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.

Except mageknight allowed models to group together, and my prefered way to play was mageknight conquest which was larger scale than most skirmish games, but not full battalions either. It also removed the facing issues from non uniques to make them more efficient.

If you were to try and do a large scale skirmish where the models all acted independently the game would bog down immediately. Age of sigmar lets me put piles of models on the table while still allowing a more freestyle approach to deployment and terrain utilization that most squad sized games don't allow.

I can brick up, form a line, blob out, man a rampart, hold a valley, defend a hill, have units climb a ladder, or completely surround squishy units to protect them. Age of sigmar has a simple enough rules set to allow those things to all occure without having to add ANY rules to the game to facilitate it.

I like this world we live in where "fun, dynamic, tactically rich, and enjoyable" is synonymous with "has a GW label." Usually GW just receives nothing but hate, so it is refreshing to see them get some credit for putting out both a relatively solid game system and some pretty gorgeous models. I agree, the level of detail on some of these casts is really phenomenal.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Except mageknight allowed models to group together, and my prefered way to play was mageknight conquest which was larger scale than most skirmish games, but not full battalions either. It also removed the facing issues from non uniques to make them more efficient.

If you were to try and do a large scale skirmish where the models all acted independently the game would bog down immediately. Age of sigmar lets me put piles of models on the table while still allowing a more freestyle approach to deployment and terrain utilization that most squad sized games don't allow.

I can brick up, form a line, blob out, man a rampart, hold a valley, defend a hill, have units climb a ladder, or completely surround squishy units to protect them. Age of sigmar has a simple enough rules set to allow those things to all occure without having to add ANY rules to the game to facilitate it.

No skirmish games are for forces of individual models who act as their own units. I am fairly sure this is the very definition of a Skirmish game actually...

A large scale skirmish would just be a game with more models on the board following skirmish rules. Lord of the Rings is a small or large scale skirmish game for example.

I have absolutely no idea what you are on about with AOS allowing you to do X that other games don't, because already 40k does exactly the same thing AOS can do and the list keeps growing after that. Everything you said in that last sentence can be done in any game too by the way... without any rules to state you are allowed (most state it anyway to be clear).

quiestdeus wrote:
I like this world we live in where "fun, dynamic, tactically rich, and enjoyable" is synonymous with "has a GW label." Usually GW just receives nothing but hate, so it is refreshing to see them get some credit for putting out both a relatively solid game system and some pretty gorgeous models. I agree, the level of detail on some of these casts is really phenomenal.

You haven't just said tacticaly rich have you heh. Fun and enjoyable that is absolutely subjective and I found it to be neither. Also how is it dynamic, do you mean movement ranges or the speed at which things die or sth else.

I would also argue relatively solid, is there something less solid?

Then gorgeous models, I have yet to find a second one in AoS with the first being the babygryph. I'm usualy first to buy a starter or two no matter the armies just for sheer conversion potential (chaos/ undead), to have cheap armies to be able to play various games at home just with my stuff etc, but I haven't buy a box or a single squad. I don't even like Khorne guys, they look something in the middle between fantasy and 40k and are useless for both imo, might buy a Khorgorath for dreadnought conversions and maybe the wings but that's it. Now sigmarines, I have days when I try to let AoS fluff/ visuals grow on me as a high fantasy magical world but it usualy takes one look at sigmarine art/ model to kill it. All I see are fat and derpy space marine wannabes and those designs actualy disilusioned me a lot about GW models in general, they're so bad in my eyes. Again, subjective and I'd say there's a lot of negative feedback about them.

 Swastakowey wrote:



Anyone who plays AOS should play a game that is actually scenario based. I bet once you try AOS again you will make many changes if what you really enjoy is scenario based games.

AOS is a mission based game. You get given a mission, you select your forces, then you slaughter the enemy until victory. This is not a scenario based game, this is a gamey game. This is warhammer 40k without points. This is like many FPS games with their missions and army set up. This is not a scenario game people.

The ONLY reason this game is played is because of a GW logo. No other game would have traction (as it would have been laughed at) with these rules.

The problem with that is that it makes the game very hard to start with. If scenario requires the use of units you don't own your losing the game before it even started, and worse it is possible that your faction doesn't even have such unit, so even someone with a big army from WFB times won't be able to win.

I have seen a game between to people with the starter set, they had some sort of grab the objective and run mission and the marine player just landed on it turn 1 with his jump troops and then run for 6 turns with it and won a small victory. The chaos player was not very happy about how they split the box.

 Mymearan wrote:
I don't think anyone has said that 125 people were working on the system, more likely it was a small project group doing most of the development.

Yes. My point is that GW could and should have put a lot more resources into development and made a much more innovative system. Though actually, comparing GW with WRG, you don't need a large amount of resources to review a game genre and produce a highly innovative system compared to your previous game. It can be done by quite a small team in quite a short amount of time.

Well, played AoS on Monday night again, and it was pretty fun. I must say that AoS has consumed way more of my time than I ever expected.

The way I look at GW games and AoS is that they're designed more to be entertainment than "serious games". It's a lot like books or movies that aren't really insightful or even particularly original, but just fun to read or watch for people who like that kind of stuff; for these folks, these movies are a whole other awesome, and (literally) they can't get enough special effects, car chase scenes, cute assassin chicks, big explosions and, of course, happy Hollywood endings. For people looking for something else, these are usually "regurgitated garbage", "mindless drivel" or any number of other denigrating monikers. It doesn't change that the crowd pleasers make a lot of money, and there's definitely entertainment value for people willing to blow $50 for a night out at the theatre for two (or, like, $80+ with a couple of kids).

