Switch Theme:

-  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM




Computer City

-

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/01/11 23:41:38


Bye bye Dakkadakka, happy hobbying! I really enjoyed my time on here. Opinions were always my own :-) 
   
Made in nz
Heroic Senior Officer




New Zealand

The first issue that sticks out to me is how horde armies are supposed to play? Straight off the bat horde armies which are meant to be full of numbers of weak troops are capped at the same level as any other army.

Is this intentional?
   
Made in gb
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM




Computer City

 Swastakowey wrote:
The first issue that sticks out to me is how horde armies are supposed to play? Straight off the bat horde armies which are meant to be full of numbers of weak troops are capped at the same level as any other army.

Is this intentional?


I would say yes, as the game is designed to be played in an hour.

Bye bye Dakkadakka, happy hobbying! I really enjoyed my time on here. Opinions were always my own :-) 
   
Made in nz
Heroic Senior Officer




New Zealand

 Bottle wrote:
 Swastakowey wrote:
The first issue that sticks out to me is how horde armies are supposed to play? Straight off the bat horde armies which are meant to be full of numbers of weak troops are capped at the same level as any other army.

Is this intentional?


I would say yes, as the game is designed to be played in an hour.


Fair enough, at least the under dog rules help the poor no longer hordes a bit I guess. Since the game is based around units though, you have to hope really hard your lesser models manage to wipe the unit out. It seems better to play this game with 1 squad of the toughest guys you can. So even if the enemy has underdog status they have a lot of wounds to chew through before they get rewarded for their efforts. I perosnally would take one tough monster hero to lead 29 tough guys if I wanted to win this tournament.

Its ok I guess.

Does a game with only 30 models a side really take an hour though?

   
Made in gb
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM




Computer City

Yeah it should finish comfortably within an hour especially as there are only 4 battle turns too. It'll give you some left over time to add up all the victory points so it's perfect for a school lunch hour for which it was designed.

When asking about horde armies, obviously with a 30 model cap you are not going to be able to field 60 goblins. But if your question were "Is there worth in taking weak models?" Then I still think there is. The crux of this system is if unlocking the underdog deeds for your oppenent (and possibly tripling the victory points they score from them) is negative enough for you to want to keep your army's "Martial Prowess" as low as you can.

I put together some sample army lists for comparison, I suggest others try and do the same.

First, I played a fantastic game of Age of Sigmar yesterday using the standard rules & standard death match victory. We had 33 vs 23 models a side, but I thought I would add up the Martial Prowess in hindsight (this wasn't used to govern our game).

My Order Army:

2x Empire Generals - [10]

2x Empire Wizards - [10]

1x Empire Cannon & 3x Crew - [7]

20x State Troopers - [20]

5x Outriders - [10]

33 models - Martial Prowess [57]



My Opponent's Destruction Army

15x Black Orcs - [30]

Grimgor Ironhide - [7]

6x Fanatics - [6]

Giant - [12]

23 models - Martial Prowess [55]


I had the slightly stronger army, but not enough to confer any underdog deed bonus under the Clash of Empire rules. In actual fact the game was incredibly close and fun. I won with 1 Wizard, with 1 wound left! (Crouched in the corner of a field desperately casting fireballs).

Now let's build some armies using the Clash of Empire rules. Firstly a very weak army:

29x Night Goblins - [29]

Night Goblin Warboss - [4]

Martial Prowess - [33]


So here we have a very weak army. It would unlock the Underdog Deeds against both the above armies and would earn double points too.

Remember the game has only 4 turns. Tabling only gets you 5 victory points. Would the Goblin army be able to win if it played well? I'd have to play the game to know really.

Let's keep the core of that army the same but drop 9 of the night goblins and replace them with heavy hitters:

Night Goblin Warboss on great cave squig - [6]

Night Goblin Shaman - [4]

20x Night Goblins with Bows incl - Boss, Gong Basher, Bad Moon Icon, Goblin Flag, Netters - [20]

2x Mangler Squigs - [20]

3x fanatics - [3]

3x River Trolls - [12]

Martial Prowess - [65]


This is much more how I imagine a Night Goblin force in this style of game. We've kept the fluffy heart and still have 66% regular Night Goblins, but now have a Martial Prowess that would unlock Underdog Deeds for either of the two armies above. But remember, those armies were not built for this system. This is the army I plan to use for these games:

2x Empire Generals - [10]

2x Empire Wizards - [10]

1x Empire Cannon & 3x Crew - [7]

10x State Troopers - [10]

5x Outriders - [10]

1x Dwarf Cannon & 3x Crew - [7]

Necromancer - [5]

Alarielle - [5]

Hand Maiden - [5]

Martial Prowess - [69]


So now we have armies much more evenly matched. (Hopefully). To me these rules look very fun to play with. I think GW have done a good job at creating a competetive style of play here (much better than the homebrews). Are there still weak and strong armies? Yes. But that's the fun with list building games right? Does it solve the eternal Stormvermin vs Skaven Slaves debate? No. Skaven Slaves are still inferior for competetive play.





