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.

AoS does not have rules for formations, morale, command and control, or logistics, so any tactic that depends on these aspects of warfare cannot be expressed in the game.

There no doubt are new tactics in AoS based on combining the various special rules to get different buffs.

It depends on your definition of 'tactics', I guess.

Is taking a wizard specifically to cast mystic shield on a defensive unit tactical?
Is using terrain to advance under cover a tactic?
Is preventing an enemy unit engaging their 'preferred target' tactical?
I may be pitching at kindergarten level, but to me tactics in a wargame is utilising a combination of factors (armies, rules, deployment, terrain, etc.) to lever probability in your favour and progress toward an objective.

The 'tactics' in AoS are different to WFB which is different to WMH etc.
I've seen plenty of 'but there's no point getting a flank charge in AoS' type posts, but that's a difference in rules. There's plenty of games that have no concept of flank/rear in the rules.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

AoS does not have rules for formations, morale, command and control, or logistics, so any tactic that depends on these aspects of warfare cannot be expressed in the game.

That's a bit disingenuous because a game doesn't need explicit rules for tactics to be useful. It should also be pointed out that AoS is a skirmish game, and skirmish games tend to be a bit light on the "warfare" bits in general.

There are unit cohesion and pile in rules which benefit from specific formations. There is battle shock and bravery, which can be modified by generals and other models, representing the effects of morale. You have a zone of control around every figure, which can greatly affect how the battlefield plays out and can limit summoning or funnel retreating units. Not sure what you mean by logistics - there aren't many skirmish games with supply lines or resource management. AoS has most of these things, even without having explicit rules for them.

Yes, yes, yes, they are all tactics.

So are feigned flight, flanking, ambushes, decapitation attacks, depleting the defender's ammo, and other tactics that depend on sections of rules that AoS does not include.

So too there are other rulesets that do not include all of these factors.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
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.[/quote


No problem neighbor. I do agree some games are more intellectual.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 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.

Like I said, not very surprising that a two-month old game has less in-depth tactics discussion that a 30-year old one...

I dunno. You'd think you'd have people talking about new tactics, combinations, the best way to deal with certain armies, fun scenarios, lots of back and forth chatter as they come to grips with the new system...

Unless, of course, it was concurrent with a large drop in the player base.

I'm sure there's indeed a huge drop in the player base on Dakka, which isn't very surprising.

 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.

The game is very strict about distances models are allowed to be within in regards to enemy models. Most of your tactical depth will come from efficient manipulation of those distances togive you an advantage. For example, if you are a summoning army, you will want to keep your summoners more than 18" away from the enemy because that is not only the limit of unbinding, but your models have to be more than 9" away from enemy models to be placed. But because of the maximum range of summoning you don't want to hug the board edge because that will also limit placement options. So now you need units on the field to keep chariots, flying creatures, and cavalry from sweeping forward to deny you access to the rest of your army. And you need redundancy in summoners to keep them from being g crushed in one shot by artillery.

You can form up actual protective rings to keep enemy units from your archers and artillery by placing a band of infantrymen at 6" away all the way around creating a no-go zone that forces them to either bring their own ranged units or collide head on with your spearwall.

Most heavy hitters that are infantry sized models aren't fast moving, so simply putting out a pile of peeons to stop their advance while they are immune to battleshock (command benefit everyone has access to) will see their assault stunted and their bodies full of arrows before they can do any serious damage.

Then you also have the basics of alternating activation in the combat phase that lets you attempt to mitigate the enemy's offensive ability while drawing his army into bad situations. For example, say they have two big ogre iron guts units and you have 30 zombies. Charge both of them, hit first, then they go. After one squad attacks, pull all of your models away from their other unit until they have maybe one model withing 3" of the zombies. Now they have to pile in, but only the one model within 1" gets to attack. You've wasted their other 2+ models ability to do damage, but they are still within 3" next turn so they can not move or charge afterward. That means those zombies just shut down the offensive capabilities of two of the hardest hitting infantry in the game by denying their ability to go fight something else. And with zombies if they are within. 1" of another unit of zombies in the command phase the units merge. Summon more zombies behind them (outside of 9", so that's a maybe) and the ogres have nothing to show for their entire turn.

Stuff like that.

So zone of control, puting ranged units in second line and tarpitting, the most basic and obvious things in wargames.

