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.

I agree on the Fantasy flanking system, in real life when you got lucky against a flank they would quickly reform (usually after taking losses). But remember, it was up to you to reform them before the enemy gets close.

That's why I prefer most games where after your flank has been hit through genius planning on your enemies part or bad luck (usually you need multiple units to have flank attacks) your men will reform to face the the flankers so they do not have a constant advantage.

The problem I had in Fantasy was that usually when you are flanked it was hard to get out of that position. In most games after initial impact I would be able to turn and face them like any normal people would.

AOS is no better though, ignoring formations is plan stupid in the style of warfare being conducted. If you see battle reenactments done correctly you will see what happens to people who break formation, they get slaughtered as they run.

In games when people flee the battle field they should flee in groups and instantly be taken from the table to show they have lost their formation and been run down/fled the field.

I reckon neither game does anything right in moral and formations.

 Swastakowey wrote:
I agree on the Fantasy flanking system, in real life when you got lucky against a flank they would quickly reform (usually after taking losses). But remember, it was up to you to reform them before the enemy gets close.

That's why I prefer most games where after your flank has been hit through genius planning on your enemies part or bad luck (usually you need multiple units to have flank attacks) your men will reform to face the the flankers so they do not have a constant advantage.

The problem I had in Fantasy was that usually when you are flanked it was hard to get out of that position. In most games after initial impact I would be able to turn and face them like any normal people would.

AOS is no better though, ignoring formations is plan stupid in the style of warfare being conducted. If you see battle reenactments done correctly you will see what happens to people who break formation, they get slaughtered as they run.

In games when people flee the battle field they should flee in groups and instantly be taken from the table to show they have lost their formation and been run down/fled the field.

I reckon neither game does anything right in moral and formations.

Really? If you had a musician and won, you could make a combat reform. If you had a musician and lost, you could make a combat reform. Plenty of opportunity to reface an enemy that has flank- or rear-charged you. Which means that your enemy gets their bonus for flank charging you, and then you can easily reform to react to them (unless you are playing a unit with poor Leadership, the stat that represents discipline among other things)

Rihgu wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I agree on the Fantasy flanking system, in real life when you got lucky against a flank they would quickly reform (usually after taking losses). But remember, it was up to you to reform them before the enemy gets close.

That's why I prefer most games where after your flank has been hit through genius planning on your enemies part or bad luck (usually you need multiple units to have flank attacks) your men will reform to face the the flankers so they do not have a constant advantage.

The problem I had in Fantasy was that usually when you are flanked it was hard to get out of that position. In most games after initial impact I would be able to turn and face them like any normal people would.

AOS is no better though, ignoring formations is plan stupid in the style of warfare being conducted. If you see battle reenactments done correctly you will see what happens to people who break formation, they get slaughtered as they run.

In games when people flee the battle field they should flee in groups and instantly be taken from the table to show they have lost their formation and been run down/fled the field.

I reckon neither game does anything right in moral and formations.

Really? If you had a musician and won, you could make a combat reform. If you had a musician and lost, you could make a combat reform. Plenty of opportunity to reface an enemy that has flank- or rear-charged you. Which means that your enemy gets their bonus for flank charging you, and then you can easily reform to react to them (unless you are playing a unit with poor Leadership, the stat that represents discipline among other things)

Thats right (been ages since playing) but I seem to remember there are units that don't have musicians etc. Like Skinks I think...(who, of all Lizardmen should be the fastest to reform). But yea so even Fantasy portrays flanking in an ok manner.

 Klerych wrote:
WFB has soldiers that don't know how to turn to the side and fight on two fronts. This is ridiculous - you don't need to form schiltrom just to brace for impact from the side - someone yells right flank charge and everyone on the right side who heard him will turn to the side to not get hit in his flank.

According to history, many human soldiers seem to be quite stupid, because flank and pincer attacks usually work great.

 Klerych wrote:
The most obvious thing of all things - human beings aren't that stupid. Another thing - literally the whole unit turns around and flees, and then enemy unit catches up to the last rank and... the whole unit disappears. Makes absolutely no sense - chasing anyone down like that would take time. Especially if it's one hero who suddenly butchers a whole unit within the time required for a soldier to hit twice with a spear. Terrible.

A more realistic rule :

A unit that catch a fleeing unit performs its attacks as usual. All attacks hit and wound on 1+, all armour and ward saves are 6+ (reroll any successful save twice). The fleeing unit that's been almost massacred can reform, if they pass a Ld test on 5D6. The devastating experience of being massacred twice is too terrible even for seasonned warriors. For each failed Ld test, 3D6 miniatures disappear : deeply impacted by this traumatic experience, some soldiers chose to commit suicide, other chose to flee never to return, some others take a ***BLAM*** from their leader in a vain order to restore discipline and morale.

