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.

Formations

One of the main reasons for close formations was to protect against cavalry who would rarely ever charge a discplined unit of soldiers - because it was a very bad idea for them.

On the other hand a close formation makes you more of a a target for missile fire and artillery - whether that be sling shot or Cannon.

Most cavalry was there to deal with their opposite numbers and when that battle was won - slaughter undiscplined or fleeing troops - it was not usually there to charge headlong into formed ranks. Another good option is the hit and run mechanic where you can have fast moving (usually cavalry) forces Charge, engage, retreat and then next turn chrage again or at a different target.

Inerestingly AOS gives units options like shield walls to sacrfice speed for protection - something that Warhammer did not do..........

And, if you charged a cavalry unit into a tightly formed block in age of sigmar, they would be stabbed to death in the counter punch. Especially since several of the spear wielding units in game get a bonus to damage if they DIDN'T charge that turn.

So, cavalry will want to hit units that are spread out over a decent area to deny effective counter assault and to chase down archers and artillery units in the back field, which don't want to be anywhere near melee due to losing bonuses when engaged.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
And, if you charged a cavalry unit into a tightly formed block in age of sigmar, they would be stabbed to death in the counter punch. Especially since several of the spear wielding units in game get a bonus to damage if they DIDN'T charge that turn.

So, cavalry will want to hit units that are spread out over a decent area to deny effective counter assault and to chase down archers and artillery units in the back field, which don't want to be anywhere near melee due to losing bonuses when engaged.

So much tactics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

Yes. Let's add random meteors falling at units. And a possibilty for a third turn. And that your cavalery becomes your infantry and vice versa due to daaark magic. You have to plan for that, it's strategic no? Please.

I see what discussion I am in now. When 40k hit there was a bunch of guys too who argued that all the random crap makes the game better. It doesn't, it just levels the field so scrubs are less likely to be wiped out the table.

I also see that it doesn't make sense. You already argued that AoS deployment, random turn and I think no balance somewhere else are good things and an improvent which for me are signs of game design for store mums. I could have written it drunk in a pub in an hour. Anyway there's obviously no convincing you and we're talking in circles now, game is garbage, tactics basic and have fun with it just like I have with borderline garbage 40k (I don't in fact lol I haven't played a single game of 7th because, guess what, it's garbage).

That's fine, finish your side of the discussion with insults.

If you are the kind of player who would call others who play a game a scrub because they arent the tactical wizard you believe yourself to be, then I am glad you have moved on.

Every single tactic you have described in our conversation has a game mechanic reason to perform in age of sigmar, your entire argument is the game doesn't force you to move in a way you like, and doesn't reward players enough for utilising tactics that only matter when you play the way you want.

You don't get to decide whether a game is bad because it plays in a way you don't like, all you can say is "I don't like this game".

I prefer first person view in video games, that doesn't mean my argument has merit when I say a game is garbage simply because it is 3rd person.

(Also, 7th ed is a better system )

Scrub is not someone who plays worse. Scrub is someone who plays worse but instead of aiming to improve, makes up some arbitrary rules to limit the game (ie claiming that a tactic is cheap despite being mentioned in the rules) and whines you into submission. Too random games are scrubs paradise because more skilled players loose more often due to bad luck.

AoS benchmarked vs any other major game on the market by not biased person will turn out bad.

The game mechanic argument doesn't make sense. I wish you'd see that.

But I'm glad you're glad.

You have yet to say where the game mechanics are missing for ANY of the tactics you claim are missing. There are reasons to
Flank attack with multiple units
Get behind an opponent for a charge
Claim higher ground
Form up a phalanx(and other formations besides)
Hold ground in cover
And army creation is based on choosing your armies best unit type for defeating your enemy's unit types as you deploy (so light cavalry vs archers or artillery
, monsters vs light cavalry, artillery or heroes vs monsters, heavy cavalry vs heroes, infantry blobs vs heavy and light cavalry)

How does one go about benchmarking a game? What industry average is there besides sales figures and miniature production responsiveness time?

What you want to do is have people give their personal opinion on whether they think the game is "better" than other wargames on the market. You can never achieve an objective finding with that sampling because with the niche nature of wargaming, people will automatically know the system they are playing and preformed/culturally biased opinions will muddy any comparison attempted.

As an example, I have literally seen people say they don't want to try playing age of sigmar because even though they only play for fun against their wife, they heard on the internet that people will break the game by buying a pile of the best models and crush them out of hand. They were asked if they of their wife would do that, the answer was no. So why does it matter?

That is the cultural bias hard at work. People are so incensed about something they don't like about age of sigmar (fluff, gameplay changes, etc.) That they take the it upon themselves to ensure people who enjoy the game are shouted down until their enjoyment is buried under a pile of posts about how broken and unplayable this "garbage" is. You can't have unbiased people in gaming, every aspect of it is purely a matter of personal preference.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
You have yet to say where the game mechanics are missing for ANY of the tactics you claim are missing. There are reasons to
Flank attack with multiple units

This is a multiple charge. There is no flank, front or back in AoS - or at least, it doesn't make a difference in game terms.