Except those concepts have different tactical depth based on unit abilities and synergies.

Those things you just listed are the ONLY tactical options in chess (the threat area of different pieces forcing your opponent to re evaluate their moves, hiding bishops and knights behind a screen of a couple pawns to allow them to threaten without easy retaliation, and sending pawns up to protect one another making the enemy not want to start taking pieces for fear of losing better pieces in return, etc) nobody says that game is basic or obvious.

What more advanced tactics have you seen? Those are the basis of every wargame decision I've ever witnessed. Some may award more statistical bonuses than age of sigmar, but let's not pretend the tactic itself is anything other than what you listed here.

@Lythrandire Biehrellian - The issue is one that we see all the time in comparing war games -- confusing lots of different possible complex combat tactics with a strategically deep, intellectually challenging game.

You really don't need a lot of rule types to make a game strategically deep and intellectually challenging. Chess, like we've said here, but even simpler games like Go are strategically deep and require great cognitive skills to master. Blackjack is on the face a very simple game with rules that couldn't be easier; yet strategically highly complex. It is not easy to win at BJ (defined as regularly finishing with more money than you started), but it is most assuredly possible. Poker, too. Let's be honest: there are more books written about chess, blackjack, or poker than there will ever be about any wargame, and people spend a lifetime mastering their skills and tactics in these games with very simple rules.

I personally like AoS as a game because, like Blackjack, the rules are simple, allowing me as a person who hardly plays it at all to remember how to play it, and to not miss anything really important the next time I come back to it (a point of the original poster) -- while, I think, allowing for a much deeper game if I and my friends want such a thing. I think that "run all your troops to the middle and duke it out" is not only a fallacy, but a way to lose the game, even if the terrain is pretty empty in the middle.

Let's also be fair: I think that MOST wargames can be relatively thoughtful games; in this respect, AoS is nothing special. But I don't think it gives up much, while being easier to learn and remember, which is a big advantage to occasional players who are not interested in KoW/WHFB levels of rules complexity.

I think it has pretty complex combat tactics if you take the time to read through the warscrolls -- I haven't, because I specifically have no interest in going the rout of army optimization; I'm finding my fun playing armies that "look fluffy" -- in other words, the models look like they belong in the same army, and I can justify it in my thought process, with no regard to the game's setting. Yes, sacrilege to many, but I don't really care Wood elves and high elves (from Isle of Blood) and Sigmarites all feel like good guys, so go ye forth; tomb kings and orcs and Chaos kinda seem evil-ish based on my preconceived notions, so RAWR. Paint nice models, get into the mood, and play some games, is what I'm looking for in AoS at the moment.

But you never know: 10 years from now, maybe I'll want something totally different, and get absorbed into the game fluff, or into a more competitive game, and I feel that AoS will give me that avenue should I so choose -- though I'll freely admit that this is just my intuition, not something based on careful investigation, mostly because this is a "never say never" thing, rather than, "it'll probably happen". I'm pretty sure 10 years from now, I'll still be playing 40k as my main game

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
What more advanced tactics have you seen? Those are the basis of every wargame decision I've ever witnessed. Some may award more statistical bonuses than age of sigmar, but let's not pretend the tactic itself is anything other than what you listed here.

Um.. baiting your opponent into a charge with chaff so that they expose their flank to one of your units?
Having a solid anvil unit that you know your opponent can't destroy lock them in combat for a turn or two as you bring your hammer around to destroy the engaged and unable to escape unit.


Placing a tar pit in front of your enemy's better infantry and protecting your ranged with melee is the absolute bare minimum I'd expect from a game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I get the point of simple not meaning shallow, KoW rules are simply too. But then comparing the depth of the two AoS does not come out looking good.

 Talys wrote:

 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).

That's a good point and exactly the reason why you shouldn't dumb down wargames to the level of AoS, already not mind bending affairs and removing meaningful mechanics you are aproaching mindless fast. "Learn what game pieces do and what tricks you can make them do... go" that's AoS in a nutshell but not every wargame/ boardgame is like that. Detailed wargames bring real world tactics ie Advanced Squad Leader. PC games well if you compare to Starcraft then sure but I'd love to see your friends play the simplistic and unstrategic Combat Mission Shock Force, Europa Universalis or Harpoon and just "go" lol. Boardgames, FFG with a simple trick of issuing orders hidden to opponents managed to add tons of depth to their games.