This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/09/05 10:53:22


Bye bye Dakkadakka, happy hobbying! I really enjoyed my time on here. Opinions were always my own :-) 
   
Made in ie
Dominating Dominatrix






Dublin, Ireland

Are these rules published yet? Or are they for use in store/school games or?

Dman137 wrote:
goobs is all you guys will ever be

By 1-irt: Still as long as Hissy keeps showing up this is one of the most entertaining threads ever.

"Feelin' goods, good enough". 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




Seems like a huge handicap for dwarf armies. Cannons have a lot of wounds and dwarfs lack any fast moving objective taking unit. If they load up on units and warmachines the opponents will just swarm objectives.

Although another option would be to take a lot of big models and hope to get first turn. Then play so slow that the games is over before opponents have their first turn making it impossible for them to take objectives or score points for killing stuff. While all your big stuff concentrates on whiping out anything, your opponent may decide to pick as his sudden death survivor victory condition.
   
Made in gb
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM




Computer City

Ratius wrote:Are these rules published yet? Or are they for use in store/school games or?


They are GW official, created by GW head office, recieved from the GW intranet. I don't want to leak the actual PDF, I'm sure it'll be on the net soon if not already. It is designed for school leagues, but many GW stores will be running leagues using it.

Makumba wrote:Seems like a huge handicap for dwarf armies. Cannons have a lot of wounds and dwarfs lack any fast moving objective taking unit. If they load up on units and warmachines the opponents will just swarm objectives.

Although another option would be to take a lot of big models and hope to get first turn. Then play so slow that the games is over before opponents have their first turn making it impossible for them to take objectives or score points for killing stuff. While all your big stuff concentrates on whiping out anything, your opponent may decide to pick as his sudden death survivor victory condition.


Haha, what sort of tactic is that?

Anyway, you don't use Sudden Death victory conditions. All victory conditions are taken from the Clash of Empires rules instead.

I'm sure Dwarves can make lots of strong armies. Only have to move 12-13" for most of the objectives. You'll be there by turn 2 if you run even with your stunty legs. And if you want to be there on turn 1, that's what Miners and Gyrocoptors are for.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/05 09:32:25


Bye bye Dakkadakka, happy hobbying! I really enjoyed my time on here. Opinions were always my own :-) 
   
Made in ie
Dominating Dominatrix






Dublin, Ireland

Cool, thanks.

Dman137 wrote:
goobs is all you guys will ever be

By 1-irt: Still as long as Hissy keeps showing up this is one of the most entertaining threads ever.

"Feelin' goods, good enough". 
   
Made in de
Decrepit Dakkanaut





So after GW realized that AoS doesn't scale above skirmish level, they just capped the game at it and practically removed all horde armies from the tournament. Seems like a legit approach.

   
Made in bg
Dakka Veteran






I get the notion that practically everything that GW releases makes the world a worse place to live in, but is it really so hard to see,that this is akin to the journeyman leagues tha PP proposes? The journeyman league matches may be totally one sided and yet they provide players with some grounds to play beginner games on. This is called school league after all.
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in southern England.

It's meant to be a simple structure for schoolboys to play a tournament in lunchtime or after school clubs, therefore time and space is limited. It looks like it will do the job it is intended for.

It's not sophisticated or particularly good, but it will get people playing and having fun.

Everything is better with a huge wig. I thought that was common knowledge.

Sometimes the most profound of all truths cannot be spoken.

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it.

Forum posting guidelines, please learn them! You will be tested. 
   
Made in bg
Dakka Veteran






 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's meant to be a simple structure for schoolboys to play a tournament in lunchtime or after school clubs, therefore time and space is limited. It looks like it will do the job it is intended for.

It's not sophisticated or particularly good, but it will get people playing and having fun.


This would be my opinion aswell. Forgot to mention that I also thought these may have been intended for a younger crowd (I was posting from my phone in a hurry).
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




Haha, what sort of tactic is that?

A wining one opponent doesn't get a turn and you get an hour to get the minimum VP needed to win. There are no rules against stalling in the rules pack, so it is allowed. And the rules say he has to mark for death one unit. So the games ends with 1:0.


You'll be there by turn 2 if you run even with your stunty legs. And if you want to be there on turn 1, that's what Miners and Gyrocoptors are for.

One unit is bad and the other will get cleared by mass cavalery or heros and the support units will be one turn too late to keep up with them. I tried it and sadly taking miners is leting opponents destroy dwarfs in separate blocks. Mass cannons and not giving opponents a turn to play seems like the optimal way to for for a win with dwarfs.


