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.

Spinner wrote:

 Talys wrote:

In my opinion, and ONLY in the context of my opinion, if you take away all the miniatures and terrain and physical things which make tabletop wargames unique, a PC is just a better medium, because it acts like a free GM that can do math really quickly and reveal information instantly and consistently.

Wait, you pay your GMs? Can I submit a resume?

You say this in jest, but I bet there are RPG groups that would pay actual money to have a good GM, LOL... like, a small monthly fee to a game that's hosted by someone, who has a good campaign. It is *painful* finding people to GM these parts. Everyone wants to be a participant, not a referee. It's probably the reason my group doesn't play RPGs anymore.

Deadnight wrote:Don't project. You're quite guilty of projecting your views on what you like as some inviolable mantra that defines wargamers as a whole- in this case, playing with miniatures and displaying them being the same thing. Fine fir you, but there are other ways of viewing this and approaching this.

Football is played with a ball, but you don't have it all the time, do you?

I don't see what the point is of posting on a forum, if not to post one's own views. I have never, ever tried to define other wargamers or lump them as a homogenous group. If you look on any thread, I post a zillion times, something to the tune of, "hey, I don't get it, but if it works for you, awesome."

Everything I post is from my perspective, and where I believe my perspective is wildly different from the norm, I usually say so at some point in the thread, but don't repeat it *every post* for 15 pages.

In this particular instance, I don't believe that a "true" Fog of War is common at all in tabletop wargames, miniatures or not -- that is, in the sense that most people in the computer gaming world understand it. It is not a mechanic represented in most games out of the box, and all I've done is expressed that tabletop implementations are more awkward compared to PC counterparts. Not that they're impossible or silly or bad. To the contrary, I even posted an example of a good Fog of War implementation, Space Hulk, which represents genestealers as blips (of unknown number) until they're in Line of Sight, at which point the token is flipped. Even so, there is no map exploration as you might have in a PC equivalent.

Now, I do believe that the majority of people who play most of the games that we talk about on Dakka -- the most popular ones on the market, such as 40k, WMH, Malifaux, Infinity, X-Wing, Necromundia, Kings of War, and various historicals -- play them with miniatures rather than tokens, paper triangles, or some other representative marker. I'm not saying you can't, I'm just saying this is the way I have observed that most people play them; most certainly this is the case if you go into local gaming stores. Furthermore, in nearly every organized competitive event of a miniature wargame I've ever seen, having the correct miniature or some recognizable conversion thereof is important.

As to football -- that is so bizarre a statement. I guess I must misunderstand what you're saying, because whether you mean either European or North American football... during the entire game (ie when the game clock is in effect)... *someone* must have possession of the ball or the ball must be on the field. Game play (the clock) immediately stops otherwise.

 Talys wrote:

I don't see what the point is of posting on a forum, if not to post one's own views. I have never, ever tried to define other wargamers or lump them as a homogenous group. If you look on any thread, I post a zillion times, something to the tune of, "hey, I don't get it, but if it works for you, awesome."

It's how you do it though talys . It's the implications that 'well I don't get it' that leads to the frustration. You portray your views as some universal truth that by implication invalidates, dismisses or otherwise ignores the value of othe viewpoint. 'Got mine, don't care'.
There is nothing wrong with posting your views, the problem lies in how you do it: you portray them as a universal truth, rather than 'well it's my opinion that...' You do it frequently. In the past, for example where you talk about wmh players who play with zero terrain - when questioned you inevitably state how your opinions stem from your own personal meta; but your statement is written as an incontrovertible and universal truth. in other words you tar everything with a generic statement based on anecdotal evidence. Your anecdotal evidence is not wrong, how you project it can be infuriating. Here you are arguing 'what is the point of playing with miniatures if not to display them'? You imply 'displaying them' is the point, and leave no room for any other interpretation or viewpoint.

 Talys wrote:

Everything I post is from my perspective, and where I believe my perspective is wildly different from the norm, I usually say so at some point in the thread, but don't repeat it *every post* for 15 pages.

I like you talys and would love to trade beers with you, but With respect, despite your claim of doing what you do, it often it does not come across that way when other people read it.

