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.

-

The game plays very fine with up to 100 models per side. It's very helpful to have some trays for infantry-based armies, but anyone who played Orks or Imperial Guard will know that it's not really that terrible having 150 footmen on the table. Takes a bit longer than with trays, sure, but it's no tragedy.

Also remember that bigger units fighting will inflict more wounds, which leads to bigger battleshock test casualties, so even large units will melt fairly quickly. The only thing that slows the game is, to be honest, just moving the models around.

But it all, of course, depends on the table. I personally recommend a bit smaller armies with about 40-70 models, kinda like the Island of Blood set or abit bigger and lots of cool terrain not placed like in a typical wargaming scenario (randomly or placed by players), but with actual realistic layout - a village, small town, forest - just make it look cinematic and the game will feel better!

Do movement trays not get useless quickly as your models navigate terrain?

Definitely a +1 for cool terrain layouts. It's a shame my local GW is usually a bit haphazard with the terrain placement. I'm currently putting together enough pieces for a board at home which will allow some nicely themed battles I hope. Setting up terrain in that manner has always been how I play other wargames (which is mostly Necromunda - very terrain heavy)

 Bottle wrote:
Do movement trays not get useless quickly as your models navigate terrain?

Definitely a +1 for cool terrain layouts. It's a shame my local GW is usually a bit haphazard with the terrain placement. I'm currently putting together enough pieces for a board at home which will allow some nicely themed battles I hope. Setting up terrain in that manner has always been how I play other wargames (which is mostly Necromunda - very terrain heavy)

Depends on the layout. :-) A square WFB tray will easily accomodate square and round bases (25mm ones) and if it's about 20 models in one unit, it can be used for fast marching during first two turns. Then you can just "disembark" them from the trays when the terrain impedes navigation or you want to reform for upcoming charge. Of course if the terrain is dense, then obviously a tray is only going to be cumbersome, but it's always nice to have that option just in case it could help.

But yeah, AoS, very much like Lord of the Rings/Hobbit game is suited for dense, cinematic terrain layouts and cool scenarios and I think it's a huge waste of potential if anyone plays with the regular, unimaginative ETC terrain. Warhammer universe was always all about the cool places and fancy realms, yet the game mechanics punished you for having more than two buildings, two forests and two hills. And all fairly small because that 50 gor horde on 25mm bases had to squeeze between them!

I prefer to limit games based on table size. A three foot by four foot table gives you room to maneuver, but really limits space for things like summoning and units in reserve. Also, I second the notion of more terrain on a themed table being the bee's knees for age of sigmar!

We are going to be doing some 200 model games in the near future - will see if I can do a battle report...

According to the azyr comp system, 30 or 40 pts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
According to the azyr comp system, 30 or 40 pts.

 Bottle wrote:

In my opinion it's the smaller size, 30-50 models a side and played on a 4ft x 4ft board. That's why I'm so excited for the GW School League rules as they specifically cater for games that size.

We like 30-50 on a 6x4 table with 2 people. If all models moved 6", 4x4 might work, but some of the models have up to 12" move (and then charge), and others have shooting ranges that essentially cover the entire table on a 4x4.

Sounds good! Do you not find misdeployed footsloggers spend the entire game running back to the battle? Or maybe you like it that way (makes deployment more important).

Wound count is misleading. Compare 10 Executioners with 10 Bloodreavers, 10 wounds each side. But Executioners are absolutely deadly these days. For each 6 to hit, 2 mortal wounds. In the azyr comp system, 10 Executioners are 6 pts and 10 Bloodreavers are 2 pts. Sounds fair.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Wound count is misleading. Compare 10 Executioners with 10 Bloodreavers, 10 wounds each side. But Executioners are absolutely deadly these days. For each 6 to hit, 2 mortal wounds. In the azyr comp system, 10 Executioners are 6 pts and 10 Bloodreavers are 2 pts. Sounds fair.

This isn't really the thread for a variation on the ol' skaven slaves vs Stormvermin debate. I'm more just asking what size of game in terms of models and board size you think is the most enjoyable.

You say 30pts from the homebrew comp you are using. Presuming each model is atleast 1pt does that mean you play with less than 30 models? Seems on the small side, but I like small model count games too.

 Bottle wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Wound count is misleading. Compare 10 Executioners with 10 Bloodreavers, 10 wounds each side. But Executioners are absolutely deadly these days. For each 6 to hit, 2 mortal wounds. In the azyr comp system, 10 Executioners are 6 pts and 10 Bloodreavers are 2 pts. Sounds fair.

This isn't really the thread for a variation on the ol' skaven slaves vs Stormvermin debate. I'm more just asking what size of game in terms of models and board size you think is the most enjoyable.

You say 30pts from the homebrew comp you are using. Presuming each model is atleast 1pt does that mean you play with less than 30 models? Seems on the small side, but I like small model count games too.

Well, here is the list I played recently:

Mighty Lord of Chaos - 4
Bloodsecrator - 3
Bloodstoker - 1
20 Blood Reavers - 4
5 Chaos Chosen - 4
5 Chaos Chosen - 4
5 Chaos Chosen - 4
5 Marauder Horsemen - 3
5 Marauder Horsemen - 3

30 pts, but about 50 wounds.

