens behind your back. Or go to battle reenactment and join an unit that will get attacked from 2 sides. It's simulation of psychology and I really don't know why do I have to explain that.

Or your chess and AoS comparision, why would you do that. The games are so different on so many levels that it's just pointless and that's not even taking into account the fact that they don't belong in the same sentence when you talk about strategy, tactics, skill ceiling etc.

Detailed interactions as in various type of attacks, blocks dodges throws or sth, things that you have in skirmish games but don't have in "skirmish" AoS. Talking about general rules here that actualy interact all the time for every model (bar exceptions) and not special rules. Anyway that AoS is stripped of options vs skirmish games (just move shoot charge cast retreat) but also is stripped from tactical options vs unit based games (flanking) is a fact and why not admit it.

Plumbumbarum, If you I strip out references to AoS in your posts, I can't actually tell what game you're talking about any more. You've boiled it down to such simple, general terms that you could be describing any wargame I've ever played or read the rules of.

All a flank charge is is a move and a charge. All a throw is is a cast or an attack with a different name. Climbing a ladder is a move. Buffing your units are casts. Picking up treasure is... I guess that's unique.

Are you just saying that the game needs more options? Instead of having "attack", having "strong attack", "feint attack", "dodge", "push", "grapple"? Under your own definition that would only add basic tactics because you're just point-and-click choosing which units to attack with what move (which will always be obvious, adding negligible depth)

As a side note, a couple units have the option to forgo movement to gain a defense bonus. There's your block!

I was just answering the poster asking what I mean by detailed interaction. And I mentioned detailed interaction when the poster asked what can you do in other games that you cant in AoS which is a bit perplexing because it's pretty much accepted that AoS is stripped down, minimalistic ruleset, "streamlined", "simplified" etc. There's good streamlining ofc but there's also AoS. You want examples, Warmachine slam or headbutt or throw or Hybrid parry dodge backstab counterattack something something I dont think I even remember it all now. Skirmish games ussualy are more detailed (unless AoS), can we just accept the fact? It might make the discussion easier.

Anyway flank charge is not just a move and charge, it's move and charge with added weight and something that requires forethought on both sides.

Throw is an attack with certain consequences. If you have to take it and its consequences into account when planning your moves then it's not neglible depth.

But no I don't want specificaly more moves in AoS. I want more depth, it can be 2 pages ruleset as far as I'm concerned. Example, players issue orders in secret for 2 turns up front with warscrolls containing the exceptions (ofc the phases orders etc would have to be different than now but could be simple still). Top of my head, simple but adds tons of depth.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Anyway flank charge is not just a move and charge, it's move and charge with added weight and something that requires forethought on both sides.

I'm seeing a lot of remarks like this, and I wonder if people making them have actually played AoS with the actual rules as actually written. Not trying to be rude, but just because there is no dice mod, doesn't mean there isn't a really game effect from flanking.

Snapshot wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Anyway flank charge is not just a move and charge, it's move and charge with added weight and something that requires forethought on both sides.

I'm seeing a lot of remarks like this, and I wonder if people making them have actually played AoS with the actual rules as actually written. Not trying to be rude, but just because there is no dice mod, doesn't mean there isn't a really game effect from flanking.

I am not really seeing what he means, he says the game needs depth but then he just mentions things like "throw" which os fine but AoS has PLENTY of rules like from beneath that add similar depth, flanking as well, apparently flanking only matters if it gives you a bonus and people flee from it... I pointed out how flanking can be used to block escape routes but that was not "tactical" enough... Someone made a great point where they said people who try AoS with a negative attitude will get that and will refuse to use any tactics, those who do not will play adequately...

 bitethythumb wrote:

Snapshot wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Anyway flank charge is not just a move and charge, it's move and charge with added weight and something that requires forethought on both sides.

I'm seeing a lot of remarks like this, and I wonder if people making them have actually played AoS with the actual rules as actually written. Not trying to be rude, but just because there is no dice mod, doesn't mean there isn't a really game effect from flanking.

I am not really seeing what he means, he says the game needs depth but then he just mentions things like "throw" which os fine but AoS has PLENTY of rules like from beneath that add similar depth, flanking as well, apparently flanking only matters if it gives you a bonus and people flee from it... I pointed out how flanking can be used to block escape routes but that was not "tactical" enough... Someone made a great point where they said people who try AoS with a negative attitude will get that and will refuse to use any tactics, those who do not will play adequately...