 Talys wrote:

In this particular instance, I don't believe that a "true" Fog of War is common at all in tabletop wargames, miniatures or not -- that is, in the sense that most people in the computer gaming world understand it.

Here. Perfect example. Defining your personal viewpoint as a universal truth. Why do pc games have a minoploly on defining what 'true' fog of war is? Hmm? Pc games are often just as abstract and unrealistic. My Starcraft marines see twenty feet even with completely unrestricted Los to the end of the map. Fog of war is far more than grey on a map. Fog of war literally means not knowing everything that is going on. It's about uncertainty. What you define as 'true' is merely one interpretation from a specific medium. Talk to your average army general and ask him about the 'true' fog of war that they deal with, how computer games relate to it, and he'll probably give you an answer full of expletives about your computer games and where they can go.

And I don't care how people in the computer game world see things. I really don't. I don't care about computer games. Full stop. This is a completely different medium. Like theatre and cinema. Or books and movies. You can't compare the two and you can't hold ones standards and ways of doing things as the 'true' way, especially in regards to the other. That's an extremely narrow minded and intellectually dishonest approach.

 Talys wrote:


Now, I do believe that the majority of people who play most of the games that we talk about on Dakka -- the most popular ones on the market, such as 40k, WMH, Malifaux, Infinity, X-Wing, Necromundia, Kings of War, and various historicals -- play them with miniatures rather than tokens, paper triangles, or some other representative marker. I'm not saying you can't, I'm just saying this is the way I have observed that most people play them; most certainly this is the case if you go into local gaming stores. Furthermore, in nearly every organized competitive event of a miniature wargame I've ever seen, having the correct miniature or some recognizable conversion thereof is important.

You don't get it, do you. It's not about using tokens 'rather than' miniatures. Jesus Christ, is this just about being deliberately obtuse? Because that's how it's coming across. You use tokens, where it's appropriate. Not instead of. In addition to. Big difference. If you don't know where the model is, you represent it with various counters that could be the model. It's about bringing a bit of fear, tension and uncertainty into the game. Those tokens are Like 'blips' on a radar screen. It could be that nasty spetsznaz, or it could be a squirrel. And yes, despite how you have observed them, this is how they are actually used by the majority of players in some games. Camo tokens in infinity. Perfect example. When it is revealed, or when the real slim shady is spotted, the token is replaced with the miniature. Uncertainty replaced with certainty. And let's go beyond organised play and competitive events, which often are unsuited to the 'home brew' and 'interesting ideas to spice up a game' thst this is perfectly suited to and instead go to you and your mates, or me and mine, in our own homes with some beers, pizzas and a bbq.

Let's not kid ourselves, we are playing with toy soldiers.

It's an damn insult to all the years, skill and money I put in to call them that.

And don't be telling me I'm wrong about AoS having no tactics. I tried (borrowed) stormcast. There were no tactics. It was just run to the middle and engage in 30 rounds of repetitive combat. Tedious.

TBM wrote:

Let's not kid ourselves, we are playing with toy soldiers.

It's an damn insult to all the years, skill and money I put in to call them that.

You might be insulted. Doesn't mean it's not true.

And don't be telling me I'm wrong about AoS having no tactics. I tried (borrowed) stormcast. There were no tactics. It was just run to the middle and engage in 30 rounds of repetitive combat. Tedious.

You play the game without using any tactics, then complain the game has no tactics. Bravo.

There are tactics. They involve outnumbering by using the melee range rules, and getting bonuses to attack and defence from the various special rules.

Screening is also a thing.

TonyL707 wrote:

TBM wrote:

Let's not kid ourselves, we are playing with toy soldiers.

It's an damn insult to all the years, skill and money I put in to call them that.

You might be insulted. Doesn't mean it's not true.

Is that right? How come on the back of the box for this model, http://www.sodemons.com/gd22uk/gd22uk%20wh%20monster/DSCN8556-01.htm

Which I painted, so I should know, it said this is a citadel expert's kit and is not recommended for children. I play with works of art. Calling them toys is like saying a paintbrush and paints are toys. Can they be toys? Yes. When the professional standard artist is using them, are they toys? No.