Homebrew but well thought.

 Bottle wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Wound count is misleading. Compare 10 Executioners with 10 Bloodreavers, 10 wounds each side. But Executioners are absolutely deadly these days. For each 6 to hit, 2 mortal wounds. In the azyr comp system, 10 Executioners are 6 pts and 10 Bloodreavers are 2 pts. Sounds fair.

This isn't really the thread for a variation on the ol' skaven slaves vs Stormvermin debate. I'm more just asking what size of game in terms of models and board size you think is the most enjoyable.

You say 30pts from the homebrew comp you are using. Presuming each model is atleast 1pt does that mean you play with less than 30 models? Seems on the small side, but I like small model count games too.

He's talking about azyrcomp I assume. Weaker units like Skaven can be 1 point for 10 models, others (like cavalry) maybe 3-5 points per 5 models, etc. I've played 40 points and its huge, maybe like 2000+ points in 8th edition. 30 sounds about right.

 Bottle wrote:
Hey everyone, from your experience so far what size of game do you think works best for AoS?

In my opinion it's the smaller size, 30-50 models a side and played on a 4ft x 4ft board. That's why I'm so excited for the GW School League rules as they specifically cater for games that size.

I also want to try a "Mordheim" style heroes battle, but haven't had the chance to play one of those yet.

In my experience the larger games get too difficult to manage in terms of buffs and combat.

But what about you? What size of game do you think AoS works best with?

I think the answer is going to be a resounding "depends".

I have a Monday throught Friday, 8 to 5 sort of job. If I play on a weekday evening, I usually try to play a 'smaller' game on a 4' x 4' table with maybe a general and something like 2-4 accompanying units. The actual number of units/models varies wildly depending on the army. My Goblin playing friend tends to bring lots of weak models while my Ogre friend bring relatively fewer strong models. Standard core deployment rules and a innate desire for a fun, balanced game ensures that the games are fairly evenly matched.

On the weekends though... I like giant, hours and hours to play mega-battles. We play on a 4' x 6' or sometimes a 4' x 8' and just keep throwing models at the table until we feel like epic status has been achieved. Managing buffs and combats has never been an issue as we use a series of 3rd party counters and tokens to remind us what we're doing.

For turns, we use an 8 sided die that is "pointing" at whoever went first that game round. That way, it's trivial to look at the die and see what turn you're on and whether you're on the top of bottom of the round.

Ultimately, the best size game is the one you're going to enjoy the most. That's a personal thing, so you'll have to work it out for yourself. Bigger games just need a little more organization, but aren't inherently more difficult to manage.

I like 50-60 wounds with 8 max wounds, 3 max heroes and 1 max monster. Games last about an hour or less and these restrictions seem to bring some balance.

The best thing about aos imho is that games can be smaller, leading to a great, quick, fun, skirmish experience. All of my 40k friends who are having kids have begun to play aos (it's great for when kids take their naps).

 455_PWR wrote:
I like 50-60 wounds with 8 max watercolors, 3 max heroes and 1 max monster. Games last about an hour or less and these restrictions seem to bring some balance.

The best thing about aos imho is that games can be smaller, leading to a great, quick, fun, skirmish experience. All of my 40k friends who are having kids have begun to play aos (it's great for when kids take their naps).

My group has had horrendous experiences with using wounds as a balancing mechanism. Wounds break down completely if you're playing with armies that are traditionally Elite or Hoard in nature. Ironguts vs. Night Goblins is the classic example. At an equal amount of wounds, the Ironguts have a distinct advantage. The Night Goblins just evaporate in a puff of battle shock colored smoke.

If you're playing with armies that are roughly equivalent to begin with, wounds probably work fine, but I think that's more coincidence than design.

Yep you need to forgo wounds if you want to play a true horde army. Or you need to suppliment the horde with some big heavy hitters. For example Night Goblin armies can field lots of trolls and manglar squigs to give them some kick.

In my meta I find that 7-8 warscrolls is a good amount for a pick up game, for a larger one I usually play about 10-14 warscrolls, model caps arent a problem in my area, as we all have to agree what we can bring based on each players army.

That's why I use more than wounds, I also use a max number of warscrolls, (forgot to add only a max of two of the same unit and only one of each named character), max heroes, and monsters. The max number of warscrolls also limits summoni g as you have to include the unit you will summon as one of your warscroll and can only have 2 of the same warscroll at any time.

Yes this limits hoard armies, but the hoard armies still have elite units. Most games use 1-2 normal troops, several elite units and 1-2 heroes.

This is just a baseline for us and it has always worked for our escallation league so far (especially when playing scenarios with different objective points). I would agree that wound counts doesn't work fairly if that's ALL one uses to balance.

 455_PWR wrote:
That's why I use more than wounds, I also use a max number of warscrolls, (forgot to add only a max of two of the same unit and only one of each named character), max heroes, and monsters. The max number of warscrolls also limits summoni g as you have to include the unit you will summon as one of your warscroll and can only have 2 of the same warscroll at any time.

