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.

 Sarouan wrote:

But that's just how AoS is designed. It can be fun and played, sure. Just don't take the game for what it isn't - and it is certainly not a very deep one.

I think that's quite disingenuous.
Take flanking, for example.

Take the traditional wargaming 'flank' - the short side of a unit.
If you can make contact on the 'flank', then as long as you're not playing one of these stupid "we think it's better if" variations on the pile-in rule, you can actually position your models to maximise their attacks whilst preventing your opponent maximising theirs.

WFB that gets you 'hard' bonuses, but to what? A dice roll. Which relies on winning the combat in the first place. It will generally result in mismatching attack numbers. Sounding familiar?

Writing something off as 'rolling more or less dice' or 'getting modifiers to dice rolls'- um, that's basically everything anyone ever did in WFB.

The traditional wargame flank is the side of the unit. Units in columns have flanks on their long sides.

This is why you can't have flanking in AoS because as pointed out above units don't have facings in AoS. Combat power is determined by how many models are within range using their weapons.

It's basically what every single dice based table top wargame in history gives you. But for some reason age of sigmar is the only one that is "shallow" and "not tactical" or shouldn't be taken seriously as a competitive game.

It's OK to not like the game if the aesthetics don't please you, or you want more complexity to your rules. But complexity of rules does not translate to complexity of gameplay. AoS has a lot of complexity in gameplay due to the open nature of its rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The traditional wargame flank is the side of the unit. Units in columns have flanks on their long sides.

This is why you can't have flanking in AoS because as pointed out above units don't have facings in AoS. Combat power is determined by how many models are within range using their weapons.

Again, when units travel in columns it isn't for fighting, its for troop management and ease of travel. If you hit the side of a phalanx UNEXPECTEDLY DURING TRAVEL, yes, it was demoralizing and caused several instances of routing an entire column. Moving around to the long side when they were prepared for assault would get you nothing but more people stabbing you in the face. Which, coincidentally, is exactly what happens in Age of Sigmar.

Also, there is no reason to form a phalanx in the age of sigmar (or wfb) universe. All it does is let dragons, cannons, and catapults kill more people unnecessarily. In game you weren't even allowed to break ranks to get cover or hide between terrain pieces. How is that tactically sound?

You had better travel back in time to tell Napoleon that units don't fight in column because it was a key part of French infantry tactics.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You had better travel back in time to tell Napoleon that units don't fight in column because it was a key part of French infantry tactics.

They didn't win in the end though, did they?

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
AoS is a 5 directional puzzle. I can't drop the "just a dice roll" argument because you keep saying the tactic is "shallow" because there isn't a big enough dice roll benefit. That has been your entire argument thus far in the denial of tactical depth within the age of sigmar rule set. If the tactic still exists, and more tactics besides are available, then there is no objective way to say there is less depth.

I can hit you from two sides to gain a tactical benefit, or hit you on the "short side" of your chosen formation for a tactical benefit. How is the system less tactical?

It's less tactical because what is the short side will change constantly, you can move in any direction and hitting the rear is irrelevant. The last thing alone dumbs down the game immensly and planning is much simplier. It's a 2 directional swirling puzzle of formation shenaningans.

Objective lol. "Objective" says AoS is a dumbest game on the market but let's not go there, I invite you to the other thread about people brought back to warhammer fantasy thanks to AoS and see the power of the word. Anyway the tactic still exist but is less important, results less deceisive etc and as for more tactics besides avilable, it's simply bs because more was taken than introduced. But yes you could make your unit into double L shaped formation of doom to set you up for that ultimate manouver of moving 6 guys to form a little triangle on the front assuming you properly anticipated the other guy's tactical stretching of the second line by 3. I got excited just by writing down this micromanager's dream, can't imagine what it has to be on the table. Again 40k has that free formation thing going for years but because models have no facing and the ruleset is a simpleton, it becomes simple, obvious and insignificant. And AoS is simplier.

Just a dice, wtf man. Dice, opponent eats his minis from the unit, what's the difference, why do you take cavalruy it's only for inches on tape measure. It's not just a dice roll, it's an incentive that makes it more important, a reward for better manouvering and the stronger the bonus, the more you are punished for ignoring it/ not planning for it. If the bonus for rear charge is more than for flank charge, it makes it worthwhile to manouver for it and more scared about receiving one. If I set you up for a rear charge in KoW, you are done. In AoS it's worth nothing, now which forces more thought and planning into manouvering phase.