You play the game without using any tactics, then complain the game has no tactics. Bravo.

There were no tactics to be played. AoS is about telling a narrative. Not winning.

TBM wrote:

Let's not kid ourselves, we are playing with toy soldiers.

It's an damn insult to all the years, skill and money I put in to call them that.

And don't be telling me I'm wrong about AoS having no tactics. I tried (borrowed) stormcast. There were no tactics. It was just run to the middle and engage in 30 rounds of repetitive combat. Tedious.

Hate to see you insulted, but that's what it is. PLAYING WITH TOY SOLDIERS"S Why does that offend you? Do you think you are more special than the rest of us who play with toy soldier's. Are you more intellectual?. I hate to tell you this, but to people outside the hobby that's exactly what it is.

 Kenshinzo 7 wrote:

TBM wrote:

Let's not kid ourselves, we are playing with toy soldiers.

It's an damn insult to all the years, skill and money I put in to call them that.

And don't be telling me I'm wrong about AoS having no tactics. I tried (borrowed) stormcast. There were no tactics. It was just run to the middle and engage in 30 rounds of repetitive combat. Tedious.

Hate to see you insulted, but that's what it is. PLAYING WITH TOY SOLDIERS"S Why does that offend you? Do you think you are more special than the rest of us who play with toy soldier's. Are you more intellectual?. I hate to tell you this, but to people outside the hobby that's exactly what it is.

Don't be calling a "toy" anything you're not prepared to hand to a child. If you're prepared to hand a mediocre painted sigmarine to a child, that's a toy. If you're not prepared to let a child handle a model you've spent hundreds of hours on, that is not a toy.

TBM wrote:

Don't be calling a "toy" anything you're not prepared to hand to a child. If you're prepared to hand a mediocre painted sigmarine to a child, that's a toy. If you're not prepared to let a child handle a model you've spent hundreds of hours on, that is not a toy.

So if someone is prepared to let a child handle a model with hundreds of hours spent on it, does it become a toy again?

A toy is an item that can be used for play. Do you play with your models TBM?

TonyL707 wrote:

TBM wrote:

Don't be calling a "toy" anything you're not prepared to hand to a child. If you're prepared to hand a mediocre painted sigmarine to a child, that's a toy. If you're not prepared to let a child handle a model you've spent hundreds of hours on, that is not a toy.

So if someone is prepared to let a child handle a model with hundreds of hours spent on it, does it become a toy again?

Technically yes. Same as if the Mona Lisa was given to child to doodle on. But that's beside the point. Anything can tecnically be a child's plaything. Were engaging common sense here. There's a clear difference between a toy and a work of art. GW is a model company first and a rules company second. So despite their claims to the contrary, they are primarily selling art media. Art media can vary from toy to masterpiece. But one is not the other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kenshinzo 7 wrote:
A toy is an item that can be used for play. Do you play with your models TBM?

Occasionally. There's a difference between using something that isn't a toy, as a toy vs something defined primarily as a toy soldier with all the implications surrounding it. .

And that implication and context is the OP reducing media of potentially high level artistic expression to "toy soldiers" in order to highlight the "trivial" and "childish" nature of the hobby.
That's insulting. Toy here is being used in the context of play media for kids and why shouldn't adults embrace a childish game because "toy soldiers". There is nothing inherently childish about high level miniatures art and craft. So the idea that the childish game should be embraced cos we're all doing childish crap anyway, isn't true and is an insulting thing to say.

TBM wrote:


Technically yes. Same as if the Mona Lisa was given to child to doodle on. But that's beside the point. Anything can tecnically be a child's plaything. Were engaging common sense here. There's a clear difference between a toy and a work of art. GW is a model company first and a rules company second. So despite their claims to the contrary, they are primarily selling art media. Art media can vary from toy to masterpiece. But one is not the other.

Not looking to cause further offence, but I do this stuff for a living and I think this might be taking it a tad too far...

(really got no pretensions about what I do for a job!).