Sure, it would give pretty much the same result as "just remove everything", but it would be way better : finicky rules and bucket o' dice.

Rihgu wrote:Really? If you had a musician and won, you could make a combat reform. If you had a musician and lost, you could make a combat reform. Plenty of opportunity to reface an enemy that has flank- or rear-charged you. Which means that your enemy gets their bonus for flank charging you, and then you can easily reform to react to them (unless you are playing a unit with poor Leadership, the stat that represents discipline among other things)

Reforming with one enemy is a bit diffent - it's nice you could do it, but I was more talking about fighting two units - you couldn't have had your models facing in two directions, which they would do, if someone charged them from the side. Because, again, trying to not be stupid enough to keep exposing your side as you look forward.

Litcheur wrote:
According to history, many human soldiers seem to be quite stupid, because flank and pincer attacks usually work great.

That's a whole different animal right there - pincer attacks and flanking charges worked, because it affected morale - they were being surrounded and they knew that if they will start losing, there might be no way to escape, so yes - bonuses to combat resolution and negative modifiers to Ld, but not reduced attacks, for the love of God!

Litcheur wrote:
A more realistic rule :

A unit that catch a fleeing unit performs its attacks as usual. All attacks hit and wound on 1+, all armour and ward saves are 6+ (reroll any successful save twice). The fleeing unit that's been almost massacred can reform, if they pass a Ld test on 5D6. The devastating experience of being massacred twice is too terrible even for seasonned warriors. For each failed Ld test, 3D6 miniatures disappear : deeply impacted by this traumatic experience, some soldiers chose to commit suicide, other chose to flee never to return, some others take a ***BLAM*** from their leader in a vain order to restore discipline and morale.

Sure, it would give pretty much the same result as "just remove everything", but it would be way better : finicky rules and bucket o' dice.

I'm not sure if you're trying to make it sound stupid, but there could be a modified version of that. For example, a rule like this:

Until the unit loses 25% of all it's models there are only battleshock tests like in AoS with single guys deciding to screw this crap and getting outta there as they see their buddies get murdered. Battleshock losses can trigger the 25% lost situation. When it happens, the unit tries to fall back and regroup - make flee roll just like in 8th ed directly towards your table edge if possible unless if it would make you run into another unit - friendly, you move past them if you have enough movement, enemy - you try to run around them the shortest route to the edge. If enemy catches up (just like in 8th ed), it locks the fleeing unit in combat again and each model that could normally, will make free attacks to simulate them catching up and killing those, who try to run before they are forced to reform for desperate fight against the oppressor. Next turn enemy gets additional combat resolution as he has the upper hand.

And models on the flank just turn to their respective side to brace for impact while fighting on two fronts with no additional penalties - they will be penalized enough the moment when, say, spearmen in second rank will have to divide their attacks between the front enemy and side enemy. Negative Ld modifiers scaling up with each enemy in the same combat and on flanks, appropriate modifier for being surrounded, positive modifiers for each allied unit in combat.

Now this is literally what I came up within last 30 seconds while writing it, I'm sure I could come up with something better than that if I just sat here and thought about it, but I have my own tabletop game to make up rules for, so I can't really focus on fixing GW's games, although you get the gist. It's not that complicated, especially if I took time to word it properly, and, in my opinion, it does better justice to what would be happening.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
And I see a more open ended ruleset that is easy to grasp, but allows people to strategize during deployment and think tactically once dice start rolling.

If you are flanking an enemy with two units, they either split attacks, or try to focus down one unit. Then the person controlling the flanking units gets to hit with more soldiers, thereby causing more casualties and making the battleshock phase a bigger concern. If you don't want to be flanked, you need support squads to help keep other units at bay, if you want to have better luck with flanking you bring chariots and cavalry to try and encircle your opponent.

On the idea of cavalry and chariots, they get bonuses for the most part for charging with melee varients, and bonuses for being outside combat range for shooty variants. These make the best use of the retreat mechanic. In 8th ed, you were limited by number of turns. That made a unit being unable to fight for a turn not worth the bonus. Now though, they get to fight like they did in real life, swing in on a flank, kill some stuff, circle out so they don't get dragged down and killed. Shooty ones get to circle around shooting with impunity, and when things get hairy, RUN!