RoperPG wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You had better travel back in time to tell Napoleon that units don't fight in column because it was a key part of French infantry tactics.

They didn't win in the end though, did they?

Of course not because they pissed off the British.

You want to see how well Blocks of Infantry do with Artillery, look at American Civil War.

The war started with Napoleonic Tactics, and it took till WWI to figure out that it did not work anymore

Well, it wasn't so much the artillery as it was the fact that rifling was finally available to more than a select few weapons.

And cannons have been around since the 14th century or so.

Black Powder weapons in Fantasy are more equivalent to those of the 16th and 17th centuries - very inaccurate, and needing to be close to do any damage. Same with the artillery.

We are talking about dragons breathing balls of lightning, wizards hurling living fire or meteors onto the battlefield, and DAEMONS belching disease incarnate in great swaths.

This game is not historical, it is fantastical.
The short side won't change if you flank the enemy with two units, and you take cavalry do to their increased threat range and ability to punch above their weight when they score the charge.

It is definitely worth charging the rear of units, you force melee units to stand still or consolidate towards their table edge, denying possible charges later. And if a ranged unit wants their bonuses for shooting, and to stop being punched in the face, they need to retreat towards MY other units. Putting them in a bad situation at best.

We could just ignore these situations and instead just keep repeating how slowed and crappy the game is instead...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You had better travel back in time to tell Napoleon that units don't fight in column because it was a key part of French infantry tactics.

Because of the technology at the time. Smooth bore muskets were terribly inaccurate so you needed line formation in order to maximize your odds of hitting something. Column gave you weight so you could force your way through lines and envelop your opponent. Something which you can actually do in AoS but is impossible in WFB btw.

KingCheops wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You had better travel back in time to tell Napoleon that units don't fight in column because it was a key part of French infantry tactics.

Because of the technology at the time. Smooth bore muskets were terribly inaccurate so you needed line formation in order to maximize your odds of hitting something. Column gave you weight so you could force your way through lines and envelop your opponent. Something which you can actually do in AoS but is impossible in WFB btw.

What?

Formations are employed because if you don't use a formation you lose. Period. The ultimate goal of fighting an enemy is to scatter their formation and take their ground while lighter units dispatch the fleeing enemies. Formations make you invulnerable to enemy attacks as long as you can hold. AOS has no formation requirements, instead it plays out like a movie where the 2 sides rush each other and hack each other down in duels.

The attack column was not to "envelop" enemies but to split their force in 2 with your force concentrated in one area... in other words scattering their formation without losing yours. Obviously this relies on the enemy ranged weapons not scattering yours as you attack. Another thing to note, like a lot of battles, during this formation attack it is not much of a melee as the losing formation is looking not to get stabbed as they pull out. This formation is design to break enemy formation without losing yours and forcing the enemy to pull out of the ground you have just taken.

Break formation = die or run.

It is also worth noting that a routed enemy will have a hard time getting reorganized and is a prime target for Cavalry whose horses will be able to weave through the fleeing soldiers and cut many down. This should be the primary role of horse to force formations upon the enemy and cut down those that do not keep formation. Of course they have other jobs but we are being simple here.

AOS is terrible for this. AOS is like watching a movie where battles are portrayed as huge single man duels with no battle lines, with archers stabbing people will drawing and firing their bows and horses stopping in combat to fight for some reason (stop on a horse and you die, a horse will also not run into a stationary object AKA a formation of people).

Yes AOS is not history, but still it is worth noting.

Also something obvious I missed was that columns are simple to form, fast and so on. Vital when trying to keep formation when advancing under enemy fire, especially with less disciplined troops.

Except this is a CINEMATIC GAME! You should be exemplifying movies and mythology. Not historical battles.

Period.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Except this is a CINEMATIC GAME! You should be exemplifying movies and mythology. Not historical battles.

Period.

Cool... I think everyone has said this. I was merely saying to the guy that trying to claim AOS is anything like real in depth tactics as seen in real life or games that attempt to simulate these real battles is silly. Oh and the example he used was incorrect in the first place.