Yeah right toy. Dwarf High King Thorakik Droll'Kakath has bested over three score armies of Greenskins singlehandedly, destroyed the Bulb'Amoss'Ta Ogre Kingdom and smited an Elven incursion so mightily he sent the pointy ears fleeing back within a day. Droll'Kakath has been thrice scorned, and thrice risen again, to do great deeds such as holding his armoured fortress during the entirety of the End Times, the only Dwarf in all the beautiful lands to keep the Chaos horde at bay.

And you call him a toy. Droll'Kakath is more real to me than my brother.

A Lamborghini and cars like it are often called toys. $500K+ toys. But regarded as toys by many. As are yachts, helicopters, jet skis, water jet boots....

Are they things you'd hand off to a child to play with? Not very likely. Does that make them not toys? No, they are still toys, just not toys developed, priced, or intended for children to play with.

Getting all bent out of shape over what your toy soldiers are called only makes you look like an elitist snob. They're toy soldiers. It's what they are. Does that mean I let my 2 year old play with them? No, of course not. They're multi-part models that I spend hours assembling and painting, and despite being very careful, especially for a 2 year old...he's still 2. Things will break, things will go in his mouth.

He's got his own set of toy soldiers that he can play with. They look very much like mine, but either aren't painted, or are pre-painted with what I hope are kid-safe paints. When he gets older, like my 10 year old, he'll be able to play games with my toy soldiers, and maybe get his own.

kingbobb wrote:
A Lamborghini and cars like it are often called toys. $500K+ toys. But regarded as toys by many. As are yachts, helicopters, jet skis, water jet boots....

Are they things you'd hand off to a child to play with? Not very likely. Does that make them not toys? No, they are still toys, just not toys developed, priced, or intended for children to play with.

Getting all bent out of shape over what your toy soldiers are called only makes you look like an elitist snob. They're toy soldiers. It's what they are. Does that mean I let my 2 year old play with them? No, of course not. They're multi-part models that I spend hours assembling and painting, and despite being very careful, especially for a 2 year old...he's still 2. Things will break, things will go in his mouth.

He's got his own set of toy soldiers that he can play with. They look very much like mine, but either aren't painted, or are pre-painted with what I hope are kid-safe paints. When he gets older, like my 10 year old, he'll be able to play games with my toy soldiers, and maybe get his own.

Calling people's art "toys" makes you look like a disrespectful little troll. Toys imply immaturity, and cars etc are only called toys when one is trying to say this person is immature. If you want to call your art a toy, that's on you, but calling other people's art that when they find it offensive shows you have no manners whatsoever. I consider them works of art and game pieces. Mine are not toys. Period.

Deadnight wrote:

 Talys wrote:

In this particular instance, I don't believe that a "true" Fog of War is common at all in tabletop wargames, miniatures or not -- that is, in the sense that most people in the computer gaming world understand it.

Here. Perfect example. Defining your personal viewpoint as a universal truth. Why do pc games have a minoploly on defining what 'true' fog of war is? Hmm? Pc games are often just as abstract and unrealistic. My Starcraft marines see twenty feet even with completely unrestricted Los to the end of the map. Fog of war is far more than grey on a map. Fog of war literally means not knowing everything that is going on. It's about uncertainty. What you define as 'true' is merely one interpretation from a specific medium. Talk to your average army general and ask him about the 'true' fog of war that they deal with, how computer games relate to it, and he'll probably give you an answer full of expletives about your computer games and where they can go.

And I don't care how people in the computer game world see things. I really don't. I don't care about computer games. Full stop. This is a completely different medium. Like theatre and cinema. Or books and movies. You can't compare the two and you can't hold ones standards and ways of doing things as the 'true' way, especially in regards to the other. That's an extremely narrow minded and intellectually dishonest approach.

I've simply stated that computer games simulate reality better than tabletop games, because they have the ability to more conveniently obscure more information (such as terrain). I didn't say that one is superior, or the other inferior; merely that one is more of a simulation, and the other more a more distant abstraction. If you ask most people what a fog of war means, they'll relate it to StarCraft or Warcraft. It doesn't matter if you don't care what other people think; there IS a lot of crossover in terms of people who have played both TTGs and RTS/TBS games. I would venture to guess that most people on Dakka have played a computer game with Fog of War at some point in their life.