Another nice description of why AoS is a simple and shallow, one would think you guys will make points pro not against it heh.

Inflicting moe damage because you have more units at a place than opponent is such basic stuff that anyone using a brain will have the tactics figured out after few games. Special rules on warscrolls might prolong it a bit but not much and mostly just some combos and one trick ponies will emerge.

In more tactical games, bonuses for outmanouvering your opponent shift the weight from units power level to proper thought out movement. You can ofc go too far with it but AoS is safe here heh.

Even 40k is times better, at least the powerful shooting provides shooting ranges game and flanking works thanks to importance of cover and versus vehicles. And 40k is a simpleton.

With maximum consolidation as a consideration, movement is the extremely important to pay attention to in age of sigmar. If they are in a thin line, focus on the end of the column (that requires tactical maneuvering to accomplish) to ensure weight of attack is on your side. So they would receive more casualties, meaning they will have a more difficult battleshock phase.

And in regards to your first statement, I said nothing to the effect of the game being simple and shallow. EVERY game follows the idea you stated. Wfb was just as simple, but you were stupidly limited i n the variable ways you could form up your units. If you wanted mass battle movement, where were the other formations? Why no triangle or circular formations? Why couldn't spearmen form up ranks completely surrounding archers to protect them? What about lining up along ridgelines with spearmen to stab down at enemies who may not be able to reach? The lack of need for formations, and the reach ability of melee weapons means you get to USE the terrain on the table to your advantage. That means your movement HAS to be more tactical than just trying to maneuver a silly block without breaking your formation.

Fights on an open field against an enemy who has to deploy the same way as you is boring and lame imo and the reason I never wanted to play wfb.

Silly block lol. So much for history of warfare.

But yes you're absolutely right, whfb was lacking and there were multiple options to improve it, like more varied formations, loose one etc. Why not just add those options but leave what was ok instead of dumbing down the whole game. Whfb wasn't stupidly limited anyway, it's common practice to leave out formations in regiment based games because it's not handy. Not to mention that everything having vulnerable sides and rear, while not completly realistic for situations like your spearmen surrounding archers example or circle formations, actualy added to the depth game wise. You're talking immersion more than depth and it's quite frankly great that you can ignore units shooting out of close combat and unpunished getting out of combat when talking about stupid things

Your movement has to be more tactical in AoS, that's new I thought it's about tactics being there at all. If you think no formation and reach of weapons give you more depth than manouvering for flank/ rear charge bonuses then it's obviously the game for you. I still fail to see anything that is not basic in your post.

A pitched battle on open maps is up there with booze and women on the list of the best things that can happen to a man. I'll leave you to your moshpits in the bushes and wish you many fruitful hours of micromanaging your blobs for maximum attack efficiency though, each their own and fun to everyone etc.

Even still, in the history of warfare how long did phalanxes stand up when long range artillery and firearms became the norm? Now how dumb is it to stand shoulder to shoulder with people when a dragon just slammed into the group after a wizard just hit you with a fireball?

The addition of MORE rules to wfb is definitely not the answer. Being in blocks give you tactical benefits in age of sigmar, you get more models into assault due to having to move towards the nearest model, so moving forward with a solid line allows you maximum engagement options as well as efficient movement when using your old school trays. But you shouldn't HAVE to.

I will enjoy rumbling in the bushes, fighting within dark towers of sorcery, protecting my mageknight castle from assault, surrounding a ridgeline with spearmen while archers pepper the enemy below, and losing a turn of any sort of attack because my soldiers have the option of giving my opponent the slip if things are going south for them.

As you said, to each their own! As long as we're all having fun, what is there to really debate?

 Klerych wrote:

Litcheur wrote:
A more realistic rule :

A unit that catch a fleeing unit performs its attacks as usual. All attacks hit and wound on 1+, all armour and ward saves are 6+ (reroll any successful save twice). The fleeing unit that's been almost massacred can reform, if they pass a Ld test on 5D6. The devastating experience of being massacred twice is too terrible even for seasonned warriors. For each failed Ld test, 3D6 miniatures disappear : deeply impacted by this traumatic experience, some soldiers chose to commit suicide, other chose to flee never to return, some others take a ***BLAM*** from their leader in a vain order to restore discipline and morale.

Sure, it would give pretty much the same result as "just remove everything", but it would be way better : finicky rules and bucket o' dice.