So when you say:

Get behind an opponent for a charge

You could as well attack from the front. It just depends on how the models are placed.

Claim higher ground

It makes no real difference in game. LoS is barely an issue in AoS.

Form up a phalanx(and other formations besides)

That gives you no real advantage. This is just you placing your models as you wish. The only difference is how many dice rolled when you attack/get attacked.

Hold ground in cover

Meh. I call that "the 40k Fallacy" - cover isn't a big help against saturation, if you have no save or meeting a too high rend. You just die in the end since it has no effect on the hits and wounds.

And army creation is based on choosing your armies best unit type for defeating your enemy's unit types as you deploy (so light cavalry vs archers or artillery
, monsters vs light cavalry, artillery or heroes vs monsters, heavy cavalry vs heroes, infantry blobs vs heavy and light cavalry)

Army creation? You just play what you want. There is no army creation in the game rules.

It gives the player with the biggest collection an advantage, that's all. Of course, units can have different roles, but when you outnumber the opponent with vastly superior units, it doesn't really matter that much...

That is the cultural bias hard at work. People are so incensed about something they don't like about age of sigmar (fluff, gameplay changes, etc.) That they take the it upon themselves to ensure people who enjoy the game are shouted down until their enjoyment is buried under a pile of posts about how broken and unplayable this "garbage" is. You can't have unbiased people in gaming, every aspect of it is purely a matter of personal preference.

AoS isn't unplayable. Trouble is, people defending it usually try to take it for something it isn't. Sure, there are tactics to use...it's just that their effects aren't so outstanding than in other games where advantages are something else than "rolling more or less dice in the end".

There are plenty of other game systems on the market, some very simple (even more than AoS!). What AoS "white knights" must understand is that defending is doesn't mean being blind to everything. AoS isn't the greatest game of all where you can use a thousand tactics.

It's just a fun game to play your collection with your friends.

This is a multiple charge. There is no flank, front or back in AoS - or at least, it doesn't make a difference in game terms.

it does, it stops the enemy being able to move/retreat/escape in the direction it has been attacked from..

So when you say:

You could as well attack from the front. It just depends on how the models are placed.

sure but then they can escape from the flanks or back...

Claim higher ground

meh,

It makes no real difference in game. LoS is barely an issue in AoS.

depends on how people play it, surely higher grounds allows for most ranged units to see/attack anyone in LOS... its easy to agree with the opponent, most people do not play with "enough" higher ground to make a difference.

That gives you no real advantage. This is just you placing your models as you wish. The only difference is how many dice rolled when you attack/get attacked.

it sure does, by placing units in a tighter, square formation (phalanx) you are making best use of the limited "board space" you are playing on, a unit that is spread out has a higher chance of being "hit" or seen or charged than a tightly packed unit... its also great that you can BREAK formation, you can have a nice square formation moving forward, then when needed they can break up and spread out allowing them to "block" off whole section to stop the enemy from charging anything behind them, or moving behind them (to attack say a ranged unit of some kind)... technically formations play a more key role in AoS than they ever did... heck now most "cavarly" units with "lances" can do the Bret formation to a certain degree and gain a bonus(by having more attacking) and if they keep in the "lance" formation they have less of a chance of being "attacked" from the sides (because they are not as spread out)

I mean you can not "surround" a hero in a circular formation to "protect" him from being charged (not shot at) which is great now

Meh. I call that "the 40k Fallacy" - cover isn't a big help against saturation, if you have no save or meeting a too high rend. You just die in the end since it has no effect on the hits and wounds.

even if it helps you 1% it still helps...

Army creation? You just play what you want. There is no army creation in the game rules.

I know right, its just bloody awesome it is... I can buy whatever models I want and enjoy the fun great game.. .but if I do focus on an army I get clear bonuses for doing so and anyways most of AoS is about scenarios army building is not as important as "game" building... personally I am waiting for fan made things like the "300" battle also, if you are playing a game and feel that you are at a disadvantage, you could ask the nearest other player to borrow some of his models and there, you are even ... this game is made for sharing

It gives the player with the biggest collection an advantage, that's all. Of course, units can have different roles, but when you outnumber the opponent with vastly superior units, it doesn't really matter that much...

not unless I play a specific scenario :/ where you are limited to certain units/choices... I am sure if 2 dudes who have never met (which almost never happens, after a few games you get to know everyone and what they play like..) meet up and they both bring their armies, sure, the one with the most would usually have an advantage... unless he says "you know what, even though I have 200 more units than you I will only use this and this as to make it fair, I am cool like that" and the other player says "thanks bro you are super cool after this I will buy you a pint" and they both become best buds and play well into their 60s...