If you compare to AoS or 40k then yes it's a huge gap to chess. But there's a huge gap between AoS and Star Wars Armada as well for example.

Chess is essentially a strategic game.

AoS is a low realism skirmish game that simplifies combat by ignoring various factors that make things work in the real world. I don't mean the lack of magic in the real world, I mean the lack of continuous time and psychological considerations in AoS.

Essentially AoS is a game of complicated geometrical placement of pawns. Actually so is Star Wars Armada and most naval games; these are not about individual infantry and cavalry, of course.

I don't think any of this matters if you enjoy the games.

 jonolikespie wrote:

Um.. baiting your opponent into a charge with chaff so that they expose their flank to one of your units?

I've seen this in games already, but as a measure to forcibly change position of the enemy unit rather than getting any bonus to combat res or similar.
(But I can't help but feel one response that will come to this is "THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS FLANKS IN AOS!!! HAHAHAHAHA!")

 jonolikespie wrote:

Having a solid anvil unit that you know your opponent can't destroy lock them in combat for a turn or two as you bring your hammer around to destroy the engaged and unable to escape unit.

With Inspiring Presence, common access to Mystic Shield and other similar abilities in armies, just about any unit can be made into an anvil when necessary.
Locking opponents in combat is a little more difficult to pull off but due to the 3" control area you can still do it.
(So arguably it's more 'tactical' to do this in AoS because it requires better planning & co-ordination to do it successfully. )

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Except those concepts have different tactical depth based on unit abilities and synergies.

Those things you just listed are the ONLY tactical options in chess (the threat area of different pieces forcing your opponent to re evaluate their moves, hiding bishops and knights behind a screen of a couple pawns to allow them to threaten without easy retaliation, and sending pawns up to protect one another making the enemy not want to start taking pieces for fear of losing better pieces in return, etc) nobody says that game is basic or obvious.

What more advanced tactics have you seen? Those are the basis of every wargame decision I've ever witnessed. Some may award more statistical bonuses than age of sigmar, but let's not pretend the tactic itself is anything other than what you listed here.

Oh so just that the tactic exist doesn't mean it's the same? Nice to see you outside of thinking binary. And yes it depends on unit abilities and synergies, just like in all the other games. The point is the tactics you described as you described them all come by default with units having different stats also if you didnt have those, you would have nothing. And there's not much else in AoS.

Chess yeah you've just ignored the entirely different nature of it, the interacions between pieces, the predictability the possibilities the forthought required etc. Back to binary?

Advanced tactics? I'll just leave you with a few features of game Hoplon written down by mr. BeAfraid and your imagination.

BeAfraid wrote:
• Morale for units and army (instead of globally for only the armor), and how it affects combat performance.
• Charges and Counter-Charges (and the possibility of an infantry unit fleeing or breaking before a charging unit of cavalry, Knights, or Elephants).
• The Ability to halt charges by concentrated missile fire.
• The re-introduction of missile/ranged combat for ALL troops armed with missile weapons (this does not slow the game down at all, as many have claimed it would).
• Degradation of unit cohesion/quality through combat or morale results (Ordered/Disordered and Steady/Disrupted/Shaken).
• Variations in the quality of a general affecting his ability to lead troops, and the effects of his death upon the troops' morale.
• Troops being dual-armed, or capable of just Melee, or just Missile Combat or the troops having a primary role, but capable of operating as both melee (shock) troops and Missile Troops as being Shock/Missile or Missile/Shock.
• Variations in some weapons (Heavy Weapons, Lance armed Cavalry, and differences in Missile weapons - Javelin/Pilum, Sling, Bow, Crossbow, Longbow, or simply improvised missile weapons).
• Variations in Troop Training beyond just Drilled/Undrilled, or Regular/Irregular, such as Professional soldiers (whether Regular/Drilled or Irregular/Undrilled, and of any morale level), or troops who have received inadequate training or preparation - Untrained Atroops, who might be of any Morale class, simply lacking much training in the specific formation and weapons they are using (such as taking Hoplites, and giving them a Gladius and Pila and then expecting them to fight as Legionnaires without any training in that type of combat).
• Variations in Armor, from completely naked, to wearing full plate (troops being "normal" with no distinction in armor, or Vulnerable and having inadequate protection or being shieldless, Heavy and having a substantial shield and more than just cloth or leather armor, and Extra Heavy Armor, such as complete Plate or chainmail coverage and a shield).
• And then special behavior, or qualities of troops, such as mounted Light Horse being able to fight using a Skythian Missile Fire formation, or troops being able to use Rvps (Shock or Missile), the Equipment/Weapons of the troop, or the Behavior of the troop.