I put myself in those shoes too, and see AoS through the same lens. It's not that I'm not a "serious hobbyist" or not a "real gamer". It's just that I have plenty of deep thought during my personal and professional life; there are plenty of hard choices and tough decisions at work and at home, so when it comes to gaming (or television, or film, or literature), I usually am not alone and I want to be entertained, rather than to work with something technically sophisticated and excellent, but of low entertainment value to me.

This, principally, is why I play wargames with cool models and nice terrain, rather than games like chess; and why I play scenarios and campaigns, rather than "two strangers meet and duke it out" -- for the entertainment value.

And I'm not saying that's *always* what I want... just mostly. This is why I've always said, the questions of, "is it fun? does it look cool?" are really the most important one to me.

Incidentally, even the books are made to be high entertainment value. Probably 30-40% of the books are artwork (or photography) on nice quality paper more befitting a coffee table or library than a gamer's backpack. The rest is widely spaced, easy to read content.

On the other subject about the AoS models, specifically the new ones, I think it was simply an unveiled attempt at GW to get 40k space marine lovers to buy fantasy models and try a fantasy-themed game. Let's face it, if you *love* space marines, you'll probably at least like the Sigmarites. I mean, gold armor, superhuman knights, glowing razor wings, shoulder pads, shields, heraldry, and warhammers... for the folks who have closets full of space marines, what's not to like, right?

I don't really see anything wrong with that, and for the folks who dislike space marines, are just sick of seeing them, or think that these guys just get way too much attention... well, they certainly will not like Stormcast Eternals.

My bad, ignore!

@Talys I agree with what you say about AoS. The existence of it is not a problem and neither are people who want lightweight fun. The problem is it replaced a more ambitious game and part of a playerbase was simply messaged to feth off. If Heroes of Might and Magic gets a sequel and it's shallow then it's ok and noone cares, that's what you expect. If Age of Wonders got a sequel and it would be dumbed dow n to Heroes level, the outrage in the player base would be guaranteed and intense. What GW should have done was to fix and improve whfb, release AoS and support both games maybe with the whfb stuff direct only if they needed shelf space so much, hardly anyone would say a word I surely wouldn't and they could have lion man on lions riding lions and sigmarines only universe, no problem.

Also noone says it's wrong to like it or sth, it will obviously be ok for people with attitude like yours. It's just claims that it's a deeply tactical game that works flawlessly as written and can stand a comparision to other, tighter and more serious rulesets that warrant a discussion to say the least.

As for sigmarines and space marines, not exactly. I don't hate space marines, prefer csm/ nids but have a small Dark Angels force, some templars and lots of termies. Sigmarines just don't have the menace of space marines and lack the facist psychopath vibe, I'm sure they could have created an visualy acceptable sm equivalent for fantasy (I would hate it conceptualy anyway though) but just failed. Imo sigmarines are just lame and just not cool.

 Swastakowey wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Except mageknight allowed models to group together, and my prefered way to play was mageknight conquest which was larger scale than most skirmish games, but not full battalions either. It also removed the facing issues from non uniques to make them more efficient.

If you were to try and do a large scale skirmish where the models all acted independently the game would bog down immediately. Age of sigmar lets me put piles of models on the table while still allowing a more freestyle approach to deployment and terrain utilization that most squad sized games don't allow.

I can brick up, form a line, blob out, man a rampart, hold a valley, defend a hill, have units climb a ladder, or completely surround squishy units to protect them. Age of sigmar has a simple enough rules set to allow those things to all occure without having to add ANY rules to the game to facilitate it.

No skirmish games are for forces of individual models who act as their own units. I am fairly sure this is the very definition of a Skirmish game actually...

A large scale skirmish would just be a game with more models on the board following skirmish rules. Lord of the Rings is a small or large scale skirmish game for example.

I have absolutely no idea what you are on about with AOS allowing you to do X that other games don't, because already 40k does exactly the same thing AOS can do and the list keeps growing after that. Everything you said in that last sentence can be done in any game too by the way... without any rules to state you are allowed (most state it anyway to be clear).

And lord of the rings allowed models to be fielded in units. Age of sigmar allows for those things without more rules to cover eventualities. With melee weapons having ranges there is no need to explain what happens when a model is above another, or if they are on either side of a wall.

As far as I was concerned a skirmish game was one without needing to field armies in ranks and doesn't need you to buy vast sums of models to play effectively. I hadn't thought that it was a direct label that had set parameters.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
@Talys I agree with what you say about AoS. The existence of it is not a problem and neither are people who want lightweight fun. The problem is it replaced a more ambitious game and part of a playerbase was simply messaged to feth off. If Heroes of Might and Magic gets a sequel and it's shallow then it's ok and noone cares, that's what you expect. If Age of Wonders got a sequel and it would be dumbed dow n to Heroes level, the outrage in the player base would be guaranteed and intense. What GW should have done was to fix and improve whfb, release AoS and support both games maybe with the whfb stuff direct only if they needed shelf space so much, hardly anyone would say a word I surely wouldn't and they could have lion man on lions riding lions and sigmarines only universe, no problem.