AoS isn't unplayable. Trouble is, people defending it usually try to take it for something it isn't. Sure, there are tactics to use...it's just that their effects aren't so outstanding than in other games where advantages are something else than "rolling more or less dice in the end".

or maybe people are playing it wrong and not taking advantage of the freedom given to you, AoS is mostly about synargies and having your units work in cohesion, your hero phase supporting all other phases, having my skellies murder a group of witches is truly, truly fun... just because you are not given a X+ because you charged or flanked does not mean there is no bonuses to charging or flanking(like blocking escape routes)... how many people have used "retreat" in their games? I have... I held off a dark elf dragon (lord?) with a unit (I think they took out one of his wounds, but they lost a few more) until my hellpit was in charge range, they escaped (ran away or retreated, thank you running dice) and my hell-pit charged... then that very same unit that escaped (almost dead) acted like a tar pit and stopped the next closest enemy unit coming to the aid of the dragon lord allowing my hellpit to win and kill him :/ (he could have tried to escape as well but he simply did not, which limited his "tactics")

There are plenty of other game systems on the market, some very simple (even more than AoS!). What AoS "white knights" must understand is that defending is doesn't mean being blind to everything. AoS isn't the greatest game of all where you can use a thousand tactics.

but no one has said that, at the same time the anti AoS black knights need to stop being blood blinded by AoS and saying its a badly made tactic-less game... its not, its just different.

It's just a fun game to play your collection with your friends

all miniatures wargames are "just" fun games to play your collection with your friends...

1) attacking an opponent from the rear allows you to dictate their movement, if they want to fight, they have to move AWAY from the rest of your army, if they want to run , they have to move TOWARDS your army

2) line of sight is a huge issue, while you can't join a group with characters, you can still place them within a unit for los blocking purposes. Also, if they are on higher ground, they are in terrain. That means a +1 to saves. (Shields are locked overhead for some models, or they are ducking into nooks to hide when things shoot at them) and a +1 to saves is nothing to scoff at. Cover is a galaxy in 40k because if your save is better, you get no bonus. If I have my dragon knights in a forest, they are now 3+ save, rerolling 1s and 2s versus shooting. That definitely makes them significantly tougher to kill at range.

3) if you vastly out number me with "superior units" without paying attention to my unit types, you'll be hard pressed to stop me from achieving whatever sudden death mission I choose. If you vastly outnumber me with superior units AND made sure you countered me with unit types as well.. Congratulations on your impending victory! Let's do it again, with me having a fortress of some sort. We'll do some lord of the rings style siege and see how long I last this time

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
You have yet to say where the game mechanics are missing for ANY of the tactics you claim are missing. There are reasons to
Flank attack with multiple units
Get behind an opponent for a charge
Claim higher ground
Form up a phalanx(and other formations besides)
Hold ground in cover
And army creation is based on choosing your armies best unit type for defeating your enemy's unit types as you deploy (so light cavalry vs archers or artillery
, monsters vs light cavalry, artillery or heroes vs monsters, heavy cavalry vs heroes, infantry blobs vs heavy and light cavalry)

How does one go about benchmarking a game? What industry average is there besides sales figures and miniature production responsiveness time?

What you want to do is have people give their personal opinion on whether they think the game is "better" than other wargames on the market. You can never achieve an objective finding with that sampling because with the niche nature of wargaming, people will automatically know the system they are playing and preformed/culturally biased opinions will muddy any comparison attempted.

As an example, I have literally seen people say they don't want to try playing age of sigmar because even though they only play for fun against their wife, they heard on the internet that people will break the game by buying a pile of the best models and crush them out of hand. They were asked if they of their wife would do that, the answer was no. So why does it matter?

That is the cultural bias hard at work. People are so incensed about something they don't like about age of sigmar (fluff, gameplay changes, etc.) That they take the it upon themselves to ensure people who enjoy the game are shouted down until their enjoyment is buried under a pile of posts about how broken and unplayable this "garbage" is. You can't have unbiased people in gaming, every aspect of it is purely a matter of personal preference.

I said it like 10 times already. Take mr. Sarouan excellent answer though, much better worded and I'm tired of talking in circles and it is a "tire the oppossing disputant" affair at this point. Flanking for denying retreat is situational and a side effect not something that makes it worth it all the time. Everything that could be described as deeper mechanic in AoS is like that, situational, barely relevant and

Your last paragraph is bs. Noone came to the thread called "I have so much fun with AoS" and shouted the OP down. It's a thread about tactics, I see the most shallow game I've played last 15 years and I played legion, what do you expect.

Oh and phalanx had sides, and rear. You hit either, it folded, all tactics against it were based on disruption either throug terrain or flanking. Talk about a bad example.

You can benchmark rules clarity, balance, function, depth, possibilities. AoS raw is already crap and requires complex and elaborate gentleman code to be playable. Just take KoW, it's simplier if you count rules + warscrolls, deeper, infinitely better balanced. Now take Infinity, Warmachine, Armada, Malifaux, what AoS has on those? Pile in?

A phalanx only has sides and rear if they choose to. Why is it that all the tactical options in age of sigmar, that every other game also has, are situational and shallow?