I'm not sure if you're trying to make it sound stupid, but there could be a modified version of that. For example, a rule like this:

Until the unit loses 25% of all it's models there are only battleshock tests like in AoS with single guys deciding to screw this crap and getting outta there as they see their buddies get murdered. Battleshock losses can trigger the 25% lost situation. When it happens, the unit tries to fall back and regroup - make flee roll just like in 8th ed directly towards your table edge if possible unless if it would make you run into another unit - friendly, you move past them if you have enough movement, enemy - you try to run around them the shortest route to the edge. If enemy catches up (just like in 8th ed), it locks the fleeing unit in combat again and each model that could normally, will make free attacks to simulate them catching up and killing those, who try to run before they are forced to reform for desperate fight against the oppressor. Next turn enemy gets additional combat resolution as he has the upper hand.

Point was : we're talking about an unit that was badly beaten, then demoralized, pursued and massacred.

Who cares if all the soldiers are dead, or scattered, too demoralised and too few to have any further effect on the battle. The unit is useless, and, as such, removed.

WHFB was already bloated and cumbersome, and I'm quite glad the writers did take some (quite common) shortcuts here and there, and didn't actually try to add some kind of moronic extra rule that forces me to throw several scatter dice to check how the last 3 or 4 bretonnian paesants are crawling in the mud and a D100 to evaluate the (individual) psychic impact of seeing their unit massacred by demons of chaos. If I wanted to endure that kind of rules, I'd play 40k.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Even still, in the history of warfare how long did phalanxes stand up when long range artillery and firearms became the norm? Now how dumb is it to stand shoulder to shoulder with people when a dragon just slammed into the group after a wizard just hit you with a fireball?

The addition of MORE rules to wfb is definitely not the answer. Being in blocks give you tactical benefits in age of sigmar, you get more models into assault due to having to move towards the nearest model, so moving forward with a solid line allows you maximum engagement options as well as efficient movement when using your old school trays. But you shouldn't HAVE to.

I will enjoy rumbling in the bushes, fighting within dark towers of sorcery, protecting my mageknight castle from assault, surrounding a ridgeline with spearmen while archers pepper the enemy below, and losing a turn of any sort of attack because my soldiers have the option of giving my opponent the slip if things are going south for them.

As you said, to each their own! As long as we're all having fun, what is there to really debate?

We're just having a little chat about tactics, I mean you guys just concede that it's the actual not percived lack of tactics in AoS and we're golden Everybody back to fun.

I for example am not bent on invalidating something you enjoy, it might happen as a side effect ofc but not my intention . On the other hand, not that I really care but if someone seeks an answer to the question whether this game is highly tactical or not, that person deserves to read all the opinions out there. It's a first question I want answered when looking for a game to buy and I like honest discussion as in discussion forum. I'm playing a cute little game on pc called Age of Wonders 3 now btw and it's a great example of what flanking and punishment for leaving combat or passing by enemy do to game depth, the possibilities for tactics are vast it has all the depth that multiple units, spells and abilities to choose provide but also so much more on the battle map itself. Simple rules, superb gameplay. Also ofc design really not to my taste because that would be too much I guess, hate that bs what's with all those colorful cartoonish gfx.

Anyway, if it didn't replace whfb, I wouldn't say a word maybe applaud even. As it is, the comparisions are inevitable and for me they cut too much.

There isn't an actual lack of tactics in age of sigmar, otherwise I wouldn't say there wasn't. It's just that now ALL of the tactics are not based around LIMITATIONS in the rule set.

You still get bonuses for flanking (it makes it easier to force battleshock if you are hitting a unit with multiple units due to casualties, and you limit their ability to retreat with a unit they'd rather get out of combat) just because there isn't a separate game mechanic for it, doesn't mean it isn't a tactical decision that give benefits.

Let's not forget that how you deploy your models is also a tactical decision, one you didn't have before. What models you place is now a tactical decision based on the enemies forces, not a mathematical algorithm to determine points efficiency.

Age of sigmar has MORE tactical decision making choices than wfb did, all of which are influenced by interaction with terrain and based upon your perceived strength of the enemy by way of general model description. (By that I mean light infantry or heavy cavalry, magic user or monster)

So no, the statement of "actual, not perceived lack of tactics in aos" is provably false. You keep stating that the tactics I point out are basic, I say the game mechanic cluster-feth that some games shoehorn in to make their game SEEM more tactical are wasting their time.

In AoS units don't have flanks or rear or front even. They fight with same capability in all directions limited by the range of their weapons.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In AoS units don't have flanks or rear or front even. They fight with same capability in all directions limited by the range of their weapons.