Now whfb was not that. Whfb was not even in the middle between that and AoS. Still AoS marks the end of the scale, it's hard to get more shallow than that.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Advanced tactics? I'll just leave you with a few features of game Hoplon written down by mr. BeAfraid and your imagination.

But exactly what is on that list?
What you've listed there is rules. Different weapon stats. Different armour stats. Psychology rules. All that's been shown there is that Hoplon is a more detailed/complex game, which means that there's more to take into account when planning your actions.
Nobody is saying AoS is a complicated game because it patently isn't.
But as has already been discussed to death, complexity/detail and depth of game are not necessarily proportional.

Comparing tactics between individual games doesn't really work because tactics are a extrapolated from interpreting the rules of the game.
The value of "specific action X" depends on what it means in the context of the game you're playing there and then.

The concept of a rear-charge in KoW vs. AoS vs. WMH is different because of how the rules model that situation, but there is a positive value in doing it in all systems.
In WMH you have to choose whether to shoot or fight unless you have a special skill. In AoS you can do both if you can.
In KoW the unit remains the same shape throughout the game. In AoS & WMH there is an element of decision making in which models to remove as it's possible to gain an advantage by taking damage on certain models..
Moving out of combat in WMH has dangerous penalties, so people try to avoid it. In AoS you can retreat at will, so it takes some co-ordination to 'lock' a unit in combat. KoW you're there until one side is dead or runs away, there's no choice.

RoperPG wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Advanced tactics? I'll just leave you with a few features of game Hoplon written down by mr. BeAfraid and your imagination.

But exactly what is on that list?
What you've listed there is rules. Different weapon stats. Different armour stats. Psychology rules. All that's been shown there is that Hoplon is a more detailed/complex game, which means that there's more to take into account when planning your actions.
Nobody is saying AoS is a complicated game because it patently isn't.
But as has already been discussed to death, complexity/detail and depth of game are not necessarily proportional.

Comparing tactics between individual games doesn't really work because tactics are a extrapolated from interpreting the rules of the game.
The value of "specific action X" depends on what it means in the context of the game you're playing there and then.

The concept of a rear-charge in KoW vs. AoS vs. WMH is different because of how the rules model that situation, but there is a positive value in doing it in all systems.
In WMH you have to choose whether to shoot or fight unless you have a special skill. In AoS you can do both if you can.
In KoW the unit remains the same shape throughout the game. In AoS & WMH there is an element of decision making in which models to remove as it's possible to gain an advantage by taking damage on certain models..
Moving out of combat in WMH has dangerous penalties, so people try to avoid it. In AoS you can retreat at will, so it takes some co-ordination to 'lock' a unit in combat. KoW you're there until one side is dead or runs away, there's no choice.

Yes complexity/detail and depth are not always proportional but they often are up to a point and if you don't have detailed rules, you need meaningful abstract mechanisms to make up for it. In this case detailed psychology surely adds to tactical depth, equipment rules maybe not (as deciding what charges what is ussualy obvious) but they add hugely to strategic depth so there you go.

If you have to choose whether to shoot or fight then it's mostly more depth than if you can do both.

Shapes of units is a good point though against AoS. All it does is creating simple pile in shenaningans that don't even make sense immersion wise not to mention if I was doing crap like that in whfb, casuals would accuse me of bending the rules for advantage etc.

Retreating at will is not providing depth and is an immersion killer for anyone who ever was in fight. If you get locked in combat it forces more thoughtful play before clash. Just like shooting in and out of combat, it takes weight out of battle situations.

Oh and there's no flanking in AoS hahahaha.

 jonolikespie wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
What more advanced tactics have you seen? Those are the basis of every wargame decision I've ever witnessed. Some may award more statistical bonuses than age of sigmar, but let's not pretend the tactic itself is anything other than what you listed here.

Um.. baiting your opponent into a charge with chaff so that they expose their flank to one of your units?
Having a solid anvil unit that you know your opponent can't destroy lock them in combat for a turn or two as you bring your hammer around to destroy the engaged and unable to escape unit.