How is age of sigmar not balanced? Compare units based on general appearance and model footprint and see how close they are. Heavy cavalry (dragon princes of caledor and blood crushers of khorne, for example) if you have two units of the same footprint across the table from each other, they are going to be evenly matched (that would be 3 blood crushers to about 6 dragon princes) the same holds true for infantry. It takes 4-5 storm vermin to equal the footprint of a ogre warrior, now look at the attack to wound ratio and see what happens. Anyone who looks at a unit of elven spearmen and a unit of peasant militia and thinks they are of equal power would need their head examined, but if those same militia men are staring across the field at a same size unit of clanrats, you can tell right off they are of similar power.

This is a game whose primary focus is on the models themselves, just because the balance literally lies within the models, doesn't mean the balance doesn't exist.

The phalanx by definition fought in line and had very vulnerable flanks and rear.

The whole basis of phalanx tactics was to hold the line, because each man's shield protected the right hand side of his left hand man. If men broke out of formation, it left the rest of the line more vulnerable to missiles and well formed enemy breaking in.

As soon as you moved out of line, the hoplon shield became a liability not an asset, because it was too heavy for skirmish use. Greek light infantry used light shields, light or no armour and light javelins, to enable them to move around easily.

The first thing a fleeting hoplite would throw away was his shield, leading to the famous injunction to "come back with your shield or on it" as casualties were carried on their shields.

To be fair, AoS is just a simple fantasy skirmish where people run around all over in loose groups. There can't be any tactics around formations, command and control or morale, because these factors are not covered in the rules. I don't think we can blame it for that.

It's perfectly fine to play at AoS, I will not say it enough. It's just that there is no use trying to defend it in a way that is not suited to this game.

This topic is all about saying "no, you can use as many tactics you could in 8th edition, it's really rewarding for it".

And that's not exactly true. Yes, you can use tactics - different tactics, but nevertheless tactics. But are they really rewarding or decisive like in 8th edition? Not so much. AoS is highly random (and everything is about rolling lot of dice for no particular reason, really) and the effects of these tactics is just about that: rolling more or less dice with your models being placed.

The argument saying the enemy will not escape...why would he do that? The game is clearly made so that agressive playstyle is favored. Look at the shooting ranges; they are quite short, like in Warmachine. And you can shoot as you want in melee, it doesn't make a difference. So locking a shooting unit in melee doesn't really nullify their effectiveness - you just pray to kill enough before they will fire again. And some shooting units really don't care about melee (some actually look for it).


About higher grounds;

bitethythumb wrote:

depends on how people play it, surely higher grounds allows for most ranged units to see/attack anyone in LOS... its easy to agree with the opponent, most people do not play with "enough" higher ground to make a difference.

This is again an illustration on how much this game needs to be "customized"; since there is no rule about what would be a "higher ground", it's entirely dependant of the terrains you have on the battlefield. And models of that can be very different. Personnally, I use the old GW "hills", that are merely more than a small hump to be honest. Thus, if I place my shooting units on it, since everything is about TLoS, I find this doesn't make a big difference because the difference in heigth isn't that much. So it gives me no real advantage (other than finding it cool to place my archers on it ).

Of course, it can be different if the "higher ground" is in fact a roc of 30 cm in heigth - but that's the trouble in AoS; there is no "absolute reference", everything depends of the players and their collection.


About lines of sight;

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
2) line of sight is a huge issue, while you can't join a group with characters, you can still place them within a unit for los blocking purposes. Also, if they are on higher ground, they are in terrain. That means a +1 to saves. (Shields are locked overhead for some models, or they are ducking into nooks to hide when things shoot at them) and a +1 to saves is nothing to scoff at. Cover is a galaxy in 40k because if your save is better, you get no bonus. If I have my dragon knights in a forest, they are now 3+ save, rerolling 1s and 2s versus shooting. That definitely makes them significantly tougher to kill at range.

It's not really an issue because of TLoS; since you only need to see a part of the model (and it really means any part, like a weapon or a wing spread high in the sky), you usually find a way to draw a line to it one way or the other.

Unless you use special conversions to minimize the negative effects of "dramatic poses", but that is kinda...crossing the line in a competitive playstyle AoS defenders like to attack.

And guess what, characters usually have dramatic poses with cloaks and other useless things floating all around them/are usually bigger than the "main troops", which makes them vulnerable to "sniping". Funny enough, AoS seems to be quite realistic in this particular way; people who are stupid enough to attract attention with bling in battle get shot in the head.


The core rules in themselves are quite dry. Sure, you can play scenarios and all, but that is a "homemade rule" since you will not use what is in the core rules. Fixing armies is the same; since there is no rule about what you will bring, that is entirely to players to decide. Balance follows after this mutual decision.

That's why there is no balance in the core rules. How could it be, since it's up to the players to decide about that?


So when I read...

all miniatures wargames are "just" fun games to play your collection with your friends...

I would just say there are differend kinds of "fun". In AoS, fun is "rolling a lot of dice and playing with your collection as you wish". In other games with detailed rules, it can be something else. But in the end, players have fun...the way it suits them the best.

