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.

 Xyxox wrote:

 pretre wrote:


In thread for simplicity.

I CALL FAKE! There are NO SKULLS in the cracks on that Realm of Battle board!!!!!!

'Heimdall, Open the Bifrost!

Norsed wrote:

 heartserenade wrote:
Then you only have six men facing against the enemy and certainly they'll envelop them. Congratulations, you just lost your flank.

You really don't know much about historical battles, do you? Even Sun Tzu has written about flanking maneuvers in Art of War, and as far as I know heavy cavalry charge is not a thing in Chinese warfare.

Please don't insult our intelligence by pulling stuff out of your ass.

There is a difference between an envelopment of a flank and a strike in the flank. The thing people are complaining about is that AoS removed the flank strike thing. THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS. Please get that into your head and stop insulting me.

Not according to the actual military.

From The Army's Forms of Maneuver:

"Flank attacks are a variant of the envelopment, in which access to the enemy's flank and rear is furnished by the enemy's own forward movement."

In fact, every time I try looking up anything about the term flank stirke, it refers to attacking the flank of an enemy by the flanking/envelopment of a flank maneuver.

 Platuan4th wrote:

Norsed wrote:

 heartserenade wrote:
Then you only have six men facing against the enemy and certainly they'll envelop them. Congratulations, you just lost your flank.

You really don't know much about historical battles, do you? Even Sun Tzu has written about flanking maneuvers in Art of War, and as far as I know heavy cavalry charge is not a thing in Chinese warfare.

Please don't insult our intelligence by pulling stuff out of your ass.

There is a difference between an envelopment of a flank and a strike in the flank. The thing people are complaining about is that AoS removed the flank strike thing. THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS. Please get that into your head and stop insulting me.

Not according to the actual military.

From The Army's Forms of Maneuver:

"Flank attacks are a variant of the envelopment, in which access to the enemy's flank and rear is furnished by the enemy's own forward movement."

Just ignore him, like I said its like trying to have a discussion with a brick wall... and not a very well informed one at that.

Then let's go back to my example earlier: 5000 men 6 ranks deep getting charged by 5000 men 6 ranks deep on their flank. What are they gonna do, have 6 men face the enemy? Now the enemy in your flank is fighting your six men, and since they have a wider line, they can envelopment your whole one side. Even if they don't envelop you (since you don't define envelopment as flanking), that's 6 men fighting a lot of enemies facing their way. If the whole formation readjusts itself they'll be out of formation. That's a strike on the flank.

Again, where do you get your facts? It seems to me you're just making them up, based entirely on no evidence.

 Platuan4th wrote:

Norsed wrote:

 heartserenade wrote:
Then you only have six men facing against the enemy and certainly they'll envelop them. Congratulations, you just lost your flank.

You really don't know much about historical battles, do you? Even Sun Tzu has written about flanking maneuvers in Art of War, and as far as I know heavy cavalry charge is not a thing in Chinese warfare.

Please don't insult our intelligence by pulling stuff out of your ass.

There is a difference between an envelopment of a flank and a strike in the flank. The thing people are complaining about is that AoS removed the flank strike thing. THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS. Please get that into your head and stop insulting me.

Not according to the actual military.

From The Army's Forms of Maneuver:

"Flank attacks are a variant of the envelopment, in which access to the enemy's flank and rear is furnished by the enemy's own forward movement."

Yes. But that is not what the flanking rule in previous editions of warhammer represents. Okay, so there has been some confusion of terminology here. But still. The rule in previous editions of warhammer represents the disruption caused by an attack on an unprepared flank or rear. I simply pointed out that traditionally this only worked on certain formations because others were flexible enough to see it coming and prepare for it. That is an entirely different concept to the envelopment of a flank. Which is something that AoS deals with no differently than eighth or any other edition.

AOS is shaping up to be a tragedy.

That terrain piece is awesome, the box art is very good, and other art-work I've seen is first class.

AOS could have been something special. Instead, it's crashed and burned. Awful rules, terrible fluff

Tragedy.

NOT SURE IF TROLLING BUT...

Are we debating whether being flanked is a thing? It's a time-honoured military maneuver. As units aren't physically ranked anymore, application has changed, but a flank is a flank is a flank. It really is and has pretty much always been.

If reacting to a flanking maneuver was that easy then a few bajillion battles might have been a little different. But they weren't. Confusion, reaction, repositioning all takes time, and the outflanker gets to press that advantage.

Suffice to say, it may all end up being simplified a little in a wargame where little plastic men are in nice little formations, be they loose or base-to-base. But being flanked, outflanked, attacked in the side/rear IS a thing, whether in a strict formation or not. It really just is.


ON TOPIC

I like the minis the more I look at them. The fact they're MAHOOSIVE is hilarious and cool.

migooo wrote:

NoggintheNog wrote:

migooo wrote:
It's going to be cool for a Yuan ti themed d&d board.