Placing a tar pit in front of your enemy's better infantry and protecting your ranged with melee is the absolute bare minimum I'd expect from a game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I get the point of simple not meaning shallow, KoW rules are simply too. But then comparing the depth of the two AoS does not come out looking good.

So, do those things. Charged my wife's harpies with my white lions expecting (and getting) an easy kill. Didn't see the trap because her daemonettes have a huge threat range and had been buffed to allow them to pile in and attack twice in one combat phase and they had a hero daemon of sleenesh near my unit (what I thought was my next target) forcing me to reroll any 6+ I rolled to hit. With those two buffs that 10 man (?) Strong unit of daemons completely destroyed my 10 man unit of white lions in a single combat phase. My unit would normally have been able to grind her unit down, and probably won the combat. But her smart positioning of not only her attacking unit but support characters made it into a one sided affair I didn't see until it was too late.

As to the entrapment of a unit, that is harder to do in age of sigmar. But you do deny them any ability to do damage in shooting or melee if they choose to run out of a combat they don't want to be in. Their ability to do so is the reason flanking with multiple units is actually important in age of sigmar. In order to retreat you have to get more than three inches away from all enemy models. Flyers and cavalry are good at getting behind the enemy and forcing them to stand and fight.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Yes complexity/detail and depth are not always proportional but they often are up to a point and if you don't have detailed rules, you need meaningful abstract mechanisms to make up for it. In this case detailed psychology surely adds to tactical depth, equipment rules maybe not (as deciding what charges what is ussualy obvious) but they add hugely to strategic depth so there you go.

Other than WFB, I've never played a game where psychology was such a big deal. I mean, 40K and WMH have mechanics for it in theory, but it just doesn't seem to come up very often. WFB it was that big a deal I know people who planned armies around using it.
As a replacement for panic from WFB, I actually prefer battleshock - the harder you maul a unit in a short space of time, the bigger the potential consequence.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

If you have to choose whether to shoot or fight then it's mostly more depth than if you can do both.

In one sense, yes. But if you can do both, do you attack the same unit? Different units? There's still decisions to be made. 40K (& WMH with Assault/Virtuoso, for example) you don't normally get the choice - you shoot what you attack. So gives with one, takes with the other.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Shapes of units is a good point though against AoS. All it does is creating simple pile in shenaningans that don't even make sense immersion wise not to mention if I was doing crap like that in whfb, casuals would accuse me of bending the rules for advantage etc.
Retreating at will is not providing depth and is an immersion killer for anyone who ever was in fight. If you get locked in combat it forces more thoughtful play before clash. Just like shooting in and out of combat, it takes weight out of battle situations.

But WMH is also guilty(?) of all this.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Oh and there's no flanking in AoS hahahaha.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

I don't think any of this matters if you enjoy the games.

Exalted

@RoperPG

Indeed in 40k too many things ignore psychology rules and the game suffers for imo though It makes sense with the fluff. And 40k is a shallow game and only a notch above AoS in that regard.

As for choosing whether to shoot or fight vs doing both, I agree that it's not binary good/ bad and as always depends on the context. But it's just different at best and the context is that everything in AoS has that free roam around the battlefield feel to it, shoot into combat no friendly fire, shoot out of combat, disengage without penalty, move freely every direction etc. No real advantages over alternatives, negative impact on immersion and generaly come across not as necessary streamlining but simplicity for the sake of simplicity with nothing to make up for it.

I'd also like to go back to your statement from the earlier post that comparing tactics between games doesn't really work because you extrapolate from rules and that the value of an action depends on the context of the game and situation on the table. The question then is how decesive how often will let's say "flanking" in AoS be in comparision to flanking in KoW. I agree to an extent and say that it's not easy to compare tactics from game to game (though not impossible) and that's why some method is just looking at gameplay to see how obvious it is, what are your chances for that smart, suprising manouver that will change the outcome of the game, how far ahead you can plan etc. AoS doesn't excell in those and when people get a hang of warscrolls and rules, there will be little room to outplay an opponent.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
What more advanced tactics have you seen? Those are the basis of every wargame decision I've ever witnessed. Some may award more statistical bonuses than age of sigmar, but let's not pretend the tactic itself is anything other than what you listed here.