Subjectivity alert! SOME do not like the outcome, but for many GW *DID* (and I cannot emphasize that enough) fix WHFB. At the end of the day GW is a company whose purpose is to make money. WHFB was NOT accomplishing this goal, enough has already been posted about this fact. They switched it up and attempted to fix the problem, the results remain to be seen, and frankly, will not be seen for years given how poorly WHFB was already doing - GW had very little to actually lose.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Also noone says it's wrong to like it or sth, it will obviously be ok for people with attitude like yours. It's just claims that it's a deeply tactical game that works flawlessly as written and can stand a comparision to other, tighter and more serious rulesets that warrant a discussion to say the least.

In all honesty, the only people who are making this claim of absolution are the ones who are trying so hard to (1) refute it in the first place; and (2) the ones who dislike the game and feel upset they were told to "feth off"

Why is your opinion right, or better than mine? I find tactical depth in the sheer number of combinations the interactions warscrolls provide. Should I run spears behind swordsmen? Should I cast mystic shield on those swordsmen or regrowth on my calvary? Is it worth risking my wizard to create that dispel attempt next turn, or can I afford to wait it out longer? There are as many tactical decisions to make in game that have as much impact as anything I have ever played in WHFB, 40k, Malifaux, or even Blood Bowl. They are just DIFFERENT. You do not like the difference. We get it. The forum gets it. The internet...gets...it.

While you are obviously entitled to your opinion, can you see how it just becomes annoying when the same negative rhetoric is posted continually as new faces attempt to post, or old faces bring new experiences to the conversation?

I have argued there is tactical depth to the game, and will continue to do so, based on my actual experiences as both a player and a tournament organizer. I have gone out of my way to even point out that one of the best aspects of the game is that you can easily add to and modify the core rules to make the game better. You know, the same exact thing that happens in nearly all of (if not all of) those other "more serious rulesets" you conveniently left vague? Personally, I would hardly consider that a claim the game "works flawlessly as written" but it sure as hell is a tactically deep game, and if others play it straight rules as written and have fun, why are they wrong to believe it is tactically deep?

Why is your opinion that is not any better/correct than one believing that it is?

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Except mageknight allowed models to group together, and my prefered way to play was mageknight conquest which was larger scale than most skirmish games, but not full battalions either. It also removed the facing issues from non uniques to make them more efficient.

If you were to try and do a large scale skirmish where the models all acted independently the game would bog down immediately. Age of sigmar lets me put piles of models on the table while still allowing a more freestyle approach to deployment and terrain utilization that most squad sized games don't allow.

I can brick up, form a line, blob out, man a rampart, hold a valley, defend a hill, have units climb a ladder, or completely surround squishy units to protect them. Age of sigmar has a simple enough rules set to allow those things to all occure without having to add ANY rules to the game to facilitate it.

No skirmish games are for forces of individual models who act as their own units. I am fairly sure this is the very definition of a Skirmish game actually...

A large scale skirmish would just be a game with more models on the board following skirmish rules. Lord of the Rings is a small or large scale skirmish game for example.

I have absolutely no idea what you are on about with AOS allowing you to do X that other games don't, because already 40k does exactly the same thing AOS can do and the list keeps growing after that. Everything you said in that last sentence can be done in any game too by the way... without any rules to state you are allowed (most state it anyway to be clear).

And lord of the rings allowed models to be fielded in units. Age of sigmar allows for those things without more rules to cover eventualities. With melee weapons having ranges there is no need to explain what happens when a model is above another, or if they are on either side of a wall.

As far as I was concerned a skirmish game was one without needing to field armies in ranks and doesn't need you to buy vast sums of models to play effectively. I hadn't thought that it was a direct label that had set parameters.

No it didn't... in Lord of the rings you are not limited to units ever? You don't even purchase units, you purchase models. The games are as small or big as you want. The rules are incredibly simple yet deep. It is a true skirmish game. You get buffs when models are close together depending on the situation, but there is no such thing as a unit in that game...

As far as your concern, it is wrong. A skirmish game has an army where the units are individuals. Im pretty sure if you google skirmish game this is the definition that comes up too.

It's funny actually, LOTR sounds more like the large scale skirmish you are after. Yes it takes a minute amount of brain power to learn the system compared to AOS but other than that it has everything you keep talking about wanting in AOS...

 Swastakowey wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Except mageknight allowed models to group together, and my prefered way to play was mageknight conquest which was larger scale than most skirmish games, but not full battalions either. It also removed the facing issues from non uniques to make them more efficient.

If you were to try and do a large scale skirmish where the models all acted independently the game would bog down immediately. Age of sigmar lets me put piles of models on the table while still allowing a more freestyle approach to deployment and terrain utilization that most squad sized games don't allow.

I can brick up, form a line, blob out, man a rampart, hold a valley, defend a hill, have units climb a ladder, or completely surround squishy units to protect them. Age of sigmar has a simple enough rules set to allow those things to all occure without having to add ANY rules to the game to facilitate it.

No skirmish games are for forces of individual models who act as their own units. I am fairly sure this is the very definition of a Skirmish game actually...

A large scale skirmish would just be a game with more models on the board following skirmish rules. Lord of the Rings is a small or large scale skirmish game for example.

I have absolutely no idea what you are on about with AOS allowing you to do X that other games don't, because already 40k does exactly the same thing AOS can do and the list keeps growing after that. Everything you said in that last sentence can be done in any game too by the way... without any rules to state you are allowed (most state it anyway to be clear).