But yes, every sane person can agree AOS is pretty much a movie battle scene when it comes to tactics or depth. It's simply about blowing crap up.

 Swastakowey wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Except this is a CINEMATIC GAME! You should be exemplifying movies and mythology. Not historical battles.

Period.

Cool... I think everyone has said this. I was merely saying to the guy that trying to claim AOS is anything like real in depth tactics as seen in real life or games that attempt to simulate these real battles is silly. Oh and the example he used was incorrect in the first place.

But yes, every sane person can agree AOS is pretty much a movie battle scene when it comes to tactics or depth. It's simply about blowing crap up.

I disagree with the sentiment that there aren't tactics, they are simply based on large scale skirmishes.

You have a great deal of interaction with terrain (units in terrain get bonuses to saves period, so keeping the enemy off of a hill will simulate an advantage for being elevated in melee) you have a completely open option in regards to formations and inter unit interaction (units may be interposed amongst each other as long as they are within 1" of another member of the unit) you aren't limited by game turns, and may end up being able to take two turns in a row, so long term strategy and delaying tactics have a viable place in the game, as well as the occasional long shot gamble with things like cavalry rushing past units and praying to go first next turn to kill a summoning vampire for example.

At any rate, my final statement is this.

The perception that there aren't tactics in age of sigmar is false. They are different from warhammer fantasy, but that doesn't mean they are any less important to game play, nor are they something you can ignore and expect to win games.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Except this is a CINEMATIC GAME! You should be exemplifying movies and mythology. Not historical battles.

Period.

Cool... I think everyone has said this. I was merely saying to the guy that trying to claim AOS is anything like real in depth tactics as seen in real life or games that attempt to simulate these real battles is silly. Oh and the example he used was incorrect in the first place.

But yes, every sane person can agree AOS is pretty much a movie battle scene when it comes to tactics or depth. It's simply about blowing crap up.

I disagree with the sentiment that there aren't tactics, they are simply based on large scale skirmishes.

You have a great deal of interaction with terrain (units in terrain get bonuses to saves period, so keeping the enemy off of a hill will simulate an advantage for being elevated in melee) you have a completely open option in regards to formations and inter unit interaction (units may be interposed amongst each other as long as they are within 1" of another member of the unit) you aren't limited by game turns, and may end up being able to take two turns in a row, so long term strategy and delaying tactics have a viable place in the game, as well as the occasional long shot gamble with things like cavalry rushing past units and praying to go first next turn to kill a summoning vampire for example.

At any rate, my final statement is this.

The perception that there aren't tactics in age of sigmar is false. They are different from warhammer fantasy, but that doesn't mean they are any less important to game play, nor are they something you can ignore and expect to win games.

Of course there are tactics... they are just incredibly shallow. I didn't like Fantasy nor did I play it often. The tactics in this are largely dependent on the dice allowing you to do things. Nobody is saying this game has the tactics of Snake and Ladders (one of the most tactless games in existence), but most aside from some die hards would rate this game as shallow. But hey, if you like it, then thats all good.

A lot of the issues in AOS besides the lack of structure is the fact it is too reliant on dice roll after dice roll. The turn sequence is determine by a dice roll, the charge distances too and even attacks and the list goes on. Some people like playing a game that is heavily dependent on good dice rolling (like Snakes and ladders, just not as bad) but that does not change how shallow the game is.

Shallow games however can be hugely popular (see snakes and ladders) but they are often for a much younger audience.

 Swastakowey wrote:

Shallow games however can be hugely popular (see snakes and ladders) but they are often for a much younger audience.

Quite right, which is why I never felt any attraction to WHFB in the first place. Honestly, it was a game with too much randomness that it felt like it was designed for a younger audience.

Now Campaign for North Africa is a real adults game. Nothing like kicking back for a month with nine of your mates planning all the logistics, battlefield tactics, and officer politics of a real war.

Jack Flask wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Shallow games however can be hugely popular (see snakes and ladders) but they are often for a much younger audience.

Quite right, which is why I never felt any attraction to WHFB in the first place. Honestly, it was a game with too much randomness that it felt like it was designed for a younger audience.

Now Campaign for North Africa is a real adults game. Nothing like kicking back for a month with nine of your mates planning all the logistics, battlefield tactics, and officer politics of a real war.