Um.. baiting your opponent into a charge with chaff so that they expose their flank to one of your units?
Having a solid anvil unit that you know your opponent can't destroy lock them in combat for a turn or two as you bring your hammer around to destroy the engaged and unable to escape unit.


Placing a tar pit in front of your enemy's better infantry and protecting your ranged with melee is the absolute bare minimum I'd expect from a game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I get the point of simple not meaning shallow, KoW rules are simply too. But then comparing the depth of the two AoS does not come out looking good.

So, do those things. Charged my wife's harpies with my white lions expecting (and getting) an easy kill. Didn't see the trap because her daemonettes have a huge threat range and had been buffed to allow them to pile in and attack twice in one combat phase and they had a hero daemon of sleenesh near my unit (what I thought was my next target) forcing me to reroll any 6+ I rolled to hit. With those two buffs that 10 man (?) Strong unit of daemons completely destroyed my 10 man unit of white lions in a single combat phase. My unit would normally have been able to grind her unit down, and probably won the combat. But her smart positioning of not only her attacking unit but support characters made it into a one sided affair I didn't see until it was too late.

Except it's nothing like what he described. You didn't "expose the flank" because the flank here is irrelevant, you just got into threat range and the daemonettes could as well attack the front slightly from the side or sth.

The problem with Psychology in 40K (morale factors as historical players would call it) is that the effects are very limited, but devastating when they happen, and only practically apply to one or two armies such as Tau who don't have a high Leadership already and also don't have easy ways of boosting it if it was low. Though I think there is now a Leadership boosting character for Tau, which may mean that Leadership is irrelevant 90% of the time in 40K.

That said you can make a very good game without morale factors. The very successful De Bellis Antiquitatis absorbed the effect of morale into the troop type versus troop type combat results, which simplified the game considerably compared to the previous WRG Ancients Rules.

DBA of course was specifically written to be a simpler, smaller, quicker playing game, so compromises had to be made. It did lose some of the effects of morale that were present in WRG Ancients, but it was worth it to make the game a lot simpler to learn and faster to play.

I prefer AoS's battleshock to 8th's moral. There was nothing weirder in 8th than a single model overrunning an entire horde unit killing everyone. (I once had an Outrider overrun a horde unit of night Gobbos).

Battleshock is unable to replicate things like a mass rout, but for quick streamlined play it does the job well.

If you think of the horde not being killed but simply dissolving into panicked individuals who make no further contribution to the battle, it makes more sense.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
@RoperPG

Indeed in 40k too many things ignore psychology rules and the game suffers for imo though It makes sense with the fluff. And 40k is a shallow game and only a notch above AoS in that regard.

As for choosing whether to shoot or fight vs doing both, I agree that it's not binary good/ bad and as always depends on the context. But it's just different at best and the context is that everything in AoS has that free roam around the battlefield feel to it, shoot into combat no friendly fire, shoot out of combat, disengage without penalty, move freely every direction etc. No real advantages over alternatives, negative impact on immersion and generaly come across not as necessary streamlining but simplicity for the sake of simplicity with nothing to make up for it.

I'd also like to go back to your statement from the earlier post that comparing tactics between games doesn't really work because you extrapolate from rules and that the value of an action depends on the context of the game and situation on the table. The question then is how decesive how often will let's say "flanking" in AoS be in comparision to flanking in KoW. I agree to an extent and say that it's not easy to compare tactics from game to game (though not impossible) and that's why some method is just looking at gameplay to see how obvious it is, what are your chances for that smart, suprising manouver that will change the outcome of the game, how far ahead you can plan etc. AoS doesn't excell in those and when people get a hang of warscrolls and rules, the room to outplay an opponent will be small imo.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
What more advanced tactics have you seen? Those are the basis of every wargame decision I've ever witnessed. Some may award more statistical bonuses than age of sigmar, but let's not pretend the tactic itself is anything other than what you listed here.

Um.. baiting your opponent into a charge with chaff so that they expose their flank to one of your units?
Having a solid anvil unit that you know your opponent can't destroy lock them in combat for a turn or two as you bring your hammer around to destroy the engaged and unable to escape unit.


Placing a tar pit in front of your enemy's better infantry and protecting your ranged with melee is the absolute bare minimum I'd expect from a game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I get the point of simple not meaning shallow, KoW rules are simply too. But then comparing the depth of the two AoS does not come out looking good.