You just have to be sure to pick the game that will be the best for you. You can, of course, play differently...it's just that there is a chance it will not work exactly as you thought it would.

If I want to have a rich game with a lot of deep tactics that have significative effects in game terms, I'll be honest; that's not AoS I will choose.


But that doesn't mean I'm saying AoS is a bad game. No, I actually find it can be very good when you customize it with your friends - a bit like in RPG games. It's not that you can't do it in other games, just that in AoS, you really need to do that. The core rules aren't enough to play; you have to add your own contribution not only as a player, but as someone who will make your own rules to play.

That is, IMHO, the true meaning of AoS. Become the Game Master - or Game Designer - of your own game and forge your own saga.

But competitive play like I'm reading in the subsections of this forum (like saying which unit is "best" or "broken" or whatever else)? Sure, why not...I just feel it's not the best game system for that.

Good reasonable post lacking the hyperbole of a lot of others. Nice one!

Any time you gain a mechanical benefit for your positioning, it is a viable tactic. Just because it is based around adding more dice to your pool, and limiting theirs doesn't mean it isn't important or needed.

With shooty units in melee, every one I've seen either gets crushed the moment a melee unit gets in (artillery units come to mind) or they lose significant buffs that require them to be outside of 3" to utilise (most archers have this) so yes, there is a problem for ranged units if they are hit with melee units.

My entire side of the argument has been trying to disprove the fallacy within the thread title. The response from the other side has been "yeah, but those tactics are shallow and I don't get the same level of benefit I did in the last edition/other games" (paraphrasing) with the implication that they don't count somehow. This thread should have ended in two posts

"That's not true"
"Yup"

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Any time you gain a mechanical benefit for your positioning, it is a viable tactic. Just because it is based around adding more dice to your pool, and limiting theirs doesn't mean it isn't important or needed.

With shooty units in melee, every one I've seen either gets crushed the moment a melee unit gets in (artillery units come to mind) or they lose significant buffs that require them to be outside of 3" to utilise (most archers have this) so yes, there is a problem for ranged units if they are hit with melee units.

My entire side of the argument has been trying to disprove the fallacy within the thread title. The response from the other side has been "yeah, but those tactics are shallow and I don't get the same level of benefit I did in the last edition/other games" (paraphrasing) with the implication that they don't count somehow. This thread should have ended in two posts

"That's not true"
"Yup"

Your post made me laugh and the title of the blog was meant to be ironic as are most of my blog posts - anyone that has actually played the game should appreciate the tactics in it. I am not saying that everyone should like the game or that the tactics are to some people's mind 'deep' enough but they are unarguably present - or I am a raving idiot.....

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Any time you gain a mechanical benefit for your positioning, it is a viable tactic. Just because it is based around adding more dice to your pool, and limiting theirs doesn't mean it isn't important or needed.

I am... I mean... finaly... sorry [wipes a tear]... man I have waited so long. Just a few post ago you were posting this absurd clam that it was all about a dice roll in whfb therefore meaningless but now, finaly, you appear to have seen the light that it's all about dice rolls. I feel like we connected on metaphysical level and nothing is going to be the same ever again.

Anyway as for a viable tactics, if you don't need the bonus half the time, the tactic becomes situational and much less worth planning for. You see most of the time you talk binary, is it there - yes because sometimes it might be worth it maybe - then it's the same! Or, as you claimed, better and more tactical heh. I for example am talking scale - yes it's there but much less important and basic - then it's more shallow.

It still has enough left to be a game that might be fun and provide some mind games but it's a huge step back where huge step forward was required, imo. If it floats someone's boat then great for them and happy gaming but I don't understand why not acknowledge the lack of depth and maybe even ask gw for a fix. They are pretending lately that they want our feedback don't they?

So everyone who thinks AoS is terrible, not deep, and for kids also thinks the same thing about Flames of War and 40k right? Neither of those have bonuses for having your units in a specific shape nor do they give mechanical bonuses for flank/rear charges.

Quite frankly when GW grows up they might be able to hold a candle to the game play of Flames of War.

Plumbumbarum, lol! I feel connected too

What I was saying earlier in the thread is not every tactic needs to give dice related benefits. The argument being made was that the bonuses themselves didn't merrit using the tactic in the first place. That still remains untrue.

Also, just because you don't NEED the bonus half of the time, doesn't mean you shouldn't try to have it. This is a dice game, bonuses always matter because the dice gods can only be so fickle.

KingCheops wrote:
So everyone who thinks AoS is terrible, not deep, and for kids also thinks the same thing about Flames of War and 40k right? Neither of those have bonuses for having your units in a specific shape nor do they give mechanical bonuses for flank/rear charges.

Quite frankly when GW grows up they might be able to hold a candle to the game play of Flames of War.

40k Yes of course.

Flames of War no. Flames of War has a lot of mechanics and so on that make it a pretty decent game. Although I have noticed some army book creep lately. HOWEVER even flames of war has flanks for things that matter... such as guns and vehicles, also shooting arcs where it makes sense as well. So yea kind of a silly argument.