I agree totally dude. Fantasy felt like constant dice rolling to me too.

If I had friends who enjoyed logistics I would totally be down for that game. I actually complained about how little logistics effected games/books/movies when we got into talking about it for some reason and they all laughed haha. That sort of thing is certainly on the other side of the spectrum to easy going randomness. AOS is an extreme into the random side of things, while Kriegsspiel is very much the other end of the spectrum.

Might have to look into this game now.

 Swastakowey wrote:

Jack Flask wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Shallow games however can be hugely popular (see snakes and ladders) but they are often for a much younger audience.

Quite right, which is why I never felt any attraction to WHFB in the first place. Honestly, it was a game with too much randomness that it felt like it was designed for a younger audience.

Now Campaign for North Africa is a real adults game. Nothing like kicking back for a month with nine of your mates planning all the logistics, battlefield tactics, and officer politics of a real war.

I agree totally dude. Fantasy felt like constant dice rolling to me too.

If I had friends who enjoyed logistics I would totally be down for that game. I actually complained about how little logistics effected games/books/movies when we got into talking about it for some reason and they all laughed haha. That sort of thing is certainly on the other side of the spectrum to easy going randomness. AOS is an extreme into the random side of things, while Kriegsspiel is very much the other end of the spectrum.

Might have to look into this game now.

My apology, I was being sarcastic for snarky effect at your expense.

I guess what I was trying to say is that the argument of a game being for children or not is silly. Certainly AoS is easier for new players, younger players, ect than WHFB. That doesn't make WHFB a better game though. It might be better for certain contexts; pick up games, tournaments ect.

But it just irks me to see people try and argue that AoS is an objectively worse game. Contrary to popular opinion, it does work as written and it is fun to play with the right people (friends, regulars at your FLGS, ect.).

Though I will say, despite its 1200 hour playtime and requirement for 10 players I dream of someday playing Campaign for North Africa. It may be the exact opposite of the games I play now such as AoS and 40k, but I share your sentiment for a desire to see more logistics based games.

Jack Flask wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Jack Flask wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Shallow games however can be hugely popular (see snakes and ladders) but they are often for a much younger audience.

Quite right, which is why I never felt any attraction to WHFB in the first place. Honestly, it was a game with too much randomness that it felt like it was designed for a younger audience.

Now Campaign for North Africa is a real adults game. Nothing like kicking back for a month with nine of your mates planning all the logistics, battlefield tactics, and officer politics of a real war.

I agree totally dude. Fantasy felt like constant dice rolling to me too.

If I had friends who enjoyed logistics I would totally be down for that game. I actually complained about how little logistics effected games/books/movies when we got into talking about it for some reason and they all laughed haha. That sort of thing is certainly on the other side of the spectrum to easy going randomness. AOS is an extreme into the random side of things, while Kriegsspiel is very much the other end of the spectrum.

Might have to look into this game now.

My apology, I was being sarcastic for snarky effect at your expense.

I guess what I was trying to say is that the argument of a game being for children or not is silly. Certainly AoS is easier for new players, younger players, ect than WHFB. That doesn't make WHFB a better game though. It might be better for certain contexts; pick up games, tournaments ect.

But it just irks me to see people try and argue that AoS is an objectively worse game. Contrary to popular opinion, it does work as written and it is fun to play with the right people (friends, regulars at your FLGS, ect.).

Though I will say, despite its 1200 hour playtime and requirement for 10 players I dream of someday playing Campaign for North Africa. It may be the exact opposite of the games I play now such as AoS and 40k, but I share your sentiment for a desire to see more logistics based games.

Well I never rated Warhammer highly either...

If it is only fun in very particular situations, does that not make it a bad game? I play 40k dude, I know full well that AOS CAN be fun, but its not fun because of the rules, it is only fun because if you play with people who share your view then you can have fun despite the rules. But I don't pretend 40k is objectively a good game, it's only a "good" game because my friends and I have an agreement to put in some work to make it worth playing. I am sure it is the same with AOS.

As written, it can work well maybe, unless you have pike infantry and they can't use cover because you can shoot their pike heads, or you can't agree on how pile in moves work (straight line or fluid movement) or if can't work out how summoning works but then that just goes to show the rules are bad yea? Most games as written DO work well without requirements of good friends and so on to work it out, then the friends is not a requirement but an enhancement.