Without the bonus there might be too little incentive to flank. What you both describe as advantage from flanking is very situational and not enough.

Do your games revolve around manouvering specificaly to flank? Not talking about the moment when you have advantage anyway and just need place to put more models into combat.

People negative about AoS play wrong yes. That explains everything thanks. Or maybe it's just the most shallow, unbalanced, simplistic model pushing vehicle of a game on a market. Who knows.

I've played another two games yesterday, this time with Ogre Kingdoms against Bretonnia and Bretonnia+Empire armies respectively.

We've set up generous amounts of terrain and even opted in for the random terrain table (for all the big terrain pieces) and... it seemed pretty tactical. Here's a list of things that mattered tactics-wise:
- flanking actually matters. You pile in DIRECTLY towards the enemy models, so you can't start spreading to the sides. I used one unit of Ironguts as a hammer and another unit as anvil from behind which they would spring out and charge enemy's flank.
- herding matters - you want to manipulate your enemy - draw him into combat that he'll regret getting in, you want to surround him, you want to wrap his heroes in hard-hitting goons and you want to not let him withdraw.
- magic matters - as miniscule and oversimplified as it is, it does matter. I really wish there were more spells (by, like, at least 2 more unique per wizard). Especially with the terrain that adds +1 to dispel and cast rolls.
- Movement matters - with charges being declared in shooting phase like in 40k, cavalry units can engage in up to 24" (usually 18-20" - 12" move plus the average of two trees, three and four and two fours), so it matters how you move up.
- It's more dynamic - it all starts turn two. There already are charges going off, spells being cast, units shooting.
- unit sizes matter. Some units are better small, some are better big.
- some armies have game-changing interactions between units and generals, especially if fielded in battalions with additional rules that help. Empire is perfect example - various generals affect various unit keywords and offer different playstyles (general on griffon has command ability that encourages offense, general on foot/mounted encourages defense).
- Ogres hit like a tonne of bricks.
- War machines are great, it is often smart to have at least one in your army.
- Maneuvering matters - sometimes you want to divide your army for pincer tactic, sometimes you want to brick up - both tactics have various pros and cons.
- Heroes are very important, but they can't carry you to victory. If focused, a hero will drop fairly fast, but applied properly he'll be a force to be reckoned with.
- The leaked local GW tournament rules with wound-based army composition seem to, suprisingly, make for fairly balanced armies. I'm sure that lots of cheese can be made, but when both me and my opponent tried to build a nice force at 50 wounds (he played Bretonnia three times and used my Empire in last game, I used ogres and stormcast twice) we had pretty even games that weren't decided until last turn. Where my ogres shone at cutting down knights, his heroes cut down my ogres.
- Sun Tzu was right. Sending your best against enemy's medium, your medium against his weakest and your weakest against his best works and is true in this game.

Now I am not saying that those aspects are worse, better or on the same level as in 8th ed/other games, I'm just saying that those are my observations based on the games I played and that's what I experienced after four games of AoS, the only theorycrafting on my side here is about the Empire, but you can see it yourself in the warscrolls, I might play that army next just to try that out and see for myself if I was right.

Also, very important factor - this game really can be fun (just like any other game with friends) as long as there's no a-hole who hates on the game next to you - he'll suck your joy and affect how you perceive the game. If you're going to try AoS with the attitude of someone going to an execution, then you will have no fun whatsoever. If you're going to be prejudiced, then don't play it. As simple as that. if you already hate it, you'll just keep hating it afterwards. If you go there with a hope that you'll have fun and you're playing against a pleasant opponent, you both will have some joy from it.

Sure, the game is simple and to be good it needs a bit more complexity - even some obvious rules like cover and stuff, but it's not a bad game per se. It can be enjoyable without any effort if you don't expect it to be what it isn't. :-)

Ofc it all matters - a good word to use here btw - otherwise there would be no game at all. As long as you have unit types with various stats, you have tactics. There's a difference though between regiments that have vulnerable sides and rear carefuly maneuvering all at once to get/ avoid that decesive rear charge and an army of directionless blobs that you drag point and click to get double damage and maybe small accidental bonus if you manage to attack the blob with more units. Former is Total War, the latter is Warcraft. One requires more forethought and the other is a game too.