So, do those things. Charged my wife's harpies with my white lions expecting (and getting) an easy kill. Didn't see the trap because her daemonettes have a huge threat range and had been buffed to allow them to pile in and attack twice in one combat phase and they had a hero daemon of sleenesh near my unit (what I thought was my next target) forcing me to reroll any 6+ I rolled to hit. With those two buffs that 10 man (?) Strong unit of daemons completely destroyed my 10 man unit of white lions in a single combat phase. My unit would normally have been able to grind her unit down, and probably won the combat. But her smart positioning of not only her attacking unit but support characters made it into a one sided affair I didn't see until it was too late.

Except it's nothing like what he described. You didn't "expose the flank" because the flank here is irrelevant, you just got into threat range and the daemonettes could as well attack the front slightly from the side or sth.

Except that I exposed a flank of my army when the attack was made, making it impossible to stop my wife from destroying the rest of my units afterwards. My unit was hit from an unexpected quarter, isolated from the rest of my forces, and I lost the last two guys to a failed battleshock test.

The mechanics are there to represent those things happening on the table top, why is the mechanic of a "flank" more important than the idea of one? Why can't it just be a story reason why the route just occurred, as opposed to the mechanical one?

You should do some battle reports with pictures of these tactfully amazing battles you keep talking about. All I have seen in these games tactics wise is choosing combat order and making sure you charge the right enemy...

Will be interesting to see yours since they are so different to the battles I have been seeing while I paint.

 Swastakowey wrote:
You should do some battle reports with pictures of these tactfully amazing battles you keep talking about. All I have seen in these games tactics wise is choosing combat order and making sure you charge the right enemy...

Will be interesting to see yours since they are so different to the battles I have been seeing while I paint.

As much as I want it to be the other way around I too have yet to see a battle more complicated than shoot the assaulty stuff/assault the shooty stuff, try to gang up with multiple units, shoot hard units with mortal damage pew pew etc. The game is very much akin to 40k and much of the stuff that is valid for 40k is valid for AoS aswell. I know, I know there is much to be done with model positioning in AoS, especially in the assault phase, but things like the inverted T formation, triple tomato formation etc. just make me want to gaze upon something else - something that doesn't make my eyes bleed. I'd love to see an actual battle report where every decision was weighed along with several else, where maneuvering was interesting with some clear patterns to see unfolding etc., but as far as reports go for the moment - I've yet to see one. I like the game, but I still stand by my initial opinion - it is a light game intended for quick entry into the hobby (GW's or another). I'd be very happy to see a report which shows the game in a better light that I've seen it for now.

 CoreCommander wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
You should do some battle reports with pictures of these tactfully amazing battles you keep talking about. All I have seen in these games tactics wise is choosing combat order and making sure you charge the right enemy...

Will be interesting to see yours since they are so different to the battles I have been seeing while I paint.

As much as I want it to be the other way around I too have yet to see a battle more complicated than shoot the assaulty stuff/assault the shooty stuff, try to gang up with multiple units, shoot hard units with mortal damage pew pew etc. The game is very much akin to 40k and much the stuff that is valid for 40k is valid for AoS aswell. I know, I know there is much to be done with model positioning in AoS, especially in the assault phase, but things like the inverted T formation, triple tomato formation etc. just make me want to gaze upon something else - something that doesn't make my eyes bleed. I'd love to see an actual battle report where every decision was weighed along with several else, where maneuvering was interesting with some clear patterns to see unfolding etc., but as far as reports go for the moment - I've yet to see one. I like the game, but I still stand by my initial opinion - it is a light game intended for quick entry into the hobby (GW's or another).

I agree. To be clear I was not trying to be snarky or anything, it's just I hear a lot from a few people here about how these things happen in their games which is very contrary to all the games I have seen (and I have seen many since I have pushed painting hard these last few weeks) and unfortunately I find it hard to believe these stories are actually true.

Nothing wrong with a light game (to an extent) but again, I feel like some AOS players here are being very contrarian in their views for whatever reason. It would be nice to see a battle report showing these tactics and situations being stated. It's all well and good some of the things happening in theory or on paper... but it's more telling how these theories and ideas come out in actual game play (which is a huge part of playtesting a game too) because it seems that they do not often come into play in my experience.