And lord of the rings allowed models to be fielded in units. Age of sigmar allows for those things without more rules to cover eventualities. With melee weapons having ranges there is no need to explain what happens when a model is above another, or if they are on either side of a wall.

As far as I was concerned a skirmish game was one without needing to field armies in ranks and doesn't need you to buy vast sums of models to play effectively. I hadn't thought that it was a direct label that had set parameters.

No it didn't... in Lord of the rings you are not limited to units ever? You don't even purchase units, you purchase models. The games are as small or big as you want. The rules are incredibly simple yet deep. It is a true skirmish game. You get buffs when models are close together depending on the situation, but there is no such thing as a unit in that game...

As far as your concern, it is wrong. A skirmish game has an army where the units are individuals. Im pretty sure if you google skirmish game this is the definition that comes up too.

It's funny actually, LOTR sounds more like the large scale skirmish you are after. Yes it takes a minute amount of brain power to learn the system compared to AOS but other than that it has everything you keep talking about wanting in AOS...

Mate there is no conclusive or official definition of what a skirmish game even is. Its an arbitrary distinction, purely for the purpose of categorizing games in internet arguments. I've heard people describe both single model unit and low model/troop count (regardless of unit size) games as being skirmish, and to verify this I did a Google search for "skirmish game definition". The first page of results (relevant searches start trailing off at page 2) are all either dictionary definitions of the word skirmish (which funny enough are also relatively variable depending on which dictionary website you look at) and people discussing the definition on tabletop gaming forums.

http://www.wargamerau.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=76927

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/942209/differences-between-wargame-and-skirmish-game

http://deltavector.blogspot.com/2015/04/game-design-44-skirmish-wargaming-means.html

http://skirmishwargaming.com/skirmish-wargaming/

In all cases there are people who argue for each side, and in some cases entirely different definitions (such as average game time). I have yet to see any actual authority on the subject, primarily because (as with most arbitrary distinctions) there is no authority to reference.

Edit:For the purpose of clarity.

Jack Flask wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Except mageknight allowed models to group together, and my prefered way to play was mageknight conquest which was larger scale than most skirmish games, but not full battalions either. It also removed the facing issues from non uniques to make them more efficient.

If you were to try and do a large scale skirmish where the models all acted independently the game would bog down immediately. Age of sigmar lets me put piles of models on the table while still allowing a more freestyle approach to deployment and terrain utilization that most squad sized games don't allow.

I can brick up, form a line, blob out, man a rampart, hold a valley, defend a hill, have units climb a ladder, or completely surround squishy units to protect them. Age of sigmar has a simple enough rules set to allow those things to all occure without having to add ANY rules to the game to facilitate it.

No skirmish games are for forces of individual models who act as their own units. I am fairly sure this is the very definition of a Skirmish game actually...

A large scale skirmish would just be a game with more models on the board following skirmish rules. Lord of the Rings is a small or large scale skirmish game for example.

I have absolutely no idea what you are on about with AOS allowing you to do X that other games don't, because already 40k does exactly the same thing AOS can do and the list keeps growing after that. Everything you said in that last sentence can be done in any game too by the way... without any rules to state you are allowed (most state it anyway to be clear).

And lord of the rings allowed models to be fielded in units. Age of sigmar allows for those things without more rules to cover eventualities. With melee weapons having ranges there is no need to explain what happens when a model is above another, or if they are on either side of a wall.

As far as I was concerned a skirmish game was one without needing to field armies in ranks and doesn't need you to buy vast sums of models to play effectively. I hadn't thought that it was a direct label that had set parameters.

No it didn't... in Lord of the rings you are not limited to units ever? You don't even purchase units, you purchase models. The games are as small or big as you want. The rules are incredibly simple yet deep. It is a true skirmish game. You get buffs when models are close together depending on the situation, but there is no such thing as a unit in that game...

As far as your concern, it is wrong. A skirmish game has an army where the units are individuals. Im pretty sure if you google skirmish game this is the definition that comes up too.

It's funny actually, LOTR sounds more like the large scale skirmish you are after. Yes it takes a minute amount of brain power to learn the system compared to AOS but other than that it has everything you keep talking about wanting in AOS...

Mate there is no conclusive or official definition of what a skirmish game even is. Its an arbitrary distinction, purely for the purpose of categorizing games in internet arguments. I've heard people describe both single model unit and low model/troop count (regardless of unit size) games as being skirmish, and to verify this I did a Google search for "skirmish game definition". The first page of results (relevant searches start trailing off at page 2) are all either dictionary definitions of the word skirmish (which funny enough are also relatively variable depending on which dictionary website you look at) and people discussing the definition on tabletop gaming forums.

http://www.wargamerau.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=76927

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/942209/differences-between-wargame-and-skirmish-game

http://deltavector.blogspot.com/2015/04/game-design-44-skirmish-wargaming-means.html

http://skirmishwargaming.com/skirmish-wargaming/

In all cases there are people who argue for each side, and in some cases entirely different definitions (such as average game time). I have yet to see any actual authority on the subject, primarily because (as with most arbitrary distinctions) there is no authority to reference.

Edit:For the purpose of clarity.

So a bunch of randoms on the internet don't know what skirmish is?

A man-to-man wargame[1][2][3] (also known as a skirmish wargame[4]) is a wargame in which units generally represent single individuals or weapons systems, and are rated not only on weaponry but may also be rated on such facets as morale, perception, skill-at-arms, etc

Units are single models. This means each model moves and acts as it's own identity (with appropriate stats etc). In AOS a unit is a group of solders, which kind of makes it not skirmish?

See a skirmish game can have instances where models need to be tied into a group (Maybe for a mission, maybe for a bonus?) hence the generally. But skirmish has meant each model is it's own unit for a long time. Thats why Mordheim, Necromunda, Gorka Morka, Infinity and so on in the fantasy world is called a skirmish game. They follow this principle.

I could have sworn you bought units of soldiers in lord of the rings...

Also, none of the group I played in was interested in the game, some of the minis yes, but not the game itself. Kind of invalidates the whole " it's from games workshop, that's why you play it" argument entirely. We are all huge nerds for that particular world setting, so it wasn't that turning us off of the game either.

Age of sigmar is a good game, we've played several games of it and find it fun. I enjoy the depth of tactics needed to utilise all of the units at my disposal efficiently and have now gathered two significant armies from my model collections to see where I stand (vampire counts and high elves) I never even bothered to see what was available for wfb. I had a friend try to get me into it, I read the movement rules and told him to not bother. He bought me a vc battalion, a codex, a mounted wight, and some dire wolves. I never even opened them and he eventually took them back. We are putting them together now, along with the dwarves and brettonians he has and also never assembled.

Games workshop didn't deserve my time and money before for wfb, they changed my mind with a more fun, free, and quick to start rule set.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, your definition above gives the definition of a man to man wargame, that can also be called a skirmish wargame. That isn't the definition of a skirmish wargame.

A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle isn't always a square.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I could have sworn you bought units of soldiers in lord of the rings...

Also, none of the group I played in was interested in the game, some of the minis yes, but not the game itself. Kind of invalidates the whole " it's from games workshop, that's why you play it" argument entirely. We are all huge nerds for that particular world setting, so it wasn't that turning us off of the game either.

Age of sigmar is a good game, we've played several games of it and find it fun. I enjoy the depth of tactics needed to utilise all of the units at my disposal efficiently and have now gathered two significant armies from my model collections to see where I stand (vampire counts and high elves) I never even bothered to see what was available for wfb. I had a friend try to get me into it, I read the movement rules and told him to not bother. He bought me a vc battalion, a codex, a mounted wight, and some dire wolves. I never even opened them and he eventually took them back. We are putting them together now, along with the dwarves and brettonians he has and also never assembled.

Games workshop didn't deserve my time and money before for wfb, they changed my mind with a more fun, free, and quick to start rule set.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, your definition above gives the definition of a man to man wargame, that can also be called a skirmish wargame. That isn't the definition of a skirmish wargame.

A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle isn't always a square.

In lord of the rings you need a captain per X men, but they are not units. They move and do as they please on a per model basis. You can have as few or as many as you want.

I would say GW charges more for LOTR than any of their other game systems, doesn't have full rules and hardly supports it is the reason for it's downfall. It was once an incredibly popular and cheap game to play. If GW treated AOS like they treated LOTR then AOS would end up the same. But yes you have a point there, GW doesn't instantly guarantee success. I still think AOS is only played because of it's label. Before I knew what wargaming was lord of the rings models used to be in magazines at the super market, there was so much of those models everywhere that I thought GW was a lord of the rings model company. When I first started playing thats what everyone used to play. Of course things have changed since then but despite being incredibly hard to get into now it still has a huge following. I doubt AOS will ever be as popular as LOTR was in it's prime (well AOS is dead here but still).

Good point about the man to man, in which case skirmish really means nothing except what you want it to mean I suppose.

WFB sucked too, just not as bad as AOS.

 Swastakowey wrote:

So a bunch of randoms on the internet don't know what skirmish is?

A man-to-man wargame[1][2][3] (also known as a skirmish wargame[4]) is a wargame in which units generally represent single individuals or weapons systems, and are rated not only on weaponry but may also be rated on such facets as morale, perception, skill-at-arms, etc

Units are single models. This means each model moves and acts as it's own identity (with appropriate stats etc). In AOS a unit is a group of solders, which kind of makes it not skirmish?

See a skirmish game can have instances where models need to be tied into a group (Maybe for a mission, maybe for a bonus?) hence the generally. But skirmish has meant each model is it's own unit for a long time. Thats why Mordheim, Necromunda, Gorka Morka, Infinity and so on in the fantasy world is called a skirmish game. They follow this principle.

Where is that definition from, and why should anyone accept it as more true than any other?

You can't just throw out some random statement and expect it to be meaningful, that's not how an argument works. You have to make a claim and back it up with relevant, verifiable, and convincing evidence if you actually want whatever you're saying to hold weight. Otherwise, your argument is rendered irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Jack Flask wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

So a bunch of randoms on the internet don't know what skirmish is?

A man-to-man wargame[1][2][3] (also known as a skirmish wargame[4]) is a wargame in which units generally represent single individuals or weapons systems, and are rated not only on weaponry but may also be rated on such facets as morale, perception, skill-at-arms, etc

Units are single models. This means each model moves and acts as it's own identity (with appropriate stats etc). In AOS a unit is a group of solders, which kind of makes it not skirmish?

See a skirmish game can have instances where models need to be tied into a group (Maybe for a mission, maybe for a bonus?) hence the generally. But skirmish has meant each model is it's own unit for a long time. Thats why Mordheim, Necromunda, Gorka Morka, Infinity and so on in the fantasy world is called a skirmish game. They follow this principle.

Where is that definition from, and why should anyone accept it as more true than any other?

You can't just throw out some random statement and expect it to be meaningful, that's not how an argument works. You have to make a claim and back it up with relevant, verifiable, and convincing evidence if you actually want whatever you're saying to hold weight. Otherwise, your argument is rendered irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Man to man is also known as a skirmish game. It's the only definition relating to skirmish war game in Wikipedia. Even though Wikipedia is not often allowed as a source it is better than random forums. Although someone has contested that man to man does not cover all skirmish (I disagree, as per Wikipedia) but I suppose it's up to you to decide.

 Swastakowey wrote:

Jack Flask wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

So a bunch of randoms on the internet don't know what skirmish is?

A man-to-man wargame[1][2][3] (also known as a skirmish wargame[4]) is a wargame in which units generally represent single individuals or weapons systems, and are rated not only on weaponry but may also be rated on such facets as morale, perception, skill-at-arms, etc

Units are single models. This means each model moves and acts as it's own identity (with appropriate stats etc). In AOS a unit is a group of solders, which kind of makes it not skirmish?

See a skirmish game can have instances where models need to be tied into a group (Maybe for a mission, maybe for a bonus?) hence the generally. But skirmish has meant each model is it's own unit for a long time. Thats why Mordheim, Necromunda, Gorka Morka, Infinity and so on in the fantasy world is called a skirmish game. They follow this principle.

Where is that definition from, and why should anyone accept it as more true than any other?

You can't just throw out some random statement and expect it to be meaningful, that's not how an argument works. You have to make a claim and back it up with relevant, verifiable, and convincing evidence if you actually want whatever you're saying to hold weight. Otherwise, your argument is rendered irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Man to man is also known as a skirmish game. It's the only definition relating to skirmish war game in Wikipedia. Even though Wikipedia is not often allowed as a source it is better than random forums. Although someone has contested that man to man does not cover all skirmish (I disagree, as per Wikipedia) but I suppose it's up to you to decide.

The problem with Wikipedia isn't that it's inherently unusable because academia says so, but because topics have the potential to be misrepresented by biased/ignorant editors or are simply based on no credible primary sources.

This article you linked is absolutely an example of the latter, and no offense, but I can tell you didn't bother to check the sources before quoting it. The article uses only four sources, three to establish the term "man to man wargame" and one to establish the supposedly synonymous term "skirmish wargame".

If you look at the first three sources, all of them are from what are essentially blogs, all three being product reviews of man-to-man wargames from enthusiast sites. The fourth source which supposedly equates the term "skirmish" with "man-to-man", isn't even really a source at all. Its actually just a Board Game Geek page with a transcription of the publisher advertisement for the games Mindstalkers, in which the game is self described as a "skirmish game".

Effectively, the wikipedia article you posted has no factual basis whatsoever and is even flagged as being a bad article. Which was more or less the point I was trying to make previously that, outside of forum debates, I was unable to find an actual definition of what a skirmish game even is. Which means that unless there is a credible and convincing source by which to define the term, then it's an unclear and highly fluid distinction.

Jack Flask wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Jack Flask wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

So a bunch of randoms on the internet don't know what skirmish is?

A man-to-man wargame[1][2][3] (also known as a skirmish wargame[4]) is a wargame in which units generally represent single individuals or weapons systems, and are rated not only on weaponry but may also be rated on such facets as morale, perception, skill-at-arms, etc

Units are single models. This means each model moves and acts as it's own identity (with appropriate stats etc). In AOS a unit is a group of solders, which kind of makes it not skirmish?

See a skirmish game can have instances where models need to be tied into a group (Maybe for a mission, maybe for a bonus?) hence the generally. But skirmish has meant each model is it's own unit for a long time. Thats why Mordheim, Necromunda, Gorka Morka, Infinity and so on in the fantasy world is called a skirmish game. They follow this principle.

Where is that definition from, and why should anyone accept it as more true than any other?

You can't just throw out some random statement and expect it to be meaningful, that's not how an argument works. You have to make a claim and back it up with relevant, verifiable, and convincing evidence if you actually want whatever you're saying to hold weight. Otherwise, your argument is rendered irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Man to man is also known as a skirmish game. It's the only definition relating to skirmish war game in Wikipedia. Even though Wikipedia is not often allowed as a source it is better than random forums. Although someone has contested that man to man does not cover all skirmish (I disagree, as per Wikipedia) but I suppose it's up to you to decide.

The problem with Wikipedia isn't that it's inherently unusable because academia says so, but because topics have the potential to be misrepresented by biased/ignorant editors or are simply based on no credible primary sources.

This article you linked is absolutely an example of the latter, and no offense, but I can tell you didn't bother to check the sources before quoting it. The article uses only four sources, three to establish the term "man to man wargame" and one to establish the supposedly synonymous term "skirmish wargame".

If you look at the first three sources, all of them are from what are essentially blogs, all three being product reviews of man-to-man wargames from enthusiast sites. The fourth source which supposedly equates the term "skirmish" with "man-to-man", isn't even really a source at all. Its actually just a Board Game Geek page with a transcription of the publisher advertisement for the games Mindstalkers, in which the game is self described as a "skirmish game".

Effectively, the wikipedia article you posted has no factual basis whatsoever and is even flagged as being a bad article. Which was more or less the point I was trying to make previously that, outside of forum debates, I was unable to find an actual definition of what a skirmish game even is. Which means that unless there is a credible and convincing source by which to define the term, then it's an unclear and highly fluid distinction.

Fair enough. So there is no definition of a skirmish wargame at all then. (there isn't) so the word skirmish is somewhat meaningless yes?

To be honest I thought skirmish games actually meant models that acted as their own units. Never played a skirmish game where this was not the case. But as I said a post above yours, I suppose skirmish means nothing really. May as well simply call it a table top game. AOS certainly is not skirmish like the games who people actually call skirmish. It's no different to 40k in game type.

 Swastakowey wrote:

Fair enough. So there is no definition of a skirmish wargame at all then. (there isn't) so the word skirmish is somewhat meaningless yes?

To be honest I thought skirmish games actually meant models that acted as their own units. Never played a skirmish game where this was not the case. But as I said a post above yours, I suppose skirmish means nothing really.

Despite arguing in opposition to you, that was also the definition which I associate with the term "skirmish wargame". I'm more making the case on account of your argument against Lythrandire's own usage.

Swastakowey wrote:May as well simply call it a table top game.

I mean at the very least the term man-to-man wargame, while not really one to roll off the tongue, doesn't seem to be contested. At lot of the issue with the term "skirmish wargame" likely stems from the definition of skirmish which, being vaguely some sort of small battle or conflict, leaves a lot of room for subjective definitions of what constitutes a "small" conflict.

Edit: *sigh* I type this out and then you add an addendum to your post.

Swastakowey wrote:AOS certainly is not skirmish like the games who people actually call skirmish. It's no different to 40k in game type.

Again, my point is that while you and I may not use the term that way, there absolutely are people who do. Not just Lythrandire, but also other posters on Dakka as well as some people in this thread (unfortunately I cant link to specific post, but I'm referring to John the OFM).

The thing is that despite one definition being commonly understood or popular, that doesn't strictly invalidate another definition which also has a number of proponents (in other words not just one outlier).

Jack Flask wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Fair enough. So there is no definition of a skirmish wargame at all then. (there isn't) so the word skirmish is somewhat meaningless yes?

To be honest I thought skirmish games actually meant models that acted as their own units. Never played a skirmish game where this was not the case. But as I said a post above yours, I suppose skirmish means nothing really.

Despite arguing in opposition to you, that was also the definition which I associate with the term "skirmish wargame". I'm more making the case on account of your argument against Lythrandire's own usage.

Swastakowey wrote:May as well simply call it a table top game.

I mean at the very least the term man-to-man wargame, while not really one to roll off the tongue, doesn't seem to be contested. At lot of the issue with the term "skirmish wargame" likely stems from the definition of skirmish which, being vaguely some sort of small battle or conflict, leaves a lot of room for subjective definitions of what constitutes a "small" conflict.

Pretty much the case yes.

Actually, I'd use Henry Hyde's (a rather well known name in the wargaming world) Wargaming Compendium as a decent place to start when describing skirmish games.

Hyde's definition of skirmish basically boils down to the fact that "the miniatures on the table are representative of nothing more than themselves - which is to say, a scale of 1:1." These games can range from a dozen models on each side, to platoons meeting in a prelude to an arriving company or battalion.

He even admits that 40k is "essentially" a skirmish game, if hugely bloated by GW's constant one-upping the sizes of various miniatures in the different factions.

So, AoS is a skirmish game.

I've been playing wargames for over 40 years. I've never heard of the term man-to-man game. The term "skirmish game" has always in my experience referred to land warfare games using primarily infantry and cavalry organised on the basis of one figure equals one man and the figures move independently.

This distinction was important because in larger scale warfare men are always organised in units for movement and combat, and the unit continues to exist if a few men get knocked out and to a great extent suffers little reduction of its fighting powers..

Most skirmish games involve a dozen or so figures per side. If you want to use larger numbers it becomes convenient to create a rule to move some of the weaker figures in masses, or else you end up spending too much time on movement and combat. I used this approach myself in games of Laserburn featuring a few high tech troops against large numbers of primitive natives.

I call this approach mass skirmish and it is the same way that GW went for 40K and AoS. It is very appropriate for 40K which is more similar to modern infantry combat, in which troops spread out for cover and defence against area weapons, and to be able to employ rapid fire projectile weapons effectively.

In AoS which has little cover effect, no (maybe a few?) area weapons, and weak projectile weapons, it is not a realistic approach. in melee combat, close mutual support is much more important, so men group into formations. While AoS has no rules for formations, we have seen already that players are naturally creating formations to optimise the use of their melee weapons.

There are indeed area weapons, although I don't know how many. You choose a point within range and everything within X" of that point takes damage. Breath attacks for example.

quiestdeus wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
@Talys I agree with what you say about AoS. The existence of it is not a problem and neither are people who want lightweight fun. The problem is it replaced a more ambitious game and part of a playerbase was simply messaged to feth off. If Heroes of Might and Magic gets a sequel and it's shallow then it's ok and noone cares, that's what you expect. If Age of Wonders got a sequel and it would be dumbed dow n to Heroes level, the outrage in the player base would be guaranteed and intense. What GW should have done was to fix and improve whfb, release AoS and support both games maybe with the whfb stuff direct only if they needed shelf space so much, hardly anyone would say a word I surely wouldn't and they could have lion man on lions riding lions and sigmarines only universe, no problem.

Subjectivity alert! SOME do not like the outcome, but for many GW *DID* (and I cannot emphasize that enough) fix WHFB. At the end of the day GW is a company whose purpose is to make money. WHFB was NOT accomplishing this goal, enough has already been posted about this fact. They switched it up and attempted to fix the problem, the results remain to be seen, and frankly, will not be seen for years given how poorly WHFB was already doing - GW had very little to actually lose.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Also noone says it's wrong to like it or sth, it will obviously be ok for people with attitude like yours. It's just claims that it's a deeply tactical game that works flawlessly as written and can stand a comparision to other, tighter and more serious rulesets that warrant a discussion to say the least.

In all honesty, the only people who are making this claim of absolution are the ones who are trying so hard to (1) refute it in the first place; and (2) the ones who dislike the game and feel upset they were told to "feth off"

Why is your opinion right, or better than mine? I find tactical depth in the sheer number of combinations the interactions warscrolls provide. Should I run spears behind swordsmen? Should I cast mystic shield on those swordsmen or regrowth on my calvary? Is it worth risking my wizard to create that dispel attempt next turn, or can I afford to wait it out longer? There are as many tactical decisions to make in game that have as much impact as anything I have ever played in WHFB, 40k, Malifaux, or even Blood Bowl. They are just DIFFERENT. You do not like the difference. We get it. The forum gets it. The internet...gets...it.

While you are obviously entitled to your opinion, can you see how it just becomes annoying when the same negative rhetoric is posted continually as new faces attempt to post, or old faces bring new experiences to the conversation?

I have argued there is tactical depth to the game, and will continue to do so, based on my actual experiences as both a player and a tournament organizer. I have gone out of my way to even point out that one of the best aspects of the game is that you can easily add to and modify the core rules to make the game better. You know, the same exact thing that happens in nearly all of (if not all of) those other "more serious rulesets" you conveniently left vague? Personally, I would hardly consider that a claim the game "works flawlessly as written" but it sure as hell is a tactically deep game, and if others play it straight rules as written and have fun, why are they wrong to believe it is tactically deep?

Why is your opinion that is not any better/correct than one believing that it is?

GW didn't fix whfb, they killed it. AoS is not whfb. And they didn't release AoS because it was the only option, they released it because they are GW and instead of fixing the game and rules they prefer to try to repeat space marine sales phenomenon in fantasy and write a sales department love letter of a ruleset. It's just GW being cheap and lazy as usual, they released crap 8th edition jacked the prices lost a lot of players and then used it as an excuse to kill it.

Tactical depth is not a matter of opinion. Having fun with the ruleset has nothing to do with it being tacticaly deep or not and obviously you can have fun and be wrong about something the same time. What you described as tactics in AoS is in every other game (cast spell/ risk now or later lol) but other games have other things on top of that.

There is enough meaningful play in AoS to warrant tournament play, assuming working comp ofc. It's still a relatively shallow ruleset and you can find people who like the game admitting that with one guy claiming that it's good because it "mitigates skill" heh. It just wasn't written for the sake of challenging your brain too much over the table, you have people who count it as an advantage so maybe it's you who can't get over GW having a different target than tourneys and competitive players.

You get into the middle of discussion about tactical depth in AoS and post that the game is tacticaly rich and then complain about being called on that. Annoying indeed.

You can add/ modify in other games sure but you have to in AoS. And while whfb for example required lot of fixing for tournament play, now you're writing entire aspects of game for GW. Kudos for that ofc but that's not a sign that the game is good, please.

Conviniently vague? Every other major wargame is more serious than AoS. Warmachine, Malifaux, Xwing, LotR, Infinity, 40k, Kings of War whatever.

 infinite_array wrote:
Hyde's definition of skirmish basically boils down to the fact that "the miniatures on the table are representative of nothing more than themselves - which is to say, a scale of 1:1." These games can range from a dozen models on each side, to platoons meeting in a prelude to an arriving company or battalion.

By that logic Flames of War is a skirmish game.

I don't think that's a terribly good definition.

EDIT: no point

 Mymearan wrote:
There are indeed area weapons, although I don't know how many. You choose a point within range and everything within X" of that point takes damage. Breath attacks for example.

Well so, but they are rare compared to modern warfare in which even individual men are equipped with automatic weapons. Therefore most of the time in AoS you will gain an advantage in melee by closing up your formation to concentrate attacks, and if a dragon arrives on the scene you will spread out your formation to deal with it.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
Hyde's definition of skirmish basically boils down to the fact that "the miniatures on the table are representative of nothing more than themselves - which is to say, a scale of 1:1." These games can range from a dozen models on each side, to platoons meeting in a prelude to an arriving company or battalion.

By that logic Flames of War is a skirmish game.

I don't think that's a terribly good definition.

FoW is not a skirmish game by that definition, for two reasons. The first is that infantry, guns and artillery are made up of stands instead of individual bases and aren't wounded in a fashion that counts models individually. A stand of three infantry is the same 'strength' as a stand of six infantry. Second, the scale - FoW is a company-level game with battalion-level support. It's scale is far too large for the battles it is reenacting to be called "skirmishes".