I find it hard to believe that people will play this game for much longer than a year for one sole reason, it is shallow and if you were to play this often you and your opponent would likely very quickly grow tiresom of it unless you put in more effort to shake things up.

GW will shake it up with new units that have new special rules, new scenario books with new special rules, and new terrain kits with new special rules.

The core game will remain the same.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The traditional wargame flank is the side of the unit. Units in columns have flanks on their long sides.

This is why you can't have flanking in AoS because as pointed out above units don't have facings in AoS. Combat power is determined by how many models are within range using their weapons.

Yes and no. There is no flank because the unit can (virtually) change facing whenever it wants as long as it's not engaged in combat, even in "enemy's turn" (when he's charging). When it gets charged, that's where it's front is, no matter if models have 360' circular view. From that point on there are flanks for both those units as they have formed their facings. Get it?

Charging an unengaged column of men would just make them turn their column into rectangular block by just doing 90' twist on their heel as the shape of the formation is exactly the same. But if that column of yours is already in combat, then, guess what, it has it's flanks, as it's developing the front facing with the unit it's fighting!

And this is obviously better than "oh no, they ran into our couple rear guys who somehow haven't noticed whole enemy regiment there, better drink our own piss and stand here looking forward into empty space as we're getting butchered!".

But, yeah, you -CAN- have a flanking charge once units develop their front facings in combat. And until engaged, imagine them being prepared to just turn around in case of enemy flanking maneuver that would bring his unit around the main line of battle and make it able to charge them. As simple as that.

That's true but even in fight, they don't have vulnerable rear. And they should have, both for game depth sake and immersion sake.

Not to mention you can freely disengage and move every direction without restrictions and change the short side so planning suffers. Sure you can park an unit in the back to catch but it all just sounds unintended and accidental from gw tbh also again it's bad both game depth wise and immersion wise.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
That's true but even in fight, they don't have vulnerable rear. And they should have, both for game depth sake and immersion sake.

Not to mention you can freely disengage and move every direction without restrictions and change the short side so planning suffers. Sure you can park an unit in the back to catch but it all just sounds unintended and accidental from gw tbh also again it's bad both game depth wise and immersion wise.

You can't "freely disengage". If we each have a unit in combat and I bring another one around the back of you and engage you're rear, you will probably have a hard time disengaging. In the Combat Phase, the only movement allowed is the pile-in, which must be towards the closest enemy model. So you can't disengage there. In the movement phase you can Retreat, but the requirement is that your sandwiched unit must complete the move and be more than 3" away from any enemy unit. In all but the smallest skirmishes, and/or units with high movement, you're not going anywhere. I agree that there are no dice-roll advantages to hitting someone in the rear, but you'd be in a spot of bother if you didn't think you could take both units at once.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
That's true but even in fight, they don't have vulnerable rear. And they should have, both for game depth sake and immersion sake.

But why? Why for the love of God should they have vulnerable rear? Every group of human beings is capable of standing back to back, shoulder to shoulder and form a round/square/rectangular formation with no real "rear"! Hell, think about schiltrom if you must. Or the historical infantry square! Infantry units are capable of not having a rear, let alone vulnerable one.

And again - having some additional, arbitrary rules referring just to that is much, much worse design-wise than having actual benefits resulting from just the game's base mechanics, which AoS achieved. Unlike WFB which needed a separate set of rules in the BRB just for that. AoS doesn't need separate chapter on flanking and whatnot, as it all is an effect of game's core mechanics.

I understand that a lot of people want to give AoS as much flak as they can because they're so prejudiced, sad, angry and/or butthurt over their game being discontinued, but if they deliberately decide not to see good sides of it and claim it has none, then they're just being stupid and stubborn. They're literally going down to the same level as any other kind of bigot or your typical angry redneck dude from american comedies who just has to be so stubborn in his anger he is comically being blind to other possibilities to the point of being ridiculous comic relief.

Now don't get me wrong, I know AoS is not perfect and it could use another two pages of rules, but it's not the terrible abomination people paint it to be out of pure, blind hatred resulting from the discontinuation of their beloved game. It's actually very good at being fun game for casuals, if it gets polished, it'll fit that specific niche perfectly, just don't expect it to be something else and you won't be let down on that.