I've also said that FoW is the norm in TBS/RTS games, whereas it is NOT the norm in TTGs. I don't think this is my opinion; I think this is factual, because practically every strategy game on the computer has FoW, while a lot of TTG games don't. Why? I think because it's more awkward and more abstract in most games. That part is my opinion. Feel free to disagree.

I don't know why you don't like comparing computerized and tabletop implementations of FoW. There's nothing wrong with that, just as there's nothing wrong with feeling that some mediums better represent certain types of play than others. If you aren't interested in the subject at all... well, my friend, I was not soliciting a response from you.... just expressing my opinion

Deadnight wrote:

You don't get it, do you. It's not about using tokens 'rather than' miniatures. Jesus Christ, is this just about being deliberately obtuse? Because that's how it's coming across. You use tokens, where it's appropriate. Not instead of. In addition to. Big difference.

I do get it. But look at the list of games that I filled out, which represent the vast majority of wargames played at FLGS and gaming clubs. Most of them don't have ANY rules in the book that implement any form of Fog of War, defining that in the loosest form possible, uncertainty based on line of sight or unit proximity.

I certainly agree that some games may have ways of obscuring some information to create uncertainty, and these abstractions fit the bill for Fog of War; as I've repeated over and over again, in my opinion, it's not that FoW doesn't exist in TTGs; I just think that they're more awkward than PC implementations. It's my opinion only, just as it's only my preference to play TTG wargames with more miniatures and fewer representative tokens.

You can disagree with me, but you don't have to club me over the head as being obtuse about it I mean, I enjoy both TTGs and PC games; I just happen to like dynamic FoW on the PC, and I like unobscured miniatures on the tabletop, and this is what I observe in nearly 100% of the games I see when I watch other peoples' tabletop and multiplayer PC wargames.

To take it back to Age of Sigmar... (this is a thread about AoS, right?) -- There is NO Fog of War in Age of Sigmar, in any form


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kingbobb wrote:

Getting all bent out of shape over what your toy soldiers are called only makes you look like an elitist snob. They're toy soldiers. It's what they are.

I think it's just all in how it's said and the connotations which may vary culturally. To some people, "toy" denotes something without substance or importance; to others, "toy" denotes something which brings happiness and evokes a certain type of joyful reaction.

"That crappy Ryobi is just a toy," implies that the Makita that costs twice as much isn't. "Ferraris and Lamborghinis... Toys for boys!" implies luxury goods for wealthy men.

 Talys wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 Talys wrote:

In this particular instance, I don't believe that a "true" Fog of War is common at all in tabletop wargames, miniatures or not -- that is, in the sense that most people in the computer gaming world understand it.

Here. Perfect example. Defining your personal viewpoint as a universal truth. Why do pc games have a minoploly on defining what 'true' fog of war is? Hmm? Pc games are often just as abstract and unrealistic. My Starcraft marines see twenty feet even with completely unrestricted Los to the end of the map. Fog of war is far more than grey on a map. Fog of war literally means not knowing everything that is going on. It's about uncertainty. What you define as 'true' is merely one interpretation from a specific medium. Talk to your average army general and ask him about the 'true' fog of war that they deal with, how computer games relate to it, and he'll probably give you an answer full of expletives about your computer games and where they can go.

And I don't care how people in the computer game world see things. I really don't. I don't care about computer games. Full stop. This is a completely different medium. Like theatre and cinema. Or books and movies. You can't compare the two and you can't hold ones standards and ways of doing things as the 'true' way, especially in regards to the other. That's an extremely narrow minded and intellectually dishonest approach.

I've simply stated that computer games simulate reality better than tabletop games, because they have the ability to more conveniently obscure more information (such as terrain). I didn't say that one is superior, or the other inferior; merely that one is more of a simulation, and the other more a more distant abstraction. If you ask most people what a fog of war means, they'll relate it to StarCraft or Warcraft. It doesn't matter if you don't care what other people think; there IS a lot of crossover in terms of people who have played both TTGs and RTS/TBS games. I would venture to guess that most people on Dakka have played a computer game with Fog of War at some point in their life.