Which is perfectly fine and even more reasonable than what happened in WFB, noone can deny that. Attacking enemy units from sides gives you real advantage of getting more of your folks into combat and forcing devastating battleshocks due to wounds lost. Say, your three units lose 3 models each, 9 lost; each unit roll with +3 to the bravery roll. Now enemy loses 9 models, but he's not rolling +3, he's rolling +9, so your units have real chance to not lose any models on - with average bravery of 7 - 1-4 rolls, while his unit will, with the same bravery, always lose at least 3 models, and that's just with a roll of 1 on battleshock test - roll 6 and you're losing 15 models.

So, yeah, everyone can agree that flanking matters, even without some stupid attack penalties. Also you need to be very careful when deciding between MSU and big units as both have pros and cons.

Again, in KoW you get double the attacks from flank charge and triple attacks from rear change. That's flanking that matters.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
There isn't an actual lack of tactics in age of sigmar, otherwise I wouldn't say there wasn't. It's just that now ALL of the tactics are not based around LIMITATIONS in the rule set.

You still get bonuses for flanking (it makes it easier to force battleshock if you are hitting a unit with multiple units due to casualties, and you limit their ability to retreat with a unit they'd rather get out of combat) just because there isn't a separate game mechanic for it, doesn't mean it isn't a tactical decision that give benefits.

Let's not forget that how you deploy your models is also a tactical decision, one you didn't have before. What models you place is now a tactical decision based on the enemies forces, not a mathematical algorithm to determine points efficiency.

Age of sigmar has MORE tactical decision making choices than wfb did, all of which are influenced by interaction with terrain and based upon your perceived strength of the enemy by way of general model description. (By that I mean light infantry or heavy cavalry, magic user or monster)

So no, the statement of "actual, not perceived lack of tactics in aos" is provably false. You keep stating that the tactics I point out are basic, I say the game mechanic cluster-feth that some games shoehorn in to make their game SEEM more tactical are wasting their time.

Yes ofc it's provably false at face value, there can't be actual lack of tactics as in no tactics. There are tactics in AoS. When people say tactics though, I believe they mean some more advanced application of it and in that context, AoS has little to no tactics.

What you call bonus from flanking is not from flanking. You get the same effect hitting the unit with two units from the "front", or hitting the unit with a second unit after first one died, or shooting the unit twice. It's also not a bonus it's just a consequence of double taping. It's also basic stuff sure blocking retreat is some benefit but hardly impressing.

Deployment in whfb wasn't tactical but it is in AoS, what are you talking about? That just doesn't make sense.

And then you say that AoS has more tactical decision making choices than whfb, I guess you want to shock me or make me break my nose through facepalm. Are you talking about just 8th btw or 6th/7 as well (didnt play the others)? Also even if you took your percived strenght of units point, if I understand it correctly, it will be figured out soon by everyone playing and prove simplier than in whfb and as usual with arguments pro AoS, it's something you do in all other games except other games have additional layers of interacion over.

The games with mechanics that make them seem more tactical are probably more tactical. I can't think of any 12+ competitive game that is less tactical than AoS tbh so not really hard to acomplish heh.

It is not a revelation that if you outnumber the enemy it gives you an advantage.

If you keep their cavalry from being able to escape and thereby eliminating their bonuses garnered on the charge, that is a bonus for flanking. Disallowing a unit of archers from disengaging and gaining their bonuses for being outside of assault range when shooting, also a bonus for flanking.

Outnumbering an opponent does give benefits and disadvantages, if you are a single large blob, it is harder to make you run away, but your own models will stop you from bringing weight of attacks to bear. If you are multiple smaller units, you will have multiple chances to pile in models, cut off escape routes, and threaten a larger area overall, but will lose out on the bonuses to bravery for large groups.

You are NOT asking for a more advanced application of tactics, you are asking for more specialised bonuses for hitting a unit in the side or rear flank when in phalanx formation. AoS decided to give you the tactical option of variable formations, allowing for strategies you could NEVER utilize in any previous edition I'm aware of. Why make rules for fighting a phalanx when your opponent could simply deny said bonuses by not forming one? You are literally asking them to deny tactical options to give you back a couple bonuses to dice rolls.

That is not a tactic, that is a game mechanic. There is a difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In regards to the tactics of deployment, in AoS you are counter deploying with units available. In wfb you had your list, that is it. If I had artillery in my case, and you plopped down a monster, if it wasn't in my list I was screwed. Age of sigmar doesn't allow that situation. Tacticsbat deployment.

A game mechanics that creates more tactical environment and allow for more advanced application of tactics. All tactical play in games is the result of game mechanics, what are you on about.