Isnt there a snakemen faction in that mierce miniatures game, perfect for that too.

aww yes!

i just checked it out oh my why did nobody tell me of this before.

I tried!

 Azreal13 wrote:

 theHandofGork wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:


I think this is make or break time for fantasy. When this steaming pile gets flushed, there won't be anything afterwards.

Mantic. Mantic will be left afterwards.

Would now also be a good time to mention Darklands, who are going after the lower model count skirmish style fantasy game, have some of the finest sculpts in all of Christendom and have just launched a KS to transition a lot of the core units from resin to metal, dramatically dropping the cost of entry?

Back on topic, that terrain piece is pretty cool, I admit. Might be fitting for a Game of Throne-esque terrain piece (a part of Old Valyria, maybe?).

I might buy one, but then again it doesn't fit the board I'm making. And I won't be using it for GW games, sadly.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Are we debating whether being flanked is a thing?

No, I think most of us are balking at the fact that some people can't tell the difference between flanking on a strategic level and an individual person being attacked from a 90 degree angle.

 heartserenade wrote:
Then let's go back to my example earlier: 5000 men 6 ranks deep getting charged by 5000 men 6 ranks deep on their flank. What are they gonna do, have 6 men face the enemy? Now the enemy in your flank is fighting your six men, and since they have a wider line, they can envelopment your whole one side. Even if they don't envelop you (since you don't define envelopment as flanking), that's 6 men fighting a lot of enemies facing their way. If the whole formation readjusts itself they'll be out of formation. That's a strike on the flank.

Again, where do you get your facts? It seems to me you're just making them up, based entirely on no evidence.

Yes, exactly, 6 men are now facing the entire width of the enemy until the flank can be sufficiently redeployed. That's something that still works in AoS. But they are still facing the enemy and not mysteriously unable to do anything or use their shields to protect themselves.

Ancient formations tended to have very deep elements. They wouldn't generally only be in 6 ranks. Which is why crossing the t is less of a thing. But envelopment still works.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
AOS is shaping up to be a tragedy.

That terrain piece is awesome, the box art is very good, and other art-work I've seen is first class.

AOS could have been something special. Instead, it's crashed and burned. Awful rules, terrible fluff

Tragedy.

Are you trolling or have you actually played the game already?

I am excited for this release. Perhaps because I Ebayed all my Fantasy stuff when these rumours began months ago and now I have a clean slate to begin on Saturday.

Game rules:

1 player automatically wins because of reason.

End of game rules.

Do I need to play a single game to find out the weaknesses of it? No.

People have been playing wargames for 20+ years. Some dozends of different games and editions. You cannot deny people their expertise on game rules. We KNOW when something is broken.

Norsed wrote:

 heartserenade wrote:
Then let's go back to my example earlier: 5000 men 6 ranks deep getting charged by 5000 men 6 ranks deep on their flank. What are they gonna do, have 6 men face the enemy? Now the enemy in your flank is fighting your six men, and since they have a wider line, they can envelopment your whole one side. Even if they don't envelop you (since you don't define envelopment as flanking), that's 6 men fighting a lot of enemies facing their way. If the whole formation readjusts itself they'll be out of formation. That's a strike on the flank.

Again, where do you get your facts? It seems to me you're just making them up, based entirely on no evidence.

Yes, exactly, 6 men are now facing the entire width of the enemy until the flank can be sufficiently redeployed. That's something that still works in AoS. But they are still facing the enemy and not mysteriously unable to do anything or use their shields to protect themselves.

And the enemy will just merrily wait until you redeploy, right? Because redeploying won't break formation whatsoever, and I'm sure those enemies are really fine gentlemen who just attacked your flank by accident and not because it's strategically sound.

I give up. Clearly you know more about military tactics.


As for AoS, I really want to like it, I really do. It just seems like GW doesn't want me to.

Norsed wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

Norsed wrote:

 heartserenade wrote:
Then you only have six men facing against the enemy and certainly they'll envelop them. Congratulations, you just lost your flank.

You really don't know much about historical battles, do you? Even Sun Tzu has written about flanking maneuvers in Art of War, and as far as I know heavy cavalry charge is not a thing in Chinese warfare.

Please don't insult our intelligence by pulling stuff out of your ass.

There is a difference between an envelopment of a flank and a strike in the flank. The thing people are complaining about is that AoS removed the flank strike thing. THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS. Please get that into your head and stop insulting me.

Not according to the actual military.

From The Army's Forms of Maneuver:

"Flank attacks are a variant of the envelopment, in which access to the enemy's flank and rear is furnished by the enemy's own forward movement."