Edit: Forgot about retreating - well, remember that it's not always possible to get further than 3" away from enemy AND you can't charge nor shoot if you do, so if you aren't going to intercept those units with your other ones, they'll just charge back at you the next turn with all the possible charge bonuses.

 Swastakowey wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Except this is a CINEMATIC GAME! You should be exemplifying movies and mythology. Not historical battles.

Period.

Cool... I think everyone has said this. I was merely saying to the guy that trying to claim AOS is anything like real in depth tactics as seen in real life or games that attempt to simulate these real battles is silly. Oh and the example he used was incorrect in the first place.

But yes, every sane person can agree AOS is pretty much a movie battle scene when it comes to tactics or depth. It's simply about blowing crap up.

I disagree with the sentiment that there aren't tactics, they are simply based on large scale skirmishes.

You have a great deal of interaction with terrain (units in terrain get bonuses to saves period, so keeping the enemy off of a hill will simulate an advantage for being elevated in melee) you have a completely open option in regards to formations and inter unit interaction (units may be interposed amongst each other as long as they are within 1" of another member of the unit) you aren't limited by game turns, and may end up being able to take two turns in a row, so long term strategy and delaying tactics have a viable place in the game, as well as the occasional long shot gamble with things like cavalry rushing past units and praying to go first next turn to kill a summoning vampire for example.

At any rate, my final statement is this.

The perception that there aren't tactics in age of sigmar is false. They are different from warhammer fantasy, but that doesn't mean they are any less important to game play, nor are they something you can ignore and expect to win games.

Of course there are tactics... they are just incredibly shallow. I didn't like Fantasy nor did I play it often. The tactics in this are largely dependent on the dice allowing you to do things. Nobody is saying this game has the tactics of Snake and Ladders (one of the most tactless games in existence), but most aside from some die hards would rate this game as shallow. But hey, if you like it, then thats all good.

A lot of the issues in AOS besides the lack of structure is the fact it is too reliant on dice roll after dice roll. The turn sequence is determine by a dice roll, the charge distances too and even attacks and the list goes on. Some people like playing a game that is heavily dependent on good dice rolling (like Snakes and ladders, just not as bad) but that does not change how shallow the game is.

Shallow games however can be hugely popular (see snakes and ladders) but they are often for a much younger audience.

Wow, that was condescending. They are not shallow, and dice rolls allow for an indeterminate outcome, forcing more tactical thought if plans go awry. How do you otherwise determine chance of failure in a tabletop game? If every unit interaction has predetermined outcomes, and you win based solely on how you placed your units at deployment why bother playing a game?

What lack of structure? I have rules for every possible table interaction, how to choose units, how those units work with and against other units, how long the game should take, even how many units you're allowed to have on the field.

YOU don't like the structure, YOU don't like the tactics involved. I'm sorry YOU don't like tabletop wargames involving dice, but that doesn't allow you to make sweeping generalizations about how bad the game design is, or how shallow the gameplay is while referencing a game designed for toddlers as you other obvious benchmark for that style of game.

What game do you play where dice don't determine outcome? Even computer games utilise massive numbers of probability ratios to determine damage output and survivability.

Some randomness is necessary but if you put to much of it, the game becomes a random dicefest and it's a known cheap way to balance things against list building and skill. AoS has way too much random and kills much of the skill factor, now eagerly awaiting arguments pointing out that double turn is better for tactics and strategy lol.

 Klerych wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
That's true but even in fight, they don't have vulnerable rear. And they should have, both for game depth sake and immersion sake.

But why? Why for the love of God should they have vulnerable rear? Every group of human beings is capable of standing back to back, shoulder to shoulder and form a round/square/rectangular formation with no real "rear"! Hell, think about schiltrom if you must. Or the historical infantry square! Infantry units are capable of not having a rear, let alone vulnerable one.

And again - having some additional, arbitrary rules referring just to that is much, much worse design-wise than having actual benefits resulting from just the game's base mechanics, which AoS achieved. Unlike WFB which needed a separate set of rules in the BRB just for that. AoS doesn't need separate chapter on flanking and whatnot, as it all is an effect of game's core mechanics.