What do you think makes Star Wars Armada such a great tactical game the most? Issuing orders in advance and ships having vulnerable sides and rear. It doesn't matter whether it's ships, regiments or floating octagons (8 sides! Imagine the depth, let's go 32. Joke.) shooting yellow triangles, it allows more tactical manouvering in the movement phase in tabletop wargames. Ofc issuing orders in advance or hidden would be another great addition to whfb/ AoS if only they were looking to create a deep ruleset instead of model pushing vehicle and there are more game mechanics that can give you deep gameplay but a good start would be not removing depth in a first place ie flank and rear changes.

Btw you could make rules that allow you to choose between ranked and skirmish formations for units with bonuses that would make both applicable for certain situations. Example ranked unit would have more push so always strike first rule and bonuses to defence when attacked from the front but vulnerable sides and rear. Or sth, it's doable to do both at once.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:You are literaly asking them to deny tactical options to give you back a couple bonuses for dice rolls

I'm trying to find words to describe how wrong and backwards is that sentence but don't know where to start.

Maybe I'll just cut it and say that micromanaging a blob for optimal number of attacks or coverage of space is not more tactical than maneuvering multiple units to get flank/ rear change and prevent your opponent from getting one. The more decesive such charge can be, the more mind games you invite (up to a point ofc). The formation tactics that you describe were never important in previous editions because they are nothing special especialy that they are dumbed down immensly in AoS and represent little because models don't even have facing. Not to mention they're probably not tactics by design in AoS but just a side effect of going to round bases, which in turn was to allow shinier models and moar awesome poses.

I see that the slowed deployment method of AoS is now more tactical than previous list building (though list building, while has to take tacics into account, is actualy more strategic imo). It's not. At best, it's different. And yes AoS allows for element of bad matchup as upcoming months will show clear.

Again, what you want is more rules added to warhammer fantasy. I never wanted to play warhammer fantasy because i felt the rules were bloated and messy.

Also, I am still wanting to use movement to get multiple units to attack the flanks of enemy units whilst trying not to have the same done to me in return. As someone stated earlier, if I flank your unit with two and we do the same damage to one another (say 4 wounds traded) my units will take battleshock with a +4 to the die roll. Your unit must do so at a +8! How is that not a representation of the disheartening effect of being pinned by two units? I also get to work on board coverage and make formations of multiple units intermixed with one another (impossible to do before)

This thread is predicated on the notion that age of sigmar has no strategic value, with an emphasis on comparing it to the old warhammer fantasy. That is simply not the case. Every tactic used in wfb can be carried over to age of sigmar, including it giving benefits in-game for the decision. Some people don't believe the benefits are good enough. That is a personal opinion, and has no bearing on whether or not the tactics themselves exist.

Warhammer was indeed bloated, I'd like it streamlined but not to the point of AoS and made deeper the same time, those are not exclusive. Adding meaningful rules is not bloat and what I want could be put and explained on a single page.

If your unit is just bigger than mine and you deal 8 damage and I deal 4 then the situation is the same. Then how is it a representation of being pinned by two units? It's just a representation of dishartening effect of taking casualties, which you had in whfb as well but there you had additional bonus if you managed to hit the flank and even better when you hit the rear. In KoW on the other hand you deal triple casualties if you hit the rear not just the same no matter the direction. There's your difference and what you have in AoS is close to irrelevant in comparision and situational, why flank when you can hit the front slighly to the right.

One benefit from flanking bonuses that is very important is how it shifts the weight from units power level comparision to tactics. If you enter the battle with significant advantage but get outmanouvered, you're in for a nasty suprise. That element ofc exist in AoS just like some element of flanking etc but it's all basic, miniscule, uninspiring and easy to figure out.

We've the board coverage and intermixed units formation business you mention in 40k for last two editions as the models directly represent their position on the battlefield. The tactics that follow are ussualy a no brainer and so obvious after few games that you do it on automaticaly without any thought.

I don't see a reason to compare with whfb mainly especialy that it wasn't the best game out there and should have been improve on balance and depth fronts, just like 40k should be now. You can compare to any game in existence if relevant and shares enough similarities in one department or the other, skirmish games, battle games, pc wargames, boardgames, half boardgames/ wargames, ccgs, whatever.

It's a personal opinion that the benefits are good enough and has no bearing on whether or not the tactics themselves are in any way relevant except for cinematic pushing your models around instead of just forwards.

Flanking is still hugely important as it allows you to maximise damage done and minimise damage taken - there is a example on my blog that shows this with pictures as it's hard to explain using words alone.