Yes this limits hoard armies, but the hoard armies still have elite units. Most games use 1-2 normal troops, several elite units and 1-2 heroes.

This is just a baseline for us and it has always worked for our escallation league so far (especially when playing scenarios with different objective points). I would agree that wound counts doesn't work fairly if that's ALL one uses to balance.

Agreed that wounds + other factors combined can make a great way to balance the game. That's why I love GW's School League system. 30 models no restrictions, but the more wounds you have the higher your martial prowess and that can give your opponent all sorts of advantages and so you take weaker models alongside the strong ones to keep your martial prowess score as low as you can. :-)

 455_PWR wrote:
That's why I use more than wounds, I also use a max number of warscrolls, (forgot to add only a max of two of the same unit and only one of each named character), max heroes, and monsters. The max number of warscrolls also limits summoni g as you have to include the unit you will summon as one of your warscroll and can only have 2 of the same warscroll at any time.

Yes this limits hoard armies, but the hoard armies still have elite units. Most games use 1-2 normal troops, several elite units and 1-2 heroes.

This is just a baseline for us and it has always worked for our escallation league so far (especially when playing scenarios with different objective points). I would agree that wound counts doesn't work fairly if that's ALL one uses to balance.

"this limits hoard armies, but the hoard armies still have elite units"...

Um... so, the idea is that hoard armies are totally cool to play, but the only way to reasonably field them is to not play them as a hoard and instead focus on the elite choices within the army? Again, that sucks for people who like to play hoard armies.

What about if I want to play a Moulder army? Realistically, 1-2 heroes is crippling. If I can't bring Packmasters, I can't effectively play. I'm also likely to have more low grade Monsters.

Again, this 'list creation ruleset' only works for the armies it works for. It cripples, or at the various least is hostile towards, anything else.

Yup,

Fortunetely/unfortunately AOS is a skirmish game, and skirmish games tend to lead to fewer units being fielded. I rarely see hoard armies fielding tons of troops for this reason and others (one hero or monster can usually carve massive swathes through them, whereas elite units usually can hold their own).

 455_PWR wrote:
Yup,

Fortunetely/unfortunately AOS is a skirmish game, and skirmish games tend to lead to fewer units being fielded. I rarely see hoard armies fielding tons of troops for this reason and others (one hero or monster can usually carve massive swathes through them, whereas elite units usually can hold their own).

40k is a skirmish game and I frequently see large numbers of units being fielded. In fact, having large numbers of small units is common enough that it has an acronym... MSU.

AoS works just fine with hoard armies... UNTIL you add house rules that break the game for these types of armies.

But I guess we're not discussing the same game. As soon as you introduce list building BEFORE the game is played and not during deployment, the game fundamentally changes and a lot of the strategic decisions you would have made on the fly evaporate. I no longer get to look at my opponents army and tailor my army just as he no longer gets to look at mine. Pure AoS... any size game works against any force so long as neither player is a jerk. Add homebrew rules that fundamentally change the game and you also introduce a whole host of issues that don't exist in the core rules.

Yeah Wounds do not work... At all. They might work accidentally but not consistently.

But then in pure AoS (which is what I mostly play) horde armies can be just as penalized by the sudden death rules.

 Bottle wrote:
But then in pure AoS (which is what I mostly play) horde armies can be just as penalized by the sudden death rules.

This is true, but which is the better house rule... the one that modifies/eliminates sudden death rules or the one that eliminates entire types of armies? If you don't like how sudden death seems unfair against horde armies, fix the rules... don't eliminate the army!

I think you're right. Sudden Death is easy to remove if both players have experience with the game and can see the outnumbering army isn't inherently overpowered.

It is interesting though, that I do think we are seeing an end to horde armies. Not that they will go anywhere, but I think we'll see more and more elite troops released for them so that they do not have to be played in a horde style. Take the Skaven for example and their End Times releases.

The only way we have been able to make the game tolerable is to go battallion box vs battallion box.

Or, yu can be willing to give the enemy the option of sudden death and simply try to ensure your swarm is capable of withstanding their attempt to win. Multiple heroes/monsters/wizards several large hard to eliminate blobs, and the speed/damage output to try and stop endure or sieze ground if they choose that.

You don't want to guarantee victory by any means, just have the options to make sure sudden death isn't EASY to achieve.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Or, yu can be willing to give the enemy the option of sudden death and simply try to ensure your swarm is capable of withstanding their attempt to win. Multiple heroes/monsters/wizards several large hard to eliminate blobs, and the speed/damage output to try and stop endure or sieze ground if they choose that.

You don't want to guarantee victory by any means, just have the options to make sure sudden death isn't EASY to achieve.

Sure, and this is what I do, However it only works if you have enough stuff with you. I'm Empire, so not really a horde army but I have had situations where the opponent's army is so elite that I stand there thinking in mid-deployment "even if I deploy everything I came with the odds are stacked against me."

It can be a tricky one. Doesn't stop me from having fun though.