I've also said that FoW is the norm in TBS/RTS games, whereas it is NOT the norm in TTGs. I don't think this is my opinion; I think this is factual, because practically every strategy game on the computer has FoW, while a lot of TTG games don't. Why? I think because it's more awkward and more abstract in most games. That part is my opinion. Feel free to disagree.

I don't know why you don't like comparing computerized and tabletop implementations of FoW. There's nothing wrong with that, just as there's nothing wrong with feeling that some mediums better represent certain types of play than others. If you aren't interested in the subject at all... well, my friend, I was not soliciting a response from you.... just expressing my opinion

Deadnight wrote:

You don't get it, do you. It's not about using tokens 'rather than' miniatures. Jesus Christ, is this just about being deliberately obtuse? Because that's how it's coming across. You use tokens, where it's appropriate. Not instead of. In addition to. Big difference.

I do get it. But look at the list of games that I filled out, which represent the vast majority of wargames played at FLGS and gaming clubs. Most of them don't have ANY rules in the book that implement any form of Fog of War, defining that in the loosest form possible, uncertainty based on line of sight or unit proximity.

I certainly agree that some games may have ways of obscuring some information to create uncertainty, and these abstractions fit the bill for Fog of War; as I've repeated over and over again, in my opinion, it's not that FoW doesn't exist in TTGs; I just think that they're more awkward than PC implementations. It's my opinion only, just as it's only my preference to play TTG wargames with more miniatures and fewer representative tokens.

You can disagree with me, but you don't have to club me over the head as being obtuse about it I mean, I enjoy both TTGs and PC games; I just happen to like dynamic FoW on the PC, and I like unobscured miniatures on the tabletop, and this is what I observe in nearly 100% of the games I see when I watch other peoples' tabletop and multiplayer PC wargames.

To take it back to Age of Sigmar... (this is a thread about AoS, right?) -- There is NO Fog of War in Age of Sigmar, in any form


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kingbobb wrote:

Getting all bent out of shape over what your toy soldiers are called only makes you look like an elitist snob. They're toy soldiers. It's what they are.

I think it's just all in how it's said and the connotations which may vary culturally. To some people, "toy" denotes something without substance or importance; to others, "toy" denotes something which brings happiness and evokes a certain type of joyful reaction.

"That crappy Ryobi is just a toy," implies that the Makita that costs twice as much isn't. "Ferraris and Lamborghinis... Toys for boys!" implies luxury goods for wealthy men.

I agree with your point about the lack of realistic FOG in tabletop wargaming. In some ways it's like playing Battleship but being able to see your opponents board. A better example would probably be chess, it's a "wargame" in the sense that it has strategy and tactics but it's also an abstraction. AoS, or any other TTG, suffers a lack of realism due to the fact that while you still have to play your opponent you have a perfect view of the battlefield, you know the location of every unit on both sides and every move each unit makes. That kind of omniscience is extremely rare in reality and never happened in eras of lower technology. It removes the element of surprise and fear of the unknown, mistakes like Pickett's Charge because you'd never underestimate your opponents strength because you can see all of the units deployed against you. Computers can hide things from you and limit the intelligence and communication available to you in ways that can't be done on the tabletop. All of your orders will always be followed to the letter and be executed precisely when you want them done. It's a trade off, you lose some realism for the benefit of using real models and playing people in person. The definition of Fog of War is pretty much that a commanding general is limited to what he can see with his own eyes and the information that is reported in by subordinates or technology. It's the distance of the commander from the front lines that decreases knowledge and reaction time. There's no way to physically recreate that on the tabletop outside of only placing units on the table when they are visible to opposing units LOS and removing them when they're not and keeping hidden units, like ones behind tree lines, off the table until they attack or are found by opposing forces. That's an extremely tedious way to play but it's more realistic. Most people enjoy the ease of playing with the chess like abstraction of omniscience so most games don't waste time with difficult and tedious FOG mechanics. The plethora of successful enjoyable TTGs shows that lack of FOG mechanics isn't a big deal or hindrance.

On the topic of "toys" if they're used to play a game then they're toys (which doesn't mean they can't be nice or expensive, just that they are implements used to play a game for fun/amusement) and if they're used to create art in your spare time then they're a hobby (which also doesn't mean they aren't nice or expensive). There's nothing wrong with having toys, toys are fun, fun is awesome.

Ugh, not the "there is no strategy" argument again. You don't like the game, fine. But there is strategy, it is deeper than you think, and next time you are playing the game put something in the middle to maneuver around.

Well so far the only strategy I've seen people talk about is putting terrain in the middle so it isn't a pile in and the existence of a retreat rule.

Please feel free to add or elaborate on that but as it stands that sounds entirely shallow compared to say, ordering your activation so you can buff unit X before activating it to push unit Y out of the way so unit Z can charge through the gap you have created. Or looking at your opponent's models on the board and knowing they are under points so you need to figure out if that means they have an invisible sniper somewhere, a shotgun about to air drop into your back lines, or if one of their line troops is in fact a hologram hiding an elite soldier. Or hell, even just looking at your speed and maneuverability and trying to guess which way your opponent will turn so you can do the same and keep them in your firing arc while staying out of his.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Well so far the only strategy I've seen people talk about is putting terrain in the middle so it isn't a pile in and the existence of a retreat rule.

Please feel free to add or elaborate on that but as it stands that sounds entirely shallow compared to say, ordering your activation so you can buff unit X before activating it to push unit Y out of the way so unit Z can charge through the gap you have created. Or looking at your opponent's models on the board and knowing they are under points so you need to figure out if that means they have an invisible sniper somewhere, a shotgun about to air drop into your back lines, or if one of their line troops is in fact a hologram hiding an elite soldier. Or hell, even just looking at your speed and maneuverability and trying to guess which way your opponent will turn so you can do the same and keep them in your firing arc while staying out of his.

It's funny, because when I talk to my chess buddies, they all laugh at wargames (PC or tabletop) as being incredibly simplistic and unstrategic -- games that boil down to "learn what game pieces do and what tricks you can make them do... go!". To them, an intellectual challenge is seeing permutations and possibilities far in advance, fooling your opponent by predicting their actions, and reducing their options with each of your own. Incidentally, I am a pretty terrible chess player (at least, when playing against anyone who cares about their Elo/FIDE rating).

But whatever. Every game is different and has its draw, it's fun factors and people who enjoy them for various reasons. Find your fun and just enjoy it, I say.

Personally, although I think there are plenty of possibilities for combat tactics in AoS, I don't really care, as I just use it to play occasional games with neat models with people who likewise are pretty casual AoS players with no desire to get serious about it -- like me, they just buy occasional models, paint them, and want to play them without much forethought into army composition (beyond, gee, that would sure look cool). It's not even about the fluff, for us; the game's just a diversion. It basically comes down to... "Winged Sigmarites... Knight on big cat.... Gimme dice!"

Still, we're actually *playing* it here and there, buying some models, reading some books... and none of us have ever had a desire to play WHFB or KoW.

Sure.. but that doesn't answer my question. Yes chess is significantly more deep tactically than any wargame I've yet played but the point was that no one has actually been able to adequately explain what about AoS involves tactical depth to me, just exclaim that there are tactics.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Sure.. but that doesn't answer my question. Yes chess is significantly more deep tactically than any wargame I've yet played but the point was that no one has actually been able to adequately explain what about AoS involves tactical depth to me, just exclaim that there are tactics.

Like I said, this isn't what I'm looking for in AoS, so I've literally spent zero time thinking about what units best support what other units, how to best deploy them, and use their abilities and spells, how to deny my opponents best use of the field, or use of their abilities, and so on. I don't even read the warscrolls of the models I don't own -- I buy the model first, paint it with the configuration most pleasing to my eye second, and read the rules for it a few minutes before playing the game. So your question is better answered by someone who actually cares about a thoughtful, strategic game in AoS -- not me

Not that I don't care about strategy in war games at all; just that for *this* game, which we use as a time filler (we wrap up 40k early, for example), that's not really on my mind.