Yes. But that is not what the flanking rule in previous editions of warhammer represents. Okay, so there has been some confusion of terminology here. But still. The rule in previous editions of warhammer represents the disruption caused by an attack on an unprepared flank or rear. I simply pointed out that traditionally this only worked on certain formations because others were flexible enough to see it coming and prepare for it. That is an entirely different concept to the envelopment of a flank. Which is something that AoS deals with no differently than eighth or any other edition.

8th didn't have envelopment but previous editions did, it was called "lap around".

RoninXiC wrote:
Game rules:

1 player automatically wins because of reason.

End of game rules.

Do I need to play a single game to find out the weaknesses of it? No.

People have been playing wargames for 20+ years. Some dozends of different games and editions. You cannot deny people their expertise on game rules. We KNOW when something is broken.

And with GW's track record I would be more surprised if it's super balanced and nothing is broken. Pleasantly surprised, but surprised nonetheless.

Nicked off twitter:

Not enough skulls. I only count 12.

For those interested, White Dwarf does have the full rules (4 pages) and a free model.

 heartserenade wrote:


And the enemy will just merrily wait until you redeploy, right?

Of course they won't you fool. Did you actually bother to read what I was saying? That still works in AoS. As it should. But that is a different thing entirely to assuming that an attack on a flank will be an attack on an unprepared surface as previous editions of warhammer do.

That's 18 skulls on one guy.

18 fething skulls. feth me in the skull by a fething skull demon with his skull boner.

As a very long-time (2nd/3rd Ed) player, collector and dabbler, mainly in The Empire and Skaven, with a long term interest in the background of the Warhammer world this whole project is somewhat heartbreaking for me. I've had to reconfigure, relearn and replace before but nothing like this sounds like it'll be. The rules hints and fluff which is leaking out thus far does not bode well IMHO so I think I'll be taking myself off and returning to my roots in Oldhammer.

 XT-1984 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
AOS is shaping up to be a tragedy.

That terrain piece is awesome, the box art is very good, and other art-work I've seen is first class.

AOS could have been something special. Instead, it's crashed and burned. Awful rules, terrible fluff

Tragedy.

Are you trolling or have you actually played the game already?

I am excited for this release. Perhaps because I Ebayed all my Fantasy stuff when these rumours began months ago and now I have a clean slate to begin on Saturday.

I don't need to play the game. I read the leaked rules, and in my experience of playing war games for 20+ years, the rules don't work for me.

Similarly I've been cycling for years as well. If a bike has no wheels, I don't need to get on it to realise that it won't get very far.

Don't get me wrong. If people are hyped for this, good luck to them. I hope they enjoy AOS, but IMO, I don't think it'll work.

did the rest of the chaos stuff show up on here



from Atia via Adeptus Atartes on facebook

RoninXiC wrote:
Game rules:

1 player automatically wins because of reason.

End of game rules.

Do I need to play a single game to find out the weaknesses of it? No.

People have been playing wargames for 20+ years. Some dozends of different games and editions. You cannot deny people their expertise on game rules. We KNOW when something is broken.

What I wanted to say. I honestly thought GW would adopt the LOTR approach - round bases for an entry level skirmish game to get people involved, then war of the ring move trays for larger battles. It worked before, it was a no brainer.

 XT-1984 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
AOS is shaping up to be a tragedy.

That terrain piece is awesome, the box art is very good, and other art-work I've seen is first class.

AOS could have been something special. Instead, it's crashed and burned. Awful rules, terrible fluff

Tragedy.

Are you trolling or have you actually played the game already?

I am excited for this release. Perhaps because I Ebayed all my Fantasy stuff when these rumours began months ago and now I have a clean slate to begin on Saturday.

Are you trolling or just willfully ignorant since the rules are available across the interwebs? We've seen examples of warscrolls and battalions; the only thing I haven't seen are examples of the scenarios but I detest being locked into a scenario so that's not a selling point for me, YMMV.

If all you're looking to do is push models around and make pew-pew noises, sorry clang-clang since this is fantasy, AoS is the *cringe* game for you!
*note, the poster does not actually believe AoS is a game nor does he condone the making of pew-pew or clang-clang noises when pushing your models around.

A fluff question for people: Khorne troops have loads of skulls, obviously. But could a necromancer bring those skulls back to life and have them biting the Khorne troops in the ass or getting them to act like nipple clamps?

 Thraxas Of Turai wrote:
Nicked off twitter:

Spoiler:

The art at the end is nice. Those khorne guys remind me of the shirtless but armored waist down khorne guys that came out earlier this year or late last year. I guess their increased size (both model and base) was predictive of what was to come. That big giant creature is even more ridiculous than the hellwhatever dreadnought though.

 Thraxas Of Turai wrote:

Oh god the its Face is the Small skull in the middle....... cant unseen!

 Thraxas Of Turai wrote:
Nicked off twitter:

Spoiler:

They need MOAR SKULLZ!!!!!