I get the notion that practically everything that GW releases makes the world a worse place to live in, but is it really so hard to see,that this is akin to the journeyman leagues tha PP proposes? The journeyman league matches may be totally one sided and yet they provide players with some grounds to play beginner games on.

I have yet to see a noob tournament not won by a goreshade player. Specialy if it is mengled metal and 15pts. The free summoned unit gives goreshade players a huge edge over others.

I find the rules ok. Would be nice if they were added to the core rules. In fact no idea why they weren't there in the first place, it is not like it is 100+pages of rules, it is one.
   
Made in us
Fireknife Shas'el





East Coast, USA

What is a "school league"? That's not a term I've seen used in the US before.

Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com


Completed Trades With: ultraatma 
   
Made in au
Myrmidon Officer





Australia

 Kriswall wrote:
What is a "school league"? That's not a term I've seen used in the US before.

I imagine it is supposed to refer to a league run for school kids, probably just after school.

 Fafnir wrote:
Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
 
   
Made in gb
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM




Computer City

Okay everyone, let's try and break this system. Post the most broken army you think you can make with this system with the army Martial Prowess listed.

What I'm interested to see is; if the broken armies can be deafened with a tailored army 30 wounds lower (I.e. One that unlocks the triple scoring Underdog Deeds). Hopefully we might find it is not as easily breakable as it first seems. So let's give it a go. What's your strongest army?

Bye bye Dakkadakka, happy hobbying! I really enjoyed my time on here. Opinions were always my own :-) 
   
Made in au
Myrmidon Officer





Australia

30 bloodthirsters?

Let your opponent have all the underdog victory conditions he wants, he won't achieve any of them.

 Fafnir wrote:
Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
 
   
Made in gb
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM




Computer City

 jonolikespie wrote:
30 bloodthirsters?

Let your opponent have all the underdog victory conditions he wants, he won't achieve any of them.


So, a Martial Prowess of 420.

I choose:

27x Blood Thirsters [378]

Martial Prowess of 378

Say we are playing "Corpses not Captives" you get 1 vp for every Blood Thirster you kill and 5vp's if you table me in 4 turns.

I get triple underdog deeds:
3 vp's for every Blood Thirster still standing turn 4 (edit: Mistake - 3 vps if i have 1 or more Blood Thirsters on turn 4)
4 vp's every Blood Thirster my general slays (edit: Mistake - a bonus 3vps once my general slays a Blood Thirster)
4 vp's if I slay each of your marked Blood Thirsters.

I would place money on me winning. And so the inverted arms race begins.

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2015/09/06 11:04:56


Bye bye Dakkadakka, happy hobbying! I really enjoyed my time on here. Opinions were always my own :-) 
   
Made in us
Irked Necron Immortal





 Bottle wrote:
 jonolikespie wrote:
30 bloodthirsters?

Let your opponent have all the underdog victory conditions he wants, he won't achieve any of them.


So, a Martial Prowess of 420.

I choose:

27x Blood Thirsters [378]

Martial Prowess of 378

Say we are playing "Corpses not Captives" you get 1 vp for every Blood Thirster you kill and 5vp's if you table me in 4 turns.

I get triple underdog deeds:
3 vp's for every Blood Thirster still standing turn 4
4 vp's every Blood Thirster my general slays
4 vp's if I slay each of your marked Blood Thirsters.

I would place money on me winning. And so the inverted arms race begins.


I don't think it would quite go like that in reality (a bizarre realities where a group of high/middle school kids have 57 bloodthirsters), now the first thing is that I question is the bolded text "3 vp's for every Blood Thirster still standing turn 4". I'm not quite sure where your getting this from, you listed it in the underdog victory deeds but the closest to that I could find was this this underdog deed* that states if have you have at least one model left you get victory points, not getting victory points for each model left. Also it clearly states "Each of these deeds can only be achieved by the Underdog once during the battle. ". One last thing don't forget that this is a game where you don't have army lists, or at least aren't required to have them and with alternate placement on the table, so it is unlikely that the army composition would match that as the players have to declare when they are done placing model so the other player could simply add a unit that makes them less than ten wounds in difference

*While We Live, We Fight: You gain 1 bonus Laurel of Victory if at least one of your models is still on the battlefield at the end of the fourth battle round.

Everything I say, barring quotes and researched information, is my personal opinion. Not fact.

"Being into 40k but not the background is like being into porn but not masturbation..." - Kain

"I barely believe my dice are not sentient and conspiring against me." - knas ser 
   
Made in gb
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM




Computer City

Ah you're right! I read that bit wrong. I still think the 27 blood thirsters would beat the 30 due to the underdog deeds, however. :-)

Bye bye Dakkadakka, happy hobbying! I really enjoyed my time on here. Opinions were always my own :-) 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Central WI

Bad argument... no one is going to spend $140 x 27 models, then have them fully painted, then bring several crates to the tournament (to transport the models).