 Kenshinzo 7 wrote:

TBM wrote:

Let's not kid ourselves, we are playing with toy soldiers.

It's an damn insult to all the years, skill and money I put in to call them that.

And don't be telling me I'm wrong about AoS having no tactics. I tried (borrowed) stormcast. There were no tactics. It was just run to the middle and engage in 30 rounds of repetitive combat. Tedious.

Hate to see you insulted, but that's what it is. PLAYING WITH TOY SOLDIERS"S Why does that offend you? Do you think you are more special than the rest of us who play with toy soldier's. Are you more intellectual?. I hate to tell you this, but to people outside the hobby that's exactly what it is.

That's not entirely fair. There certainly is a serious side to wargaming if you want to look into it.

One of the origins of wargames is Kriegsspiel which was invented in Napoleonic times as a training aid for the Prussian General Staff. Many modern military colleges use various types of wargames in training and education.

If someone thinks the games they play are more intellectual than yours, they may actually be correct. To be fair, AoS is at the low end of the scale for complexity of simulation. That is the whole point of it being simple.

 Talys wrote:
So your question is better answered by someone who actually cares about a thoughtful, strategic game in AoS -- not me

That was what I was hoping for...

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Talys wrote:
So your question is better answered by someone who actually cares about a thoughtful, strategic game in AoS -- not me

That was what I was hoping for...

I aim to please

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Kenshinzo 7 wrote:

TBM wrote:

Let's not kid ourselves, we are playing with toy soldiers.

It's an damn insult to all the years, skill and money I put in to call them that.

And don't be telling me I'm wrong about AoS having no tactics. I tried (borrowed) stormcast. There were no tactics. It was just run to the middle and engage in 30 rounds of repetitive combat. Tedious.

Hate to see you insulted, but that's what it is. PLAYING WITH TOY SOLDIERS"S Why does that offend you? Do you think you are more special than the rest of us who play with toy soldier's. Are you more intellectual?. I hate to tell you this, but to people outside the hobby that's exactly what it is.

That's not entirely fair. There certainly is a serious side to wargaming if you want to look into it.

One of the origins of wargames is Kriegsspiel which was invented in Napoleonic times as a training aid for the Prussian General Staff. Many modern military colleges use various types of wargames in training and education.

If someone thinks the games they play are more intellectual than yours, they may actually be correct. To be fair, AoS is at the low end of the scale for complexity of simulation. That is the whole point of it being simple.

Who ever said life is fair? Serious? well sure there is seriousness to it, but that doesn't change what it is. Oh and I know the origins of Wargaming by the way and there is a difference between military simulation and H.G. Wells playing Little wars in the floor with is buddies. Please don't try and come at me with your I'm more intellectual than you attitude.

No offence meant.

But to be unfair, some games are more intellectual than others.

I don't think there is anything wrong with being less intellectual. I enjoy a jolly romp as well as a highbrow entertainment.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Talys wrote:
So your question is better answered by someone who actually cares about a thoughtful, strategic game in AoS -- not me

That was what I was hoping for...

You should probably read posts by people who have been running tournaments/leagues and playing/seeing multiple games, because I have seen a lot of discussions of tactics and strategy from them. Or visit the tactics forum? Obviously it's a new game so the depth of gameplay is nowhere near explored yet, and like any other game it can't be judged after one or two games.

 Mymearan wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Talys wrote:
So your question is better answered by someone who actually cares about a thoughtful, strategic game in AoS -- not me

That was what I was hoping for...

You should probably read posts by people who have been running tournaments/leagues and playing/seeing multiple games, because I have seen a lot of discussions of tactics and strategy from them. Or visit the tactics forum? Obviously it's a new game so the depth of gameplay is nowhere near explored yet, and like any other game it can't be judged after one or two games.

Funnily enough you only just now reminded me there was a tactics forum, so I did go and look around there.
I noticed the stickies where far more in depth tactical discussions than any others, with diagrams and whatnot too. Really first rate stuff. And all for Fantasy, not AoS.

Seriously check this out: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/181776.page

I also noticed that three of the five most recent threads there had all of 3 or less replies.