In short flanking is still a huge tactic - charging in the rear is however not as its just the same as charging into the front. Of course if your opponents unit is in a square formation then any side is equivalent to the front but then that's not the optimum formation for them to pile in from so you may get advantages in a different way

HobbyKiller wrote:

In short flanking is still a huge tactic - charging in the rear is however not as its just the same as charging into the front. Of course if your opponents unit is in a square formation then any side is equivalent to the front but then that's not the optimum formation for them to pile in from so you may get advantages in a different way

Not so huge as before, since you have to take into account the 3'' move in the combat phase, the melee range of the models in the unit and the fact the rules do not say the 3'' move may not be made if the model is already in melee range...as soon as it stays "toward the closest model", there is nothing preventing him to "make some room" for the others behind him.

Also, you measure from model to model, not base to base. That changes a lot of things, in good and bad. I don't believe your example is really in the good here for your demonstration, since plaguebearers in the back are barely 4'' away (3'' move +1'' melee range)

This is a tactic known in 40k, but it really is useful against very deep formation units. If your opponent is smart, he will use a formation that will have no blind spot - thus negating any advantage from a "flanking".

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It is not a revelation that if you outnumber the enemy it gives you an advantage.

tell that to the spartans , on serious not, has anyone noticed that keeping your units in relative formation is actually better in this game (i.e keep them in a nice square block close to each other) as you maximise the space available as not to get charged or attached? in AoS you can still have them in a block formation, come in close and then spread them out as to block paths (or charges) and protect anything behind but when they are in blocks they are protected from ranged attacks... (I am not sure if I explained myself properly but its something I noticed)

 Sarouan wrote:

HobbyKiller wrote:

In short flanking is still a huge tactic - charging in the rear is however not as its just the same as charging into the front. Of course if your opponents unit is in a square formation then any side is equivalent to the front but then that's not the optimum formation for them to pile in from so you may get advantages in a different way

Not so huge as before, since you have to take into account the 3'' move in the combat phase, the melee range of the models in the unit and the fact the rules do not say the 3'' move may not be made if the model is already in melee range...as soon as it stays "toward the closest model", there is nothing preventing him to "make some room" for the others behind him.

Also, you measure from model to model, not base to base. That changes a lot of things, in good and bad. I don't believe your example is really in the good here for your demonstration, since plaguebearers in the back are barely 4'' away (3'' move +1'' melee range)

This is a tactic known in 40k, but it really is useful against very deep formation units. If your opponent is smart, he will use a formation that will have no blind spot - thus negating any advantage from a "flanking".

Except that if they are changing their formation to account for advantages you could gain from flanking, they are using tactical movement abilities not available before. Any time you think of a way to stop a certain strategy because you don't have to remain in blocks, you are pointing out tactics that were unavailable in wfb.

That doesn't make the new tactic deep tough.

It is as deep as you want to make it. I have a 30 man unit of elven spearmen, I can set up a flying wedge with archers in the middle, but run a line of spearmen down the center also. When they get into combat, that center line gives me guys to kill off to allow my unit to remain at fighting strength, I can swing it to the engaged side to give support if more damage is needed, and if something arrives behind I can move them in to tie the enemy up while my archers escape.

The depth relies on your ability to plan and execute a tactical decision, not giving you a game mechanic to strive for in order to achieve a bonus to your dice roll.

HobbyKiller wrote:
Flanking is still hugely important as it allows you to maximise damage done and minimise damage taken - there is a example on my blog that shows this with pictures as it's hard to explain using words alone.

In short flanking is still a huge tactic - charging in the rear is however not as its just the same as charging into the front. Of course if your opponents unit is in a square formation then any side is equivalent to the front but then that's not the optimum formation for them to pile in from so you may get advantages in a different way

I looked it up. What is on your picture is not evn a flank charge, it's frontal charge with rules shenaningans to get your models to the short edge of the unit. That's another thing btw, there are no flank charges per se in AoS because there are no flanks.

But ok though, semantics aside, I see what you mean and I saw that in the rules from day 1 but it's still situational "hunting for a shorter edge" rule shananingans play than a major manouvers game I consider a basis for any depth in a wargame. All power to you for trying to play in a meaningful way but it's not a best vehicle for that imo and really not the same.

And nothing shows it better than your sentence about how rear charge is just the same as charging into the fron



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
The depth relies on your ability to plan and execute a tactical decision, not giving you a game mechanic to strive for in order to achieve a bonus to your dice roll.

You strive for better positions and a better 4 directional puzzle of multiple units and getting to those positions is planing and executing a tactical decisions ffs.