Sure there might be enough tactics to warrant interesting matches if not out of sheer number of units and combinations alone. Still it's a pale shadow of whfb especialy 6th/7th.

As for hating it, maybe there's the one hater out there who grasps the concept of open mind.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Ofc it all matters - a good word to use here btw - otherwise there would be no game at all. As long as you have unit types with various stats, you have tactics. There's a difference though between regiments that have vulnerable sides and rear carefuly maneuvering all at once to get/ avoid that decesive rear charge and an army of directionless blobs that you drag point and click to get double damage and maybe small accidental bonus if you manage to attack the blob with more units. Former is Total War, the latter is Warcraft. One requires more forethought and the other is a game too.

Sure there might be enough tactics to warrant interesting matches if not out of sheer number of units and combinations alone. Still it's a pale shadow of whfb especialy 6th/7th.

As for hating it, maybe there's the one hater out there who grasps the concept of open mind.

why not starcraft instead of Warcraft :\... They are more or less the same rts games... Only one is far more popular.

 bitethythumb wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Ofc it all matters - a good word to use here btw - otherwise there would be no game at all. As long as you have unit types with various stats, you have tactics. There's a difference though between regiments that have vulnerable sides and rear carefuly maneuvering all at once to get/ avoid that decesive rear charge and an army of directionless blobs that you drag point and click to get double damage and maybe small accidental bonus if you manage to attack the blob with more units. Former is Total War, the latter is Warcraft. One requires more forethought and the other is a game too.

Sure there might be enough tactics to warrant interesting matches if not out of sheer number of units and combinations alone. Still it's a pale shadow of whfb especialy 6th/7th.

As for hating it, maybe there's the one hater out there who grasps the concept of open mind.

why not starcraft instead of Warcraft :\... They are more or less the same rts games... Only one is far more popular.

Warcraft is fantasy and the unit interactions are more comparable?

It's not exclusively an insult though. In Warcraft you put your unit too far from combat, it won't get there on time. It takes tactics to properly move your units and make them attack targets in the right order aand requires some skill to be good at. It's all still very basic stuff though.

Actually that's the pure definition of difference of tactics and strategy games.

WarCraft and StarCraft are tactical games, Total Wars are strategy games. Funnily enough you speak like WarCraft is more basic than TW games while they're totally different genres.

For example - in Total War all that matters is positioning and charges. You have literally no influence on how your units fight (aside from that odd commander skill). Total Wars are macromanagement games - you order hordes of dudes to do kinda what you want them to do. WarCraft-like RTS games are all about that micromanagement - positioning is important too - you don't want your archer to get attacked by enemy footmen, you want to screen them, but it's obviously not as important as in TW... but then once combat starts it all gets micro - units have skills, heroes have spells that you have to manage, you need to keep changing targets of your ranged units for maximum efficiency - in Total War you focus on getting an ideal charge for yourself (and reat to enemy/navigate for objectives obviously), but once the fight starts you basically watch and maybe control all the other units, break off from combat with cavalry for second charge and so, and in WC/SC once there's a battle you turn into a piano virtuoso, mashing a billion buttons within seconds to assure 100% effectiveness.

So, yeah, both are different games and, funnily enough, both are all-time classics and legends of their respective genres.

As for AoS and WFB... I always hated how regiments worked, it was so damn cumbersome and counter-intuitive! If you've ever played in a tournament you'd know all the absurdly slowed chaff shenanigans where your 40 men have to angle themselves for a perfect flanking ogre charge for your opponent just because there was a little cat in the way. And I definetely prefer round bases over square ones.

I understand the feeling of some people on that game, hard transition from 8th edition.

But personally AoS brought me back to the table, which I left with 8th edition coming up, for the same reasons people criticize AoS.
I found there was no tactic, and after deployment phase, I knew which unit would fight which. I just wanted to teleport in the middle all units, throw my bucket of dice and have the result of the game.

I'm exagerating a bit the feeling I had back then, but it's just to tell people disappointed about AoS that they should give it some time first, and then keep on playing 8th if it suits them better

Cheers