That would be craziness and no one is that stupid to spend $3780 for just the unpainted models.

IN ALAE MORTIS... On the wings of Death!! 
   
Made in gb
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM




Computer City

^ we're having a hypothetical discussion about the strongest army in this mode of play. Not if anyone is actually going to buy said army or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think a system where 27 blood thirsters is potentially better than 30 blood thirsters is an intriguing system to say the least. These rules are really exciting on the whole, but I wonder if a few more house rules could iron out any kinks that there might be.

30 blood thirsters is 420 wounds (and very expensive :-p). The army I posted was 69 wounds. Obviously the 2 going against each other isn't going to be a fair fight. Perhaps an overall Martial Prowess cap depending on the size of game you want to play? This system is a lot more sophisticated than just a wound cap however, as there is always reason to go 10, 20 or even 40 wounds less than your opponent.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/06 07:40:59


Bye bye Dakkadakka, happy hobbying! I really enjoyed my time on here. Opinions were always my own :-) 
   
Made in au
Tough Tyrant Guard







Because it's based on wounds, I feel like you would want to try to get as much of your survivability in saving throws and special rules as you can and avoid models that have low saves. It seems like you would also want to favour large units, as multiple victory conditions trigger on wiping out units or their leaders.
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




I think a system where 27 blood thirsters is potentially better than 30 blood thirsters is an intriguing system to say the least. These rules are really exciting on the whole, but I wonder if a few more house rules could iron out any kinks that there might be.

But it scales down. This means 27 dwarf warriors are better then 30.
   
Made in au
Tough Tyrant Guard







Makumba wrote:
I think a system where 27 blood thirsters is potentially better than 30 blood thirsters is an intriguing system to say the least. These rules are really exciting on the whole, but I wonder if a few more house rules could iron out any kinks that there might be.

But it scales down. This means 27 dwarf warriors are better then 30.

Dwarf Warriors are 1 wound, so you don't get any benefit from taking 27 of them against an army with 30 of them. You would have to take only 20 dwarf warriors to get any benefit at all. You would need to take -10 dwarf warriors to get the maximum benefit, which isn't very practical.

Edit: the highest tier is 40 wounds down, not 30, so you need -10 dwarf warriors in your army for the maximum benefit against 30 dwarf warriors. Sorry!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/06 08:21:29


 
   
Made in us
Veteran Inquisitorial Tyranid Xenokiller





This whole thing sounds suspect. Is it a coincidence that Nottingham's local GW call their league the "School League"

https://www.facebook.com/SchoolLeagueCoordinator

I think this is something the GW employees came up with, not necessarily something official.

Inquisitor Jex wrote:
Yeah, telling people how this and that is 'garbage' and they should just throw their minis into the trash as they're not as efficient as XYZ.

 Peregrine wrote:
So the solution is to lie and pretend that certain options are effective so people will feel better?
 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Makumba wrote:
I think a system where 27 blood thirsters is potentially better than 30 blood thirsters is an intriguing system to say the least. These rules are really exciting on the whole, but I wonder if a few more house rules could iron out any kinks that there might be.

But it scales down. This means 27 dwarf warriors are better then 30.

Dwarf Warriors are 1 wound, so you don't get any benefit from taking 27 of them against an army with 30 of them. You would have to take only 20 dwarf warriors to get any benefit at all. You would need to take -10 dwarf warriors to get the maximum benefit, which isn't very practical.

Edit: the highest tier is 40 wounds down, not 30, so you need -10 dwarf warriors in your army for the maximum benefit against 30 dwarf warriors. Sorry!

So 27 cavalery dudes vs 30 cavalery dudes.
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




The answer is still Carrions.
   
Made in gb
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM




Computer City

Makumba wrote:
 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Makumba wrote:
I think a system where 27 blood thirsters is potentially better than 30 blood thirsters is an intriguing system to say the least. These rules are really exciting on the whole, but I wonder if a few more house rules could iron out any kinks that there might be.

But it scales down. This means 27 dwarf warriors are better then 30.

Dwarf Warriors are 1 wound, so you don't get any benefit from taking 27 of them against an army with 30 of them. You would have to take only 20 dwarf warriors to get any benefit at all. You would need to take -10 dwarf warriors to get the maximum benefit, which isn't very practical.

Edit: the highest tier is 40 wounds down, not 30, so you need -10 dwarf warriors in your army for the maximum benefit against 30 dwarf warriors. Sorry!

So 27 cavalery dudes vs 30 cavalery dudes.


54 Wounds vs 60 Wounds. You want to take 25 cavalry against 30 to unlock the Underdog Deeds. :-)

Bye bye Dakkadakka, happy hobbying! I really enjoyed my time on here. Opinions were always my own :-) 
   
 
Forum Index » AoS General Discussion & Background
Go to: