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.

ChazLikesCake wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Saying "AoS is for kids" doesn't mean you are a kid because you play it. It makes you an adult playing kid's game. I for example truly enjoy Winnie the Pooh, does it make me a kid? Stop with the fallacy.

I'm sorry, I missed the part where the cannibal that murdered Pooh's family came back for Pooh because he wanted his head to complete the great pyramid of skulls he's been working on.

Stop with the condescension. Saying that AoS is a kids' game is not just factually incorrect but condescending and insulting to those who enjoy it. No amount of disclaimers change that, you may as well be saying "I'm not racist, but..."

AoS has a fairly simple ruleset. This by itself isn't a mark for or against it and nor does mean the game's for kids. You could fit the rules to Chess on even less than four pages and play the game fairly well before your teens, yet nobody considers it a kid's game. The only reason people saying it of AoS is to put it, and the people who play it, down.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Also I for example would be much nicer if every advocate acted like mr. Talys or mr. Hulksmash but then comes a boor like mr. Jack Flask with his "gakshow of whining man-children" and there you go.

Then how about setting an example yourself? The gak isn't just coming from the pro-skub side I can assure you, and if everyone discussed the game in the way Killwall and Kilkrazy did this topic would be a much more enjoyable.

Sorry you can't expect that from me, I'm a natural born troll having nasty drug withdrawals with seizure looming over my head and 90% of time I post from the phone being in the middle of work not to mention severe headache from dry eyes syndrome even just taking a look at the site. Not excuses mind you just reasons why I don't spend much time on my posts, also I don't care whether discussion is polite or not, I just told you why the tone of my posts is how it is. Anyway with all that I still happen to be nicer than some advocates lol.

Pooh was just an example of how enjoying things for kids does not make you a kid, or childish or sth. Also it's neither condescending nor insulting, hyperbole much? I think it's a really stupid game with no identity and borked rules that are all over a place written by a marketing department. Is that opinion of mine condescending and insulting? If so, who was insulted and how?

Not read the whole nine pages, but to take it back to the OP premise: yes people ca have fun playing AoS.

This is because its not root canal work, its not calculating a tax return or having to negotiate a divorce settlement. It's a game,
played by gamers in their chosen genre. This has been a minimum value for toy soldiers since H.G.Well's Little Wars and before.

Comparing AoS to activities that are not "FUN" is a little dishonest as indeed games are there for people to have fun and in that it is presumably judged successful product. However fun is something that can be had from any entertainment system you prefer.
However highlighting this as a specific positive betray the lack of quality of AoS One doesn't need to call a game fun if one plays it. It can be presumed that entertainments as video games, football, chess and miniatures wargaming are fun to those who choose play it, and itonly ceases to be fun if you dont want to play.

To highlight a games inherent fun as a point of quality in fact shows what an appalling product AoS is. Let me break this down.

We don't need to be told that 40K is fun, or that it is more or less fun than say Dropzone Commander or Infinity. People will have their own subjective preferences on which hey enjoy more, bt basically they will all be fun or not played, nd the games should be judged on their merits against each other for different reasons, such as how balanced or tactical they are or the quality of the supporting miniatures.

Highlighting AoS on the grounds it is fun isnt comparing it to other games, they yardstick has now slipped by its apologists to comparing it to things that are not fun.

Essentially it all boils down to this. Those who use the fun argument are no comparing AoS to Kings of War, or WHFB 8th or Malifaux. Their standard is comparing AoS to homework or completing tax returns, or cleaning the toilet. So Age of Sigmar is 'fun', OK, are congratulations are in order? Probably not.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Plumbumbarum, those wargames mentioned where flanking matters also only allow you to fight in formations. Why would every army fight in the exact same way? Why wouldn't they shield out every side when an enemy approaches?

More importantly, why should a game which so severely limits the tactical options available for troop placement (which then creates an excessively severe penalty that is only applicable when dealing with said limitation) considered more tactically deep than one with a general ruleset that allows for any kind of formation you want, and give tactical reasons to use them based on terrain layout, weapons loadout, and personal preference while still granting tactical and statistical bonuses for smart play?

Man I answered that in the other thread at least two times, I remember the thought crossing my mind that you don't read my post or at least don't read into them and I have that again.

40k has that loose formation, model representing exact soldier position business for 2 editions and it's simplistic to 11, you don't give it a second thought after a game or two. AoS is terrible for what you propose because it's too simple, models have no facing and you can't represent anything specific because there are no modifiers etc. Micromanagment of directionless blobs in AoS is not deep gameplay.

Regiment based gameplay still allows to use terrain and loadouts, actualy terrain matters more when units have vulnerable sides/ rear.

If you made a detailed skirmish ruleset and played big battles on it then sure, it could be deep though obviously unwieldy and much too micromanagey. AoS though drops depth from unit based games but doesn't bring depth from skirmish games. It's something in the middle that has no advantages over anything.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Plumbumbarum, those wargames mentioned where flanking matters also only allow you to fight in formations. Why would every army fight in the exact same way? Why wouldn't they shield out every side when an enemy approaches?

More importantly, why should a game which so severely limits the tactical options available for troop placement (which then creates an excessively severe penalty that is only applicable when dealing with said limitation) considered more tactically deep than one with a general ruleset that allows for any kind of formation you want, and give tactical reasons to use them based on terrain layout, weapons loadout, and personal preference while still granting tactical and statistical bonuses for smart play?

Man I answered that in the other thread at least two times, I remember the thought crossing my mind that you don't read my post or at least don't read into them and I have that again.

40k has that loose formation, model representing exact soldier position business for 2 editions and it's simplistic to 11, you don't give it a second thought after a game or two. AoS is terrible for what you propose because it's too simple, models have no facing and you can't represent anything specific because there are no modifiers etc. Micromanagment of directionless blobs in AoS is not deep gameplay.

Regiment based gameplay still allows to use terrain and loadouts, actualy terrain matters more when units have vulnerable sides/ rear.

If you made a detailed skirmish ruleset and played big battles on it then sure, it could be deep though obviously unwieldy and much too micromanagey. AoS though drops depth from unit based games but doesn't bring depth from skirmish games. It's something in the middle that has no advantages over anything.

No advantages? I challenge.

The biggest advantage that I've seen new players comment on is that it's EASY to learn. New players can be up in running in minutes. There is no cumbersome reference library to keep referring back to. You don't need to learn the convoluted movement rules associated with formations, flanks, etc, nor do you need to learn the convoluted facing and line of sight rules associated with some styles of skirmish play. Instead, you learn a simplified rule set and start playing more or less right away.

I'd also like to point out that the simplicity has resulted in a pretty tight rule set. Go look at the 40k You Make Da Call forum. Now go look at the Age of Sigmar You Make Da Call forum. Which has more issues? Other than a couple of isolated issues, the Age of Sigmar YMDC forum is a ghost town. Even the issues that do pop up tend to have a general consensus and are driven primarily by one or two individuals who won't accept consensus. The rules may be vague at points and rely on the players for certain things, but I haven't seen the vicious rules bickering that I see in 40k. Generally speaking, we all know how the game is supposed to work. Some people just want it to work differently (i.e., want to introduce comp or limit summoning, etc).

 MWHistorian wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Plumbumbarum, those wargames mentioned where flanking matters also only allow you to fight in formations. Why would every army fight in the exact same way? Why wouldn't they shield out every side when an enemy approaches?

More importantly, why should a game which so severely limits the tactical options available for troop placement (which then creates an excessively severe penalty that is only applicable when dealing with said limitation) considered more tactically deep than one with a general ruleset that allows for any kind of formation you want, and give tactical reasons to use them based on terrain layout, weapons loadout, and personal preference while still granting tactical and statistical bonuses for smart play?

Warmachine, Infinity and Malifaux reward maneuvering and don't have every or any units in formations.
Boom.

And, what bonus does the game give for flank attacks for those? What are the bonuses for maneuvering in those games? With AoS, my bonuses for maneuvering based on terrain utilization, propper use of area of effect bonuses from different units, gaining statistical advantages by limiting enemy rebuttal, and denial of the enemy's ability to bring in reinforcements due to the safe zone surrounding my units (3" area you can never enter in the movement phase, the various distances a unit in reserves must maintain upon arival, and the 9" bubble you can't summon within) so there are your easy to understand, apparently under utilised, bonuses for tactical maneuvering.

Age of sigmar has no formations, so doesn't give bonuses for flanking them specifically. Why does age of sigmar get grief for this when other games do the same?

Edit:plumbumbarum, age of sigmar is in between those two systems in size and scope, yet allows you to play at either end of the spectrum. 40k gets flakk for trying to have too many skirmish style rules in its ruleset, AoS got rid of things like model specific facing to enable you to play at the various levels you want to without the hassle the skirmish level details entail. That is why the game is written how it is, it is so open ended in regards to how the players want to play that they left the specifics of game size out of the equation and enabled you to use the exact same rules for 35 models as you do for 200+. Is it optimal at the highest and lowest end of the spectrum? No, there are games specific to those levels that outshine age of sigmar, but how well does kings of war do in regards to tactics if all I have are 2 10 man units to play with? How well does the gameplay scale with warmachines when I want to play a game with an army of over 150 models? Neither of those games can swing as far in scope as age of sigmar can, and it has everything to do with its simple, and easily expandable ruleset.

Are people bragging about essentially thru heavy composition a homebrew version of the woefully I'll prepared AoS like its some sort of GW triumph now? Because that is sad. Tell you what. When we find a system universally revered so that pickup games can be balanced and fun as well as hardcore tournaments, i will wave the victory flag with everyone. Until then the OP should change the title to : see, heavily rewritten and adjusted AoS can be fun. Because its not nearly the same.

 Kriswall wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Plumbumbarum, those wargames mentioned where flanking matters also only allow you to fight in formations. Why would every army fight in the exact same way? Why wouldn't they shield out every side when an enemy approaches?

More importantly, why should a game which so severely limits the tactical options available for troop placement (which then creates an excessively severe penalty that is only applicable when dealing with said limitation) considered more tactically deep than one with a general ruleset that allows for any kind of formation you want, and give tactical reasons to use them based on terrain layout, weapons loadout, and personal preference while still granting tactical and statistical bonuses for smart play?

Man I answered that in the other thread at least two times, I remember the thought crossing my mind that you don't read my post or at least don't read into them and I have that again.

40k has that loose formation, model representing exact soldier position business for 2 editions and it's simplistic to 11, you don't give it a second thought after a game or two. AoS is terrible for what you propose because it's too simple, models have no facing and you can't represent anything specific because there are no modifiers etc. Micromanagment of directionless blobs in AoS is not deep gameplay.

Regiment based gameplay still allows to use terrain and loadouts, actualy terrain matters more when units have vulnerable sides/ rear.

If you made a detailed skirmish ruleset and played big battles on it then sure, it could be deep though obviously unwieldy and much too micromanagey. AoS though drops depth from unit based games but doesn't bring depth from skirmish games. It's something in the middle that has no advantages over anything.

No advantages? I challenge.

The biggest advantage that I've seen new players comment on is that it's EASY to learn. New players can be up in running in minutes. There is no cumbersome reference library to keep referring back to. You don't need to learn the convoluted movement rules associated with formations, flanks, etc, nor do you need to learn the convoluted facing and line of sight rules associated with some styles of skirmish play. Instead, you learn a simplified rule set and start playing more or less right away.

That would surely be an advantage if it it didn't sacrifice so much depth. If it had, I don't know, true alternate activations, issuing orders in secret,some mini game around initiative like in Armada, anything really then you could say it has advanantage. Not to mention I don't think points on warscrolls would impact learning time that much unless the gamer has yet to start maths in pre school.

Also how much space would it take to explain in the rules that every model has facing, 180 arc los and anything that hits it outside said arc gets a bonus/modifier/ effect? Because I just did. It's not rocket science and the even the kids mentioned here that are so insulting to some are usualy very smart and can learn something like that without problems. Ofc it's top of my head example and would surely increase game time (and potentialy limit reasonable game size, surely marketing dept would hate that) but the point is that you could do it in a simple and not convoluted way still.

That's the thing imo, they could have made it streamlined and easy to learn but deep, those are not exclusive. That would be a succes worthy of GW size and history and a system having an advantage over the others imo.

As someone working on a sigmar comp, this post was really useful.

The folks at Nova and I seem to be thinking along the same lines.

I think the front arc / rear arc issue- if it was even ever considered - was probably dropped for the same reason bases were.

Infinity and WMH both have arc defined in the rules (IIRC, Infinity uses the model's actual facing and in WMH it's the parallel line through shoulders or something?)
Either way, easy to do with round bases in case of any disagreement, and players have got into the habit of painting markers on their bases anyway.
Square/rectangular bases, it's a lot more difficult to judge the centre using the above mechanics, and whilst saying corner-to-corner defines the arcs, this wouldn't work for round bases, etc. etc.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Plumbumbarum, those wargames mentioned where flanking matters also only allow you to fight in formations. Why would every army fight in the exact same way? Why wouldn't they shield out every side when an enemy approaches?

More importantly, why should a game which so severely limits the tactical options available for troop placement (which then creates an excessively severe penalty that is only applicable when dealing with said limitation) considered more tactically deep than one with a general ruleset that allows for any kind of formation you want, and give tactical reasons to use them based on terrain layout, weapons loadout, and personal preference while still granting tactical and statistical bonuses for smart play?

Warmachine, Infinity and Malifaux reward maneuvering and don't have every or any units in formations.
Boom.

And, what bonus does the game give for flank attacks for those? What are the bonuses for maneuvering in those games? With AoS, my bonuses for maneuvering based on terrain utilization, propper use of area of effect bonuses from different units, gaining statistical advantages by limiting enemy rebuttal, and denial of the enemy's ability to bring in reinforcements due to the safe zone surrounding my units (3" area you can never enter in the movement phase, the various distances a unit in reserves must maintain upon arival, and the 9" bubble you can't summon within) so there are your easy to understand, apparently under utilised, bonuses for tactical maneuvering.

Age of sigmar has no formations, so doesn't give bonuses for flanking them specifically. Why does age of sigmar get grief for this when other games do the same?

This has already been answered in the thread.

 jonolikespie wrote:


Just putting it out there but that is not 'generally in wargames' to me. In 40k yes. AoS apparently. Warhammer fantasy used to reduce the number of attacks back at you and a bonus to combat res. Kings of War gives you double or triple your number of attacks. Warmachine and Hordes you get extra damage. Infinity you get an unopposed roll since you're out of your opponent's LOS when normally they could defend themselves and shoot back.

Hell, games like Dystopian Wars and Battlefleet Gothic flanking your enemy means they can't bring certain weapons to bear since you are outside their arc. Come to think of it even 40k vehicles usually have lower rear armour.

Wow, it's almost like people play games they enjoy, revolutionary

With alternating combat actions and pile in actions, front and back arcs become cumbersome. Players would spend an inordinate amount of time in every single combat turn trying to manipulate their 3" movement into maximum number of back hits, causing combat to drag on forever. You don't get a lot of control over how you move during the pile in, making alternating combat much faster despite having both moving and hitting from units on both teams every turn.

Think of combat as an abstraction of combat between mobs of units rather than a direct one-to-one model correspondence - that's why you can have five people attack one guy and have a dude in the back of the unit, not in line of sight, die.

Lythrandire, if there are games outshining AoS at specific scales then maybe GW should do 2 rulesets, or should have kept whfb and introduce skirmish warhammer. And 40k gets flak for meaningless skirmish rules in the ruleset, lot of hassle little depth. I think if they added direction limited reaction fire or sth then then the hasle would be justified maybe.

Anyway I see what you mean but just disagree that the direction GW took with a game is good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sqorgar wrote:
With alternating combat actions and pile in actions, front and back arcs become cumbersome. Players would spend an inordinate amount of time in every single combat turn trying to manipulate their 3" movement into maximum number of back hits, causing combat to drag on forever. You don't get a lot of control over how you move during the pile in, making alternating combat much faster despite having both moving and hitting from units on both teams every turn.

Think of combat as an abstraction of combat between mobs of units rather than a direct one-to-one model correspondence - that's why you can have five people attack one guy and have a dude in the back of the unit, not in line of sight, die.

Noone says that all the rules would have to be the same with facing introduced. All I wanted to say is that you could get deeper rules on those 4 pages.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Noone says that all the rules would have to be the same with facing introduced. All I wanted to say is that you could get deeper rules on those 4 pages.

How would you define deeper though? Facing rules would add complexity and choice without greatly improving the number of tactical outcomes. Warmachine, for example, doesn't just give a bonus to back hits. There are shields and shield walls which only apply to front arcs, such that back hits are more situationally useful, sometimes overruling a unit's strongest benefits. If AoS did not add similar rules (in 4 pages), it would be a simple positional bonus that would either be too small to be worthwhile, or so worthwhile that people would always try for it, dominating the strategy for the game as units circled each other trying to pat each other on the butt first.

With AoS, they picked one important gameplay mechanic (control zones) and then defined all the rest of the rules around it. Control zones make positioning very important, and make things like flanking attacks or back hits valuable without having to explicitly define extra rules and benefits.

I had an epiphany today. I've said before that AoS reminds me of mageknight. What it actually brings to mind is mageknight conquest, which was the big points expansion for it. They took a skirmish level game, took away the bonuses for positioning for all the non unique units, and allowed for more action than would normally be possible in the core game.

Also in mageknight they realised how silly it is that a person couldn't turn around most of the time when someone is walking towards them, they had a special rule that allowed that sort of thing on certain units, everything else got a free spin. There shouldn't be THAT much of a bonus in a skirmish game for running around someone before trying to hit them. They see you.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I had an epiphany today. I've said before that AoS reminds me of mageknight. What it actually brings to mind is mageknight conquest, which was the big points expansion for it. They took a skirmish level game, took away the bonuses for positioning for all the non unique units, and allowed for more action than would normally be possible in the core game.

Also in mageknight they realised how silly it is that a person couldn't turn around most of the time when someone is walking towards them, they had a special rule that allowed that sort of thing on certain units, everything else got a free spin. There shouldn't be THAT much of a bonus in a skirmish game for running around someone before trying to hit them. They see you.

Battles get kind of confusing and paying attention to everyone around you is a little difficult at best. Believe me.
But a good question was raised. Would having back arcs be too confusing and ruin the simplicity of the game?
I think if well done, then no and would add more strategic depth (aka, choices and their consequences) to the game.

But at skirmish level, when it is you and one other guy who just walked directly in front of you, without cover to get behind you, why would there ever be a mechanic that disallows your single model from turning on the spot and taking the attack?

I've been training in various martial arts since I was 13, the idea of that situation makes me want to grind my teeth. Especially when I know that a unit of soldiers in loose formation will have spotters in all directions to anticipate enemy advances and allow the unit to react. There were always outriders for columns in warfare, always. If an enemy was spotted the column would halt and take up a defensive position. That is why I don't like the idea that a block of soldiers would or even could be swept just because somebody got behind them on the table top. They know the enemy is out there, the soldiers heads arent actually glued in place, and warhorns are used to signify more than just the charge, but also enemy movement.

The game doesn't need more restrictions to give reasons to do something in game that shouldn't actually have a reason to happen on the tabletop in the first place.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
But at skirmish level, when it is you and one other guy who just walked directly in front of you, without cover to get behind you, why would there ever be a mechanic that disallows your single model from turning on the spot and taking the attack?

I've been training in various martial arts since I was 13, the idea of that situation makes me want to grind my teeth. Especially when I know that a unit of soldiers in loose formation will have spotters in all directions to anticipate enemy advances and allow the unit to react. There were always outriders for columns in warfare, always. If an enemy was spotted the column would halt and take up a defensive position. That is why I don't like the idea that a block of soldiers would or even could be swept just because somebody got behind them on the table top. They know the enemy is out there, the soldiers heads arent actually glued in place, and warhorns are used to signify more than just the charge, but also enemy movement.

The game doesn't need more restrictions to give reasons to do something in game that shouldn't actually have a reason to happen on the tabletop in the first place.

Then you are woefully wrong. See soldiers in formation are fighting soldiers in front of them, if the enemy are next to them or behind them, something has gone wrong on the battle line and this means they are all dead if they don't flee. See if it was just one formation against one formation, then yes no flanking will occur, but remember battles with formations start out as large lines with goal of breaking through the line. You do this by breaking formation and then exploiting the gap.

It's also worth noting the above is exactly how it works in Kings of War. If the enemy is going to flank you, simply turn your unit around. This means you are invulnerable to flank attacks (unless magic is involved) when fighting isolated as one unit vs one unit. However what do you do when multiple units from multiple angles are attacking you? You can't just turn and face them, you have to break formation which means you are going to die (usually).

Even in skirmish style battle this is true. You can watch battle rein actors do this all the time, the goal when in a group fight is to have some guys get behind the others and then mess them up. Humans cannot fight backwards.

Musicians NEVER signified enemy movement, they are for giving out orders like movement speed, formations and so on. They had a chain of command for finding out where the enemy is, but infantry never had dedicated scouts telling them everything around them (not normal anyway). Light units formed their own screening units or dispatch units. This is why soldiers and low level officers had no initiative until modern war, because they don't know the whole picture. They take orders from those who do (chain of command again) and simply carried out orders to the letter (unless the order was misheard).

Flanks and so on aren't made up voodoo, they are how wars are won and formations are not as flexible as you'd think, remember we are talking a lot of men in a big group doing rehearsed orders. In reality if the enemy infantry got behind your lines your battle line (army) would crumble quickly.

In short, in a very small scale 1 on 1 unit combat, unless some trickery is involved, you aren't likely to be flanked and if you do it is not for long (in kings of war you can rotate after the initial hit to face your attacker) but when you start talking armies flanking is critical for both soldiers concerns and over all battle plan.

here is some help from Wikipedia (this is for ancient warfare, but flanking is always used even today but it is incredibly important in formation warfare).

The Hoplite Phalanx was weakest when facing an enemy fielding lighter and more flexible troops without its own such supporting troops. An example of this would be the Battle of Lechaeum, where an Athenian contingent led by Iphicrates routed an entire Spartan mora (a unit of anywhere from 500 to 900 hoplites). The Athenian force had a considerable proportion of light missile troops armed with javelins and bows which wore down the Spartans with repeated attacks, causing disarray in the Spartan ranks and an eventual rout when they spotted Athenian heavy infantry reinforcements trying to flank them by boat.

The Macedonian Phalanx had weaknesses similar to its hoplitic predecessor. Theoretically indestructible from the front, its flanks and rear were very vulnerable, and once engaged it may not easily disengage or redeploy to face a threat from those directions. Thus, a phalanx facing non-phalangite formations required some sort of protection on its flanks—lighter or at least more mobile infantry, cavalry, etc. This was shown at the Battle of Magnesia, where, once the Seleucid supporting cavalry elements were driven off, the phalanx was static and unable to go on the offensive against its Roman opponents (although they continued to resist stoutly and attempted a fighting withdrawal under a hail of Roman missiles, until the elephants posted on their flanks panicked and disrupted their formation).

Finally, most of the phalanx-centric armies tended to lack supporting echelons behind the main line of battle. This meant that breaking through the line of battle or compromising one of its flanks often ensured victory.

That is from wikipedia in regards to the Phalanx which back then refereed to tight groups of pole arm soldiers (not always pole arms though). However any competent source will refer to flanking and how formations fight throughout history.

 Swastakowey wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
But at skirmish level, when it is you and one other guy who just walked directly in front of you, without cover to get behind you, why would there ever be a mechanic that disallows your single model from turning on the spot and taking the attack?

I've been training in various martial arts since I was 13, the idea of that situation makes me want to grind my teeth. Especially when I know that a unit of soldiers in loose formation will have spotters in all directions to anticipate enemy advances and allow the unit to react. There were always outriders for columns in warfare, always. If an enemy was spotted the column would halt and take up a defensive position. That is why I don't like the idea that a block of soldiers would or even could be swept just because somebody got behind them on the table top. They know the enemy is out there, the soldiers heads arent actually glued in place, and warhorns are used to signify more than just the charge, but also enemy movement.

The game doesn't need more restrictions to give reasons to do something in game that shouldn't actually have a reason to happen on the tabletop in the first place.

Then you are woefully wrong. See soldiers in formation are fighting soldiers in front of them, if the enemy are next to them or behind them, something has gone wrong on the battle line and this means they are all dead if they don't flee. See if it was just one formation against one formation, then yes no flanking will occur, but remember battles with formations start out as large lines with goal of breaking through the line. You do this by breaking formation and then exploiting the gap.

It's also worth noting the above is exactly how it works in Kings of War. If the enemy is going to flank you, simply turn your unit around. This means you are invulnerable to flank attacks (unless magic is involved) when fighting isolated as one unit vs one unit. However what do you do when multiple units from multiple angles are attacking you? You can't just turn and face them, you have to break formation which means you are going to die (usually).

Even in skirmish style battle this is true. You can watch battle rein actors do this all the time, the goal when in a group fight is to have some guys get behind the others and then mess them up. Humans cannot fight backwards.

Musicians NEVER signified enemy movement, they are for giving out orders like movement speed, formations and so on. They had a chain of command for finding out where the enemy is, but infantry never had dedicated scouts telling them everything around them (not normal anyway). Light units formed their own screening units or dispatch units. This is why soldiers and low level officers had no initiative until modern war, because they don't know the whole picture. They take orders from those who do (chain of command again) and simply carried out orders to the letter (unless the order was misheard).

Flanks and so on aren't made up voodoo, they are how wars are won and formations are not as flexible as you'd think, remember we are talking a lot of men in a big group doing rehearsed orders. In reality if the enemy infantry got behind your lines your battle line (army) would crumble quickly.

In short, in a very small scale 1 on 1 unit combat, unless some trickery is involved, you aren't likely to be flanked and if you do it is not for long (in kings of war you can rotate after the initial hit to face your attacker) but when you start talking armies flanking is critical for both soldiers concerns and over all battle plan.

The entire point of medieval tactics was to break the formations. That's why length of battle lines, flanking cavalry, and breaking through were so important. It was why they had reserves, to block the holes the from because if they don't, the enemy that flank or break through will tear through the flanks and rear of the lines like wet tissue.
For example: Battle of Cynoscephalae. The lighter, more maneuverable manipular legions were able to get around and outflank the heavier and slower phalanxes. Getting to the sides and rear was essential.
I could go on and on about how important and vital flanking was to medieval warfare. But really, there's not point. It was. It defined medieval warfare. What you see in the movies where two unorginized hordes crash into each other with mass chaos and the hero finds his arch nemesis in the melee, its all crap and resembles nothing of medieval warfare.
"But it's fantasy, it aint supposed to be realistic!" you say.
True, it is fantasy, but there needs to be logic and reason to the things in a make believe world. If something does differ, it needs to be explained and rationalized to fit the world.
AOS is that movie battle where two unorganized masses just crash into each other. Looks good on the screen but it breaks my immersion and is just boring.

The term "fog of war" isn't just an academic term. It's very real. When you're in battle, the world shrinks drastically. You're aware of what's immediately around you and little else. Its why communication is so vitally important. I know because I've been to war. Gak gets hectic real fast.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
But at skirmish level, when it is you and one other guy who just walked directly in front of you, without cover to get behind you, why would there ever be a mechanic that disallows your single model from turning on the spot and taking the attack?

I've been training in various martial arts since I was 13, the idea of that situation makes me want to grind my teeth. Especially when I know that a unit of soldiers in loose formation will have spotters in all directions to anticipate enemy advances and allow the unit to react. There were always outriders for columns in warfare, always. If an enemy was spotted the column would halt and take up a defensive position. That is why I don't like the idea that a block of soldiers would or even could be swept just because somebody got behind them on the table top. They know the enemy is out there, the soldiers heads arent actually glued in place, and warhorns are used to signify more than just the charge, but also enemy movement.

The game doesn't need more restrictions to give reasons to do something in game that shouldn't actually have a reason to happen on the tabletop in the first place.

Then you are woefully wrong. See soldiers in formation are fighting soldiers in front of them, if the enemy are next to them or behind them, something has gone wrong on the battle line and this means they are all dead if they don't flee. See if it was just one formation against one formation, then yes no flanking will occur, but remember battles with formations start out as large lines with goal of breaking through the line. You do this by breaking formation and then exploiting the gap.

It's also worth noting the above is exactly how it works in Kings of War. If the enemy is going to flank you, simply turn your unit around. This means you are invulnerable to flank attacks (unless magic is involved) when fighting isolated as one unit vs one unit. However what do you do when multiple units from multiple angles are attacking you? You can't just turn and face them, you have to break formation which means you are going to die (usually).

Even in skirmish style battle this is true. You can watch battle rein actors do this all the time, the goal when in a group fight is to have some guys get behind the others and then mess them up. Humans cannot fight backwards.

Musicians NEVER signified enemy movement, they are for giving out orders like movement speed, formations and so on. They had a chain of command for finding out where the enemy is, but infantry never had dedicated scouts telling them everything around them (not normal anyway). Light units formed their own screening units or dispatch units. This is why soldiers and low level officers had no initiative until modern war, because they don't know the whole picture. They take orders from those who do (chain of command again) and simply carried out orders to the letter (unless the order was misheard).

Flanks and so on aren't made up voodoo, they are how wars are won and formations are not as flexible as you'd think, remember we are talking a lot of men in a big group doing rehearsed orders. In reality if the enemy infantry got behind your lines your battle line (army) would crumble quickly.

In short, in a very small scale 1 on 1 unit combat, unless some trickery is involved, you aren't likely to be flanked and if you do it is not for long (in kings of war you can rotate after the initial hit to face your attacker) but when you start talking armies flanking is critical for both soldiers concerns and over all battle plan.

The entire point of medieval tactics was to break the formations. That's why length of battle lines, flanking cavalry, and breaking through were so important. It was why they had reserves, to block the holes the from because if they don't, the enemy that flank or break through will tear through the flanks and rear of the lines like wet tissue.
For example: Battle of Cynoscephalae. The lighter, more maneuverable manipular legions were able to get around and outflank the heavier and slower phalanxes. Getting to the sides and rear was essential.
I could go on and on about how important and vital flanking was to medieval warfare. But really, there's not point. It was. It defined medieval warfare. What you see in the movies where two unorginized hordes crash into each other with mass chaos and the hero finds his arch nemesis in the melee, its all crap and resembles nothing of medieval warfare.
"But it's fantasy, it aint supposed to be realistic!" you say.
True, it is fantasy, but there needs to be logic and reason to the things in a make believe world. If something does differ, it needs to be explained and rationalized to fit the world.
AOS is that movie battle where two unorganized masses just crash into each other. Looks good on the screen but it breaks my immersion and is just boring.