Shallow game play is not limited to formations or flanks as it depends on the theme of the game. Games like AOS, Warhammer and 40k rely on a lot of dice for everything. You can't even run or charge without certainty etc. Too much dice, no enough thought. Too much emphasis on models too with true line of site wacky rules etc.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Any time you gain a mechanical benefit for your positioning, it is a viable tactic. Just because it is based around adding more dice to your pool, and limiting theirs doesn't mean it isn't important or needed.

I am... I mean... finaly... sorry [wipes a tear]... man I have waited so long. Just a few post ago you were posting this absurd clam that it was all about a dice roll in whfb therefore meaningless but now, finaly, you appear to have seen the light that it's all about dice rolls. I feel like we connected on metaphysical level and nothing is going to be the same ever again.

Anyway as for a viable tactics, if you don't need the bonus half the time, the tactic becomes situational and much less worth planning for. You see most of the time you talk binary, is it there - yes because sometimes it might be worth it maybe - then it's the same! Or, as you claimed, better and more tactical heh. I for example am talking scale - yes it's there but much less important and basic - then it's more shallow.

It still has enough left to be a game that might be fun and provide some mind games but it's a huge step back where huge step forward was required, imo. If it floats someone's boat then great for them and happy gaming but I don't understand why not acknowledge the lack of depth and maybe even ask gw for a fix. They are pretending lately that they want our feedback don't they?

I really love how sarcastic and douchy you sometimes come off. And how you seem to be under impression that your very own opinion about this game's depth is an objective fact, while someone else's opinion about it is, well, just his opinion. As if you think that you know better than anyone else and not even take the possibility that you might be wrong into account.

I've read a couple of your posts, even replied to some - you seem to be hell-bent on actively convincing people that this game is bad almost as badly as Swastakowey (not sure if spelled it right, sorry if I didn't) who tends to outright go to some threads just to say how bad this game is for his own reasons. You also assume that every single tactical aspect of the game is a byproduct and a situational benefit that accidentally came out from the rules but, I don't know, as a game designer I can see how actually smart some of the AoS rules design is. As I mentioned earlier - those base rules, while numbering four pages, allow for a lot of stuff that WFB needed a whole book for. The flank charging is a perfect example. What WFB needed a set of rules for, AoS gives you hard benefits without even having to mention them as they come directly from the rules and it has been proven that flank charges (just remember - not against unengaged units that can brace for charge and change "facing" on the go) are a viable tactic.

You have no proof that any of those benefits were accidental and not actually a thought-out mechanic of the game. Yes, I don't have any proof that it indeed was planned, but I don't preach it like it's that way so you shouldn't either in my opinion. Or at least please try to say that it's your opinion and not a genuine fact just because you think that way. People proved in this thread that there are many tactical aspects to this game and they are present in their games and repeating over and over again how accidental it is makes you sound like an angry, stubborn bigot who only wants to mix this game with mud.

Noone here (hopefully) says that the game is perfect or that it doesn't need to be expanded - I myself am having lots of fun with AoS while I appreciate competitive games like X-Wing or Warmachine/Hordes (and play both of them) I still admit that AoS lacks several things that will make it a better game, but I genuinely believe that if they add them (as I mentioned somewhere - rules for cover, LOS, buildings and expanded magic/fixed summoning or army composition guidelines for example) the game has the potential to be perfect on it's own specific niche - a beer and pretzels casual fun game that none other system aspires to be and few of them can give you that fix because, for example, Warmachine is terrible for casual, fun games. The game is the embodiment of competitive, WAAC play and it doesn't even try to hide it - the "play like you have a pair" slogan is on the first page for a reason and that's perfectly okay. X-Wing also has the problem of some "themed" squads being outright bad/worse than others and they make you focus really hard to win while AoS... AoS is there for casual fun and if it improves as GW seems to want us to believe, it'll be a great game in it's own way. At least in my opinion.

Just to point out, I don't care if you have fun or not playing AOS, I simply hate when people deny the game lacks a lot of major things and contains more issues than most games.

Noone here (hopefully) says that the game is perfect or that it doesn't need to be expanded - I myself am having lots of fun with AoS while I appreciate competitive games like X-Wing or Warmachine/Hordes (and play both of them) I still admit that AoS lacks several things that will make it a better game, but I genuinely believe that if they add them (as I mentioned somewhere - rules for cover, LOS, buildings and expanded magic/fixed summoning or army composition guidelines for example) the game has the potential to be perfect on it's own specific niche - a beer and pretzels casual fun game that none other system aspires to be and few of them can give you that fix

If you say this, then you are dead on correct. You can like it DESPITE these issues, but at least admit there are issues. A few users on here refuse to admit the game needs serious work to be like all the other great bear and pretzels games out there. Games that are Scenario driven and casual are not at all niche or rare. At the top of my head many historical games are points free with Scenarios like Tusk or Black Powder and the list goes on. GW could simply get Jervis (who if I recall play Black Powder) to look at all the other games who do what AOS fails to do and add a few extra bits here and there and bam, you got a good game. But they didn't because... GW?

AOS has problems and those problems prevent it from being a decent game. If you can fix those problems to have fun, then that is not the rules giving you a good time, that is by your own effort.

I wouldn't say im doing it badly, if I am wrong I admit it (like my bad battle shock example). I would say those who defend it as a great paragon of game design with little to no flaws are the real problem. Take Bottle, that user has it right. Game is fun with tweaking. I think this is the view of any reasonable person. How much tweaking is needed is well up to each person. For some (me) it requires too much tweaking.

Also, remember people, you can take any game, remove the points/restrictions and play it just like AOS... It would probably be more enjoyable too.

KingCheops wrote:
So everyone who thinks AoS is terrible, not deep, and for kids also thinks the same thing about Flames of War and 40k right? Neither of those have bonuses for having your units in a specific shape nor do they give mechanical bonuses for flank/rear charges.

Quite frankly when GW grows up they might be able to hold a candle to the game play of Flames of War.

40k is shallow yes and only a notch above AoS. In shooty games the bonus for flank charge is less important (ofc would be welcomed still) but I would welcome modifiers to bs for target being in the open or not moving and shooting, also facing as always though maybe squad level (with heavy weapons autonomous) could open a lot. I'd say the more important thing than flank charges for shooty games would be an introduction of a reaction fire mechanism and no not the laughable thing they call overwatch there. Anyway 40k is bit better because there's flanking against vehicles and cover (yes it works without bonus just on basic rules and in theory you have that in AoS but it holds much less weight in the latter due to the nature of the gake) also a lot of deepstrike that can shake things a bit.

 Swastakowey wrote:

Also, remember people, you can take any game, remove the points/restrictions and play it just like AOS... It would probably be more enjoyable too.

But it wouldn't be a game made by GW, so it's irrelevant.

Joke aside, this is indeed the truth. You could as well replace all the rules by "I roll a dice; 1-3 I fail, 4-6 I succeed". It would still be a game and you would still be using your models.

We are just playing with plastic soldiers, after all. We just need a few "adult rules" so that we feel like playing something more "elaborate" than chid's play. Or not. It doesn't really matter.

This is our passion, so it's natural to defend it.

 Klerych wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Any time you gain a mechanical benefit for your positioning, it is a viable tactic. Just because it is based around adding more dice to your pool, and limiting theirs doesn't mean it isn't important or needed.

I am... I mean... finaly... sorry [wipes a tear]... man I have waited so long. Just a few post ago you were posting this absurd clam that it was all about a dice roll in whfb therefore meaningless but now, finaly, you appear to have seen the light that it's all about dice rolls. I feel like we connected on metaphysical level and nothing is going to be the same ever again.

Anyway as for a viable tactics, if you don't need the bonus half the time, the tactic becomes situational and much less worth planning for. You see most of the time you talk binary, is it there - yes because sometimes it might be worth it maybe - then it's the same! Or, as you claimed, better and more tactical heh. I for example am talking scale - yes it's there but much less important and basic - then it's more shallow.

It still has enough left to be a game that might be fun and provide some mind games but it's a huge step back where huge step forward was required, imo. If it floats someone's boat then great for them and happy gaming but I don't understand why not acknowledge the lack of depth and maybe even ask gw for a fix. They are pretending lately that they want our feedback don't they?

I really love how sarcastic and douchy you sometimes come off. And how you seem to be under impression that your very own opinion about this game's depth is an objective fact, while someone else's opinion about it is, well, just his opinion. As if you think that you know better than anyone else and not even take the possibility that you might be wrong into account.

Sure but the quote you are responding to was actualy an attempt at a more lighten up and jokey presenting of my argument and despite room for misinterpretation, thankfuly mr. Lythrandire seems to have taken it exactly as intended.

But yes I am rude at times. I was going to apologise for it anyway but wait for the end of discussion to not waste priceless internet space for multiple apologies heh. Also part of the reason I get rude are people who presented with an argument that flank charges are a dumbed down version of what tends to appear in quasi medieval fantasy battle games or historicals and come off rather as pile in shenaningans than actual mechanic, stubornly and completly ignore any of it just to post how it's viable or even more tactical post after post and then call me a ridiculous bigot. It's funny btw because I, a nasty and rude poster at heart, tend to insult the game rather than people but often get insulted as a person in return. Who's more rude then heh.

I've read a couple of your posts, even replied to some - you seem to be hell-bent on actively convincing people that this game is bad almost as badly as Swastakowey (not sure if spelled it right, sorry if I didn't) who tends to outright go to some threads just to say how bad this game is for his own reasons. You also assume that every single tactical aspect of the game is a byproduct and a situational benefit that accidentally came out from the rules but, I don't know, as a game designer I can see how actually smart some of the AoS rules design is. As I mentioned earlier - those base rules, while numbering four pages, allow for a lot of stuff that WFB needed a whole book for. The flank charging is a perfect example. What WFB needed a set of rules for, AoS gives you hard benefits without even having to mention them as they come directly from the rules and it has been proven that flank charges (just remember - not against unengaged units that can brace for charge and change "facing" on the go) are a viable tactic.

Barely viable. A bit. Somehow. At times. In comparision.

Not hard benefits because situational.

I'm just as bent at proving it bad some of my disputants are bent on proving it good. I tend to adapt to a discussion at hand.

Base rules numbering four pages are good, never said a word against streamlining whfb. Streamlinig and dumbing down are separate topics that only collide when discussing whether you can streamline without dumbing down or not and imo KoW shows you can.

That it allows for some things whfb needed entire book is not really an acomplishment though. Whfb was bloated and over written on explanation part and they just took quick rules and moved special rules to warscrolls.

Again you chose to completly ignore the fact that just because you can say the tactic exists doesn't mean it has the same impact on gameplay, planing, manouvering, depth etc. As a game designer you should see those intricacies more imo.

You have no proof that any of those benefits were accidental and not actually a thought-out mechanic of the game. Yes, I don't have any proof that it indeed was planned, but I don't preach it like it's that way so you shouldn't either in my opinion. Or at least please try to say that it'so your opinion and not a genuine fact just because you think that way. People proved in this thread that there are many tactical aspects to this game and they are present in their games and repeating over and over again how accidental it is makes you sound like an angry, stubborn bigot who only wants to mix this game with mud.

That it is accidental not planned is actualy the least important of my points and I think much less often repeated than the others. And I presented it as fact just like the others were presenting as fact that it is all intented. Why single me out, except for the fact that you don't lke what I say?

Forum has made vast improvement over the last month. Down to 2 people who have not played the game but want to argue about why it's bad. Probably due to my presence. Warseer needs me.

Yes the rest is long gone playing better games with AoS only relevant as a laughing stock.

Thankfuly there are people like you who played all games ie KoW and are making an informed, unbiased decision about which game to play. You make us all better.

So...silly question. If you hate AOS so passionately, why post or read this forum at all?

Why not? I was a whfb player and it replaced whfb. I am invested in gw fantasy models and that's the only official proposition for me and the only supported game. Also topic is interesting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HobbyKiller wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Any time you gain a mechanical benefit for your positioning, it is a viable tactic. Just because it is based around adding more dice to your pool, and limiting theirs doesn't mean it isn't important or needed.

With shooty units in melee, every one I've seen either gets crushed the moment a melee unit gets in (artillery units come to mind) or they lose significant buffs that require them to be outside of 3" to utilise (most archers have this) so yes, there is a problem for ranged units if they are hit with melee units.

My entire side of the argument has been trying to disprove the fallacy within the thread title. The response from the other side has been "yeah, but those tactics are shallow and I don't get the same level of benefit I did in the last edition/other games" (paraphrasing) with the implication that they don't count somehow. This thread should have ended in two posts

"That's not true"
"Yup"

Your post made me laugh and the title of the blog was meant to be ironic as are most of my blog posts - anyone that has actually played the game should appreciate the tactics in it. I am not saying that everyone should like the game or that the tactics are to some people's mind 'deep' enough but they are unarguably present - or I am a raving idiot.....

Yes they are unarguably present and your blog post suceeded in showing them. It's just not an answer to what more reasonable critics accuse AoS of imo and in that context it warrants discussion. Also being wrong about tactics in a game doesn't make anyone a raving idiot.

KingCheops wrote:
So everyone who thinks AoS is terrible, not deep, and for kids also thinks the same thing about Flames of War and 40k right? Neither of those have bonuses for having your units in a specific shape nor do they give mechanical bonuses for flank/rear charges.

Quite frankly when GW grows up they might be able to hold a candle to the game play of Flames of War.

Yes, to be honest. I don't think AoS is terrible but I do think it is tactically relatively shallow. This is because there are whole areas of warfare it ignores: formations, command and control, morale, which are important to tactics. Obviously there still are tactics like concentration of force, it could hardly be a wargame without such things working because they are inherent to the nature of war. Thus, more complex games include the same basic possibilities for tactics and a lot more.

40K also is tactically shallow. It too lacks rules for formations, command and control and morale. I don't understand why it needs such a huge rulebook compared to AoS, because the core game is just movement, shooting, and melee the same as AoS. Perhaps because so many of the special rules are included while in AoS they are on the war scrolls? Maybe it is just to justify the £55 price sticker.

In both games you have fun by moving around blobs of figures or individual powerful units, and rolling lots of dice to blow things up. AoS arguably is better at this because the rules are a lot shorter. I would welcome an AoSified version of 40K, with free rules and war scrolls.

I don't think GW has any desire to grow up, and frankly it would be a big mistake for them to do so. The market for more complicated rules is much smaller and is already very well served by many rival companies with a lot more experience in historicals and so on.

That said, I think GW could easily put more interest into AoS and 40K simply by jinking around with the IGOUGO turn sequence, without making things too complicated.