I understand that a lot of people want to give AoS as much flak as they can because they're so prejudiced, sad, angry and/or butthurt over their game being discontinued, but if they deliberately decide not to see good sides of it and claim it has none, then they're just being stupid and stubborn. They're literally going down to the same level as any other kind of bigot or your typical angry redneck dude from american comedies who just has to be so stubborn in his anger he is comically being blind to other possibilities to the point of being ridiculous comic relief.

Now don't get me wrong, I know AoS is not perfect and it could use another two pages of rules, but it's not the terrible abomination people paint it to be out of pure, blind hatred resulting from the discontinuation of their beloved game. It's actually very good at being fun game for casuals, if it gets polished, it'll fit that specific niche perfectly, just don't expect it to be something else and you won't be let down on that.

Edit: Forgot about retreating - well, remember that it's not always possible to get further than 3" away from enemy AND you can't charge nor shoot if you do, so if you aren't going to intercept those units with your other ones, they'll just charge back at you the next turn with all the possible charge bonuses.

Shiltrom, yeah. Except it had disadvantages, made them move slower and more vulnerable to ranged attacks. None of it is represented in AoS, you can move like a hot rabbit into any direction you want but then suddenly you're in the shiltrom because you need an excuse for dumb battle mechanic. I don't know how you can all use immersion and realism arguments in a game that lets you shoot out of close combat and disengage freely out of cc. There are million "narrative" and realism reasons for vulnerable rear especialy that the game doesn't differentiate between various types of equpiment on units (brilliant! revolutionary! streamlined for additional tactics!) except from measure from any part of model lol and therefore having argumentation go both ways we are left with a main argument - vulnerable rear makes for more tactics in movement phase. That's, for a love of God, why.

AoS achieved nothing with its core mechanics, including things you mention into the simple ruleset is hard even with really smart mechanics and those in AoS are randomly put together. You are just fooling yourself and look for things that are not there.

Redneck, comic relief you're obviously running out of arguments making sense if you have to go petty little insults. I can do that too though, I think people finding deep tactics in AoS are desperate fanboys that would rather spin random rules shenaningans into a brilliant hidden gem of a strategic and tactical game than admit that their favourite corporation that was already bad at rules writing has just hit its lowest and the new game is a random, unbalanced simpleton to not scare kids off. Ridiculous comic relief hm, fits people trying to spin sudden death and balance based on models number into a better thing and micromanagment of directionless blobs into tactical depth imo.

Love that you're stating AoS is shallow because of the movement, but your bio references playing 40K.

There are tactical choices you have to make in AoS. It's not a philosophy lecture, but it's not as idiotic as people make out.

People need to realise that getting a rear charge in WFB didn't mean they're Kasparov and get over themselves a little.

The POSSIBILITY of a double turn allows for an element of risk for long term and short term tactical maneuvering.

With the ability to retreat from combat, there being a 50% chance of getting another turn right away may make the manuever more appealing. In regards to leaving without issue and firing while in melee, the dead warriors are still stuck in the fight. Their only contribution to the effort is buying time for their brothers and sisters in arms to either loose an important volley, or break away to safer ground.

Also, for the love of God, there IS a reason to get behind the enemy. You are cutting off escape routes. You know, the REAL reason to get people behind enemy lines. Just because the bonus for doing so is purely tactical, not statistical doesn't make it meaningless.

Also, who cares if it doesn't slow you down to be in box formation. You only need to be in formation when the enemy hits the line, otherwise stay in your approximate position and be ready to form up when the commander says to.

RoperPG wrote:
Love that you're stating AoS is shallow because of the movement, but your bio references playing 40K.

There are tactical choices you have to make in AoS. It's not a philosophy lecture, but it's not as idiotic as people make out.

People need to realise that getting a rear charge in WFB didn't mean they're Kasparov and get over themselves a little.

I already said in this thread that 40k is a simpleton. AoS being less tactical than 40k is a complete fail exactly because there are only few things separating 40k from mindless pewpew with minis. In fact AoS style 40k ruleset would be ok and make more sense as long as it kept vehicles having weak sides/rear, unit variants for list building and ofc balance mechanism.

I don't think I'm Kasparov and quasi medieval pitched battles or skirnishes in tt wargames are not some mind bending affairs. That's exactly the reason why you shouldn't rob those of last bits of depth.