You strive for dice just as me just in your case it's less dice to the archers, more dice for more damage. I can tie units with other units, deny movement etc. Just drop that "just a dice" argument already please.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

HobbyKiller wrote:
Flanking is still hugely important as it allows you to maximise damage done and minimise damage taken - there is a example on my blog that shows this with pictures as it's hard to explain using words alone.

In short flanking is still a huge tactic - charging in the rear is however not as its just the same as charging into the front. Of course if your opponents unit is in a square formation then any side is equivalent to the front but then that's not the optimum formation for them to pile in from so you may get advantages in a different way

I looked it up. What is on your picture is not evn a flank charge, it's frontal charge with rules shenaningans to get your models to the short edge of the unit. That's another thing btw, there are no flank charges per se in AoS because there are no flanks.

But ok though, semantics aside, I see what you mean and I saw that in the rules from day 1 but it's still situational "hunting for a shorter edge" rule shananingans play than a major manouvers game I consider a basis for any depth in a wargame. All power to you for trying to play in a meaningful way but it's not a best vehicle for that imo and really not the same.

And nothing shows it better than your sentence about how rear charge is just the same as charging into the fron

Actually I believe this is exactly what flanking attacks were in real life. It was never running into the sides of guys, they always saw enemies coming and tried to brace, that's pure human instinct. Look at it in these simple steps:
1: tie them up in combat
2: charge on the flank of the newly-formed front
3: kill X models using both units
4: Enemy takes battleshock test with twice as many casualties than he would be taking if fighting just one of your units.
5: enemy loses twice as many models as he would normally when fighting one unit

This shows that flank charge is actually beneficial for you, as it can devastate enemy unit far more, than just one unit. Now you can say "but if you charge one unit in the flank or rear with one unit, it's just as if they fought in front!" and yes, that's true, because soldiers are capable of turning 180' and taking the enemy charge. Units can change facing, a 20 man square is still a square when everyone turns around and it loses no defensive capabilities. And that's fairly reasonable, don't you think?

So, yeah, flanking makes sense with more than one unit in combat, and it gives you huge advantage as you can melt enemy unit very quickly. Not to mention having three units in combat and having him take battleshock losses from 3 sets of casualties at the same time.

And if you want to dabble in semantics, then remember that a flanking attack may also mean charging from the side of the battlefield-wide frontline. But overall if there's a frontline with two units facing each other, especially after they both pile in on each other, then by definition the sides of that combat are their flanks. And charging into thin side is a flank charge, having 360' field of view doesn't change anything in this case, as it's the unit that gets attacked from the "side", not just the round-based models. And it does give you real benefits, even if you charge into the rear of the unit that fights other one in front, just without a stupid special rule but with core mechanic of the game. Much better, than some arbitrary, artificial rules that contributed to the overbloating of the Game-That-Was ( ).

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?

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

How is the system less tactical?

You're doing it wrong. Comparing to WFB will not help you selling the game better.

You can use tactics in AoS, but the trouble is that everything is about throwing more or less dice. Thus, the results are still random - it may help or not, but you don't have "fixed" ones that you are sure to get.

The basic here in flanking is just having less dice throwed at you. That's all. That's why some people may call it "very basic" - that doesn't change the fact it is a tactic you can use and can have effects. Or not. Depends of, you know, dice - 'cause rolling plenty of them is fun.

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.

 Sarouan wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

How is the system less tactical?

You're doing it wrong. Comparing to WFB will not help you selling the game better.

You can use tactics in AoS, but the trouble is that everything is about throwing more or less dice. Thus, the results are still random - it may help or not, but you don't have "fixed" ones that you are sure to get.

The basic here in flanking is just having less dice throwed at you. That's all. That's why some people may call it "very basic" - that doesn't change the fact it is a tactic you can use and can have effects. Or not. Depends of, you know, dice - 'cause rolling plenty of them is fun.

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 you guys are focused too much on the dice roll rather than the other major benefit to AoS "flanking" which is limiting movement. Units can flee anywhere as long as they end 3" away from an enemy unit, so hitting an enemy from certain directions limits their ability to flee in that particular direction. Using this you can protect objectives or 'push' units to expose other targets.

Flanking can also simply mean positioning yourself to attack exposed or softer targets. Taking out the Bloodsecrator makes the Bloodreavers a lot less threatening, and some scenarios require characters or units to be alive.

And every GW game has it's actual combat decided on a dice roll, it's always been down to trying to make the probability favour yourself. AoS isn't an exception to this and nor was WFB.