The term "fog of war" isn't just an academic term. It's very real. When you're in battle, the world shrinks drastically. You're aware of what's immediately around you and little else. Its why communication is so vitally important. I know because I've been to war. Gak gets hectic real fast.

Oh I agree and it's also huge in Napoleonic warfare (more familiar with). Scattering/flanking the enemy even in one location means you can pretty much win.

It's actually my main turn off from many games/movies.

The fog of war you mention effects medieval soldiers (or any formation soldier) because guys further back of the formation don't know whats going on, while the front are too busy poking the enemy to know whats going on, so disorder can happen really fast as someone sees what he thinks is bad, makes a run for it and heaps of clueless people follow.

Fascinating stuff.

The earliest known depictions of warfare show small skirmish groups of bowmen fighting in line and trying to outflank each other. (Cave paintings in Spain, from 3,000 BC.) Flanks have always been important historically and are still an important element of modern warfare.

There are all sorts of reasons why men fight in a way that means they have vulnerable flanks and rear. However there's no point arguing about whether flanks are important, or why, because the empirical evidence is overwhelming.

That said, there's no reason why fantasy games have to follow realistic principles. In fact I would rather they had more fantastic elements. I can play a realistic historical game any time I like, I don't need a fantasy game to do realism.

Flanks and formations undoubtedly were left out of AoS in order to simplify the rules. That arguably is an acceptable compromise to make in order to get a very short rulebook.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


There are all sorts of reasons why men fight in a way that means they have vulnerable flanks and rear. However there's no point arguing about whether flanks are important, or why, because the empirical evidence is overwhelming.

That said, there's no reason why fantasy games have to follow realistic principles. In fact I would rather they had more fantastic elements. I can play a realistic historical game any time I like, I don't need a fantasy game to do realism.

I gave a presentation at a writer's conference about that very subject. I wrote it all down. I go into a lot of detail about fantasy warfare and the do's and don'ts of realism. For example, the concept of logistics are over looked. Wars are won and lost on getting beans, bullets (or blades in this case) blankets and bodies where they need to be when they need to be there. AOS ignores this concept entirely. Not on the tabletop of course, but in the fluff. The Imperial Guard are often mentioned as winning in the novels because they can bring more men and material in enough quantities to win. Wait....did I just use 40k as a good example of something?
Basically, "because its fantasy" isn't a good argument at all.
If you're interested, take a look.
http://minimumwagehistorian.com/2013/12/19/history-for-the-fantasy-and-sci-fi-writer/

I understand the importance of flanking maneuvers and formations in the real world, you have told me nothing I wasn't aware of. But if someone is inside your lines, you can shield out every side and brace for an all around assault. And that would be done by the order of the drummer/ horn blower giving commands.

Now, again, why am I supposed to be forced to us them in a fantasy game? How well did the Spartans do the last time they fought a wizard who conjured up a living, breathing lightning storm? What were Napoleon's tactics for combating zombie dragons who breathacid and can't feel pain? How long did it take ceasar to conquer the 12 foot tall canibal giants riding mastadons and occasionally breathing fire?

Real world, how well does a full phalanx hold a castle wall? How effective was it at fighting in dense forest, or in city streets? Rocky or mountainous terrain? Swamplands? There are reasons to be in formation, there are reasons to break formation. Both are tactical choices made based on what circumstance and you enemy demand.

And again, why should I be forced to field my army in a way I don't like because you prefer it. And if I don't have to by the rules, how does that make it a bad game?

We are both micromanaging. I, my individual models in a ruleset that allows for unrestricted movement for the best statistical advantage. You, the directionality within a very restrictive movement ruleset of small blocks of warriors for the best statistical advantage. I don't see how mine is shallow but yours is not because there isn't a difference of tactical ability involved, you just don't like the particular tactics of the system I prefer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, mwhistorian, in modern warfare, how often do soldiers flank up? Exactly. In a skirmish game when 10-20 guys are moving around looking for an enemy they aren't going to do so staring straight ahead in a block. That is stupid. There will be guys who's job it is to look behind and to the side in case someone is sneaking up. In this world daemons will materialise from nothing against a moments notice, and chameleonic lizard people will step from the trees and soundlessly kill a whole platoon whenever they feel like. The tactics you're proposing as to how you win wars would have lost every single conflict in the warhammer world. Why would they use them?

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
How well did the Spartans do the last time they fought a wizard who conjured up a living, breathing lightning storm? What were Napoleon's tactics for combating zombie dragons who breathacid and can't feel pain? How long did it take ceasar to conquer the 12 foot tall canibal giants riding mastadons and occasionally breathing fire?

Wait... did the Spartans not fight Wizards?

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, mwhistorian, in modern warfare, how often do soldiers flank up? Exactly. In a skirmish game when 10-20 guys are moving around looking for an enemy they aren't going to do so staring straight ahead in a block. That is stupid. There will be guys who's job it is to look behind and to the side in case someone is sneaking up. In this world daemons will materialise from nothing against a moments notice, and chameleonic lizard people will step from the trees and soundlessly kill a whole platoon whenever they feel like. The tactics you're proposing as to how you win wars would have lost every single conflict in the warhammer world. Why would they use them?

Wait, are you trying to lecture a combat veteran on modern warfare?
Oh boy.
Yes, flanking is still a very very important part of modern warfare.

Why not?

Can only soldiers talk about soldiers?

 notprop wrote:
Why not?

Can only soldiers talk about soldiers?

Okay, first off, guns are loud. Explosions are louder. There's a lot of both going on. When someone's shooting at you, your attention to what's going on elsewhere is drastically limited.
The confusion and chaos of modern warfare is as real as it was a thousand years ago. Things get crazy.
Maintaining that control as much as possible is vital to winning, but it's like keeping a rampaging lion in a wicker basket.
I was a machine gunner. Carried a SAW. My job, when attacked, was to hold my position while laying down as much covering fire as possible. The reason for this was so that a flanking element can go around to the side or rear and kill the enemy while I keep their heads down.
That isn't just theoretical, that's how it works. It's easier to kill something when its attention is elsewhere. We wouldn't do it if it didn't work.
Also, tunnel vision. People tend to focus on the thing that's immediately trying to kill them.
Chaos. With grenades and machinegun fire going off everywhere, it's often difficult to hear orders at all. Or perhaps you misunderstand the orders. Whatever. There's so many variables that I'll just say, fog of war.
Ambushes. Attacking someone from the side when they're not expecting it creates a brief but very vital moment of confusion. In a gunfight, seconds count.
I'm talking from experience, btw. I'm not just saying what I think it's like. Any other soldier will tell you the same thing.
Yes, there are often soldiers assigned to watch the flanks, (Especially in urban settings) but that's an ideal and not always the case.
Please don't assume that you know more about modern warfare than I do. It's a very complicated subject and unless someone's been there, it's difficult to explain. You can't get an understanding of it from playing Call of Duty.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 notprop wrote:
Why not?

Can only soldiers talk about soldiers?

Okay, first off, guns are loud. Explosions are louder. There's a lot of both going on. When someone's shooting at you, your attention to what's going on elsewhere is drastically limited.
The confusion and chaos of modern warfare is as real as it was a thousand years ago. Things get crazy.
Maintaining that control as much as possible is vital to winning, but it's like keeping a rampaging lion in a wicker basket.
I was a machine gunner. Carried a SAW. My job, when attacked, was to hold my position while laying down as much covering fire as possible. The reason for this was so that a flanking element can go around to the side or rear and kill the enemy while I keep their heads down.
That isn't just theoretical, that's how it works. It's easier to kill something when its attention is elsewhere. We wouldn't do it if it didn't work.
Also, tunnel vision. People tend to focus on the thing that's immediately trying to kill them.
Chaos. With grenades and machinegun fire going off everywhere, it's often difficult to hear orders at all. Or perhaps you misunderstand the orders. Whatever. There's so many variables that I'll just say, fog of war.
Ambushes. Attacking someone from the side when they're not expecting it creates a brief but very vital moment of confusion. In a gunfight, seconds count.
I'm talking from experience, btw. I'm not just saying what I think it's like. Any other soldier will tell you the same thing.
Yes, there are often soldiers assigned to watch the flanks, (Especially in urban settings) but that's an ideal and not always the case.
Please don't assume that you know more about modern warfare than I do. It's a very complicated subject and unless someone's been there, it's difficult to explain. You can't get an understanding of it from playing Call of Duty.

As another veteran, I respect what you are saying.

Though, if we pay more attention to what he wrote, he says..

Also, mwhistorian, in modern warfare, how often do soldiers flank up?

While many hours were spent practicing and using flanking maneuvering, and it's exactly like you describe, I think what he meant to say was "rank up.", and that all the talk about flanks got the better of his mind there for a moment. I say this because "Flank up" is not common verbage, though "rank up" is, especially in WFB circles. I also think anyone, even one who has his entire knowledge of warfare limited to CoD, understands that attacking from behind or the side is an advantage.

So respect your authoritah then.

I don't agree that that's the case since you don't know what anyone else's experience is, especially since this is games were are talking about not actual soldering.

I think you have taken this thread to a whole new level of absurd. Not that it needed it.

 Kriswall wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
How well did the Spartans do the last time they fought a wizard who conjured up a living, breathing lightning storm? What were Napoleon's tactics for combating zombie dragons who breathacid and can't feel pain? How long did it take ceasar to conquer the 12 foot tall canibal giants riding mastadons and occasionally breathing fire?

Wait... did the Spartans not fight Wizards?

The whole reason I used to like WHFB is because I thought it was cool the way ranked soldiers squared off against dragons and giants and whatnot. Any individual soldier is just going to end up as strawberry jam and a big beasty will just rampage through a loose formation of weak soldiers to feast on the women and children in the village behind the lines.

I find the imagery of ranks of soldiers doing their best to hold the line against giant beasties and foul magic to be a more inspiring thought and also more tactically interesting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Thunderfrog wrote:
even one who has his entire knowledge of warfare limited to CoD, understands that attacking from behind or the side is an advantage.

90% of my kills in COD4 came from running away from my team and trying to catch the enemy unaware on the flank, so satisfying to walk in to an area and gun down 5 people who were all looking the other way