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.

I have found that less than battallion box size fights are boring as hell, they rapidly degenerate to scrum in the middle where the first guy to take out anothers unit wins.

Small games can be super fun. Play with some objectives to avoid the middle mosh pit!

The Clash of Empire Battleplan (GW school league) is great for 30 model games.

 Filch wrote:
Someone on this site already rudely told me that if I think its too expensive then do not play the game.

Funny how at first blush it seems like a simple answer.
The good thing with this thread AOS is a fairly recent game so not picking it up at all can be an option.
Those with the long history for playing Fantasy Battle may find a home with Kings of War.
People like me with interests in 40k may have a large amount of past models and are finding the expense of present day GW offerings too expensive.
One does not simply turn their back on a few thousand dollars worth of painted models and "not play the game".
I play but am FAR more choosy of what I buy (if at all) from GW and hope if enough people do it they may get the hint they have priced beyond what the market will bear.
Knowing them though, they will increase prices due to lower gross sales hurting their profits and carry on.

 Bottle wrote:
Small games can be super fun. Play with some objectives to avoid the middle mosh pit!

The Clash of Empire Battleplan (GW school league) is great for 30 model games.

the problem for mw with those small games is the lack of manuever elements, which is why "I" dont consider AoS skirmish, you are still moving in units, there is some more flexible than old warhammer but not by much. LOTR/Hobbit is to "me" skirmish, each model is its own unit.

Honestly I really think half the people saying AoS is a great game with skirmish level amountbof models have not actually played that amount before with these rules. Either you take standard infantry. And they all innevitably smash together in the center for a roll off to see who wins the game. Or you take casters or ranged units in which case you don't smash together right away, and roll dice mindlessly to see who wins. That's what makes this game so awful: there are barely any rules in it that aren't just a varient of "attack more", " your attacks do more damage", or "you take less damage". It heavily encourages bashy 12 year old tactics. In fantasy at least special rules altered how combats went, and magic could redirect blocks of models or kill off the huge models

autumnlotus wrote:
Honestly I really think half the people saying AoS is a great game with skirmish level amountbof models have not actually played that amount before with these rules. Either you take standard infantry. And they all innevitably smash together in the center for a roll off to see who wins the game. Or you take casters or ranged units in which case you don't smash together right away, and roll dice mindlessly to see who wins. That's what makes this game so awful: there are barely any rules in it that aren't just a varient of "attack more", " your attacks do more damage", or "you take less damage". It heavily encourages bashy 12 year old tactics. In fantasy at least special rules altered how combats went, and magic could redirect blocks of models or kill off the huge models

Sounds like your games would benefit from more LoS blocking terrain. Small games can be really fun - I've played lots of 30 aside. I've even played 10 a side games where we only choose heroes so they can manoeuvre as individuals. The key to those games are walls and buildings :-)

autumnlotus wrote:
Honestly I really think half the people saying AoS is a great game with skirmish level amountbof models have not actually played that amount before with these rules.

Or... maybe they are not actually lying, and you have not completely understood the game.

If you asked how people are actually getting on with the game instead of telling them it is for 12 year olds, we might all be better off...

I don't ask anymore, because everytime anyone has asked that the response is always generic and vague. Like heres a question: how do you avoid the slobberknocker effect of forming a moshpit in the center of the board? Terrain helps a bit. But even if you are generous and max out the amount the rules allow its still a very bare board. If it was a city street board it would be better, but those are houserules so its murky on that section. Let's say I have an army of 40 Plaguebearers, 6 nurglings swaems, ol Twiceborn, and two Nurgle sorcerers. What strategy is better then charging foreward and focusing attacks on the bigger models?

autumnlotus wrote:
Like heres a question: how do you avoid the slobberknocker effect of forming a moshpit in the center of the board?

You can have no terrain and still avoid it. A number of factors can come into play;

1. Battleplans - can't overstate this, AoS needs Battleplans to shine. Once specific objectives come into play, armies can get broken up pretty quickly.

2. Time of War sheets - once daemons and Stormcasts come dropping from the sky, things can get mobile very quickly.

3. Ranged units create space, the longer the range, the more pronounced this comes. Judicators armed with crossbows can get mobbed pretty quickly unless they are strongly supported. Those armed with bows can remain independent with far less protection.

4. Units with mobility, especially those that can fly, will keep things mobile. Prosecutors are superb examples of this.

5. Do not be afraid to flee when you need to. Pull a unit back, sending another to take its place if need be. Again, when combined with mobile units, this opens things right up.

I can give an example of all this in action - this is a battle report of The Ritual, found in the first AoS hardback: https://ttgamingdiary.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/battle-report-the-ritual/

This battle, in theory, should exaggerate the problem as you have two large armies facing each other across the short table width. Look in the first two turns they crash together in two lines, as you would expect - but then look at how things start exploding outwards with Prosecutors breaking through the line, Stormcasts and daemons start being called upon, last ditch attempts to reach the artefact, changes of strategy as the battle unfolded...

That was a full battle with a lot happening!

However, it is also not usual - can show you plenty of other battles that did not end in a moshpit...

I think playing scenarios or a number of objectives on the board is necessary. Pitched battles tend to be pretty dull. The tactics in retreating especially come out in objective games.

Scenarios which play similarly to 40ks Maelstrom move the focus to mobility and speed. Terrain heavy boards create more interesting games as well as mentioned.

Out of the Mist is another great battleplan too.
Both forces have no choice but to spread out and risk being picked off, and even LoS isn't certain in that one.

For the above batrep: it was interesting. It was stretched out across the field, and doesn't force everyone to just smash together. I kinda hate the battle plan, as it seems entirely lulzrandom rather then intuitive. Seems the geysers did more damage then the opposite armies.

And if the battle plans were free people wouldn't be complaining as much. But since they are being held hostage by the hardback lorebooks they are judging it off what was presented from the beginning. So the smash up default is what detractors see, and if it doesn't impress even a new person then they won't by the books.

Personally? I don't like the game because they heroes are super generic. My Nurgle lord on a palanquin is just using the generic daemonic steed profile, and my Furies are nearly identical to Harpies. My witch cult is buggered because theyre is no way to differenciate tactics between units, and there is no reason not to have all of my death hags as the special vharacter profile as the latter is strictly superior. It just...seems like there are no tactics that are unique to the different units, besides some being killier while others are tankier

I play scenarios without having bought the books - micro purchases from the App! And I think one may be free? At least I don't remember buying it lol "A Forlorn Hope".

The mosh pit is the natural result of the game objective being to kill all the enemy units, the best way to do this being melee, and the best way to do melee being to outnumber the enemy as much as possible.

Any kind of objective that diverts away from this dynamic will help to prevent mosh pits.

autumnlotus wrote:


Personally? I don't like the game because they heroes are super generic. My Nurgle lord on a palanquin is just using the generic daemonic steed profile, and my Furies are nearly identical to Harpies. My witch cult is buggered because theyre is no way to differenciate tactics between units, and there is no reason not to have all of my death hags as the special vharacter profile as the latter is strictly superior. It just...seems like there are no tactics that are unique to the different units, besides some being killier while others are tankier

Again... that might not be quite right

The differences between units can be a little more subtle compared to WHFB but, mostly, it is a matter of expectations.

To pick up an example you raised, why would you not have all your Death Hags as the special character? Leaving aside that you perhaps should just have one of any named character (you are talking about Hellebron, right?), the on;ly reason you are likely to want to do that is to have the best army possible and stomp your opponent into oblivion - am I wrong?

The thing is, that is completely the wrong attitude to bring into AoS, and if you can't/won't/don't want to leave it behind, this will never be the game for you.

Instead, think of it this way...

Your Witch Elves have been cavorting in their cavern, doing Witch Elfy things (and why not, eh?), showing their devotion to all things Khaine by slaughtering all the helpless humans they captured on their last raid. However, the nearby Clan Eshin has always been a bit miffed that you stole their cavern a few years ago, and they finally see their chance to strike back at the nasty elves while they are distracted. So, led by an Assassin, the Gutter and Night Runners move in for the kill, confident they outnumber the elves.

The Witch Elves are completely on the back foot as fights break out in the shadows of the cavern, while the lone Death Hag hurriedly makes her sacrifices so Khaine will take notice and send aid (flocks of Furies, say). The battle ends in a pitched fight on the steps of the altar when the Skaven Assassin strikes at the Death Hag, the two trying to outwit the other while their minions are fighting all around.

Now, win or lose, does that not sound like at least a little bit of fun?

That is what Age of Sigmar does. In droves.

My point is, it really does not matter two hoots whether you have Witch Elves or the Slaughter girls, whether you have a Death Hag or Hellebron. What matters is having not just another game in the evening, but creating a fight for the ages on your tabletop - every time you play.

It is a different approach and, in a way, a different way of thinking from Warhammer games of the past. But if you can find a like-minded opponent (that may be the hardest bit, once you have adjusted your own expectations of the game), you may find an experience you didn't expect. Not necessarily better than the games you have been playing in WHFB (still play it myself), but one equally as good.

That sounds like a great scenario, MongooseMatt - but also one that would be best structured by a GM.

I've only just started doing a few RPGs, and the elements you descibe which are similar are really cool. But they necessitate someone setting up said scenario, or the two players mutually agreeing upon it. And whereas with every RPG I've seen nowadays, there is structure given for such a thing, no real structure in AoS exists for it other than "roughly balance forces before a fight / during deployment". I'd love to play some scenario games, having armies act out a scene or part of a larger narrative, but I just don't see the structure to do so. Everything you've said sounds great, but could be just as well had with any game system really - I don't see anything about AoS that allows me to easily play it that way, other than the fact that they've left everything that could give it structure out.

In other words, I think your games, blog, and everything are awesome... but I just don't see how it will translate to other people's gaming tables, who don't live so close to the Warhammer headquarters, and the surrounding areas that play in a similar fashion after seeing it there. Honestly, it's bothered me a little bit how much they are emphasizing their events there - I'm not even on the same continent and have absolutely no chance of participating. If they were running such events at conventions, maybe a few each year in their major market areas (US, UK, EU... and maybe even show Aus some love!) it would be very different. But right now, everything I've seen you participate in that is structured is completely inaccessible to me (or anyone on this side of the pond), and everything that you've come up with on your own seems to have been done completely out of your own initiative. That's awesome... but, it's just not something that is accessible to most of us to participate in.

At least in a RPG, there is structure for the GM to come up with scenarios and the like, and most of the players don't have to worry about much more than their own character. In the case of AoS, I feel like you have to both provide your own structure, narrative, characters, not to mention the normal hobby work of building the army... so again, everything I see you post looks at the same time awesome and completely inaccessible to me.

Hope that puts into words why I follow your posts, but why I also just can't see AoS ever doing well broadly unless they help folks to have the experience you're having more easily. I don't know if you or anyone has their ear, but they could be onto something with AoS, but not if they don't help it flourish as it has for you. Sorry for the book

I don't understand how playing scenarios is inaccessible. You can come up with anything on the spot. The mechanics of AoS are such that you can theme just about any idea into a game. It doesn't take hard thinking or any work.

MongooseMatt wrote:
Instead, think of it this way...

You're talking about AoS like it's a tabletop RPG. Except, they're not very similar at all. RPGs use volumes of rules to add structure to storytelling. AoS has a bare minimum of rules and requires you to engage in elaborate storytelling to gloss over the gaping holes.

Hell, RPGs even have balancing mechanics to ensure that combat encounters are roughly equal. That's more than AoS can say.

^this. I love events, love to work out how my army/flock/warband/etc works and fits into the Narrative and how the fight fits into that narrative. But this is something that requires context. What are witch elves now in AoS? Do they still worship khaine? Are they affiliated with the bloodbound now? Are they the same powerhouses in Lore? Are they still elves in appearance and following dark elf culture? All of this is important to know when I set up a narrative game, and I have no info beyond a generic rundown of each of the realms, plus name drops for characters that may or may not be people we know.

As to the death hag thing: its already shown that GW is getting rid of most if not all of theyre old characters and making them into Special generic characters. Like how tettetonko or whatever, the skink on the slann floating throne, is now a Starspawn Skink or something. So lets say hellebron is changed to "death Matron". Would it make sense to take death hags if you Don't care about narrative? Same for chaos warriors: why take a Nurgle sorcerer when Festus is a better profile? Why not take glotkin even? There is no basis for balance at all. It's just like 40k and the last end times book: you have Unbound be an option for players that want to forge the Narrative. Heck, toss the points out entirely and build a scenario ruleset for a moment in the campaign. But that shouldn't be the DEFAULT.

Coldgaming, it's not playing a scenario that's inaccessible - it's setting it up how MongooseMatt describes, the way the forces come in (and getting them about equal, or appropriately asymmetric, if desired), the way the key characters meet up in battle, etc.

Guildsman and autumnlotus describe the problems for doing this with AoS - the lack of a fleshed out setting (it is being revealed on a rolling basis, but that leaves massive gaps for now), the lack of rules / mechanics / structure to set up an event like MongooseMatt describes, etc. See an example of how structure can help below:

-----

In my very first RPG experience (which was only two years ago!), I got a randomly generated (via rolling) relic for Numenera which was something like a "gravity spike" which, when placed, would be completely immovable. As it was our first meeting, our characters were pretty wimpy and facing an intimidating enemy... and I also found out I hadn't equipped any ranged weapons, and hadn't yet mastered any dangerous beasts, and so was mostly a bystander. At a key point in the battle, I asked the GM "Hey, can I try throwing this gravity spike?". He said "Sure, although it's not really intended for that". I did, rolled a 19 out of 20, and basically pinned the enemy into the ground and took it out in one shot! (I believe I would have missed on an 18 - it was epic!). Many high fives were to be had!

-----

I give that long example, to show how a bit of structure (generating the rare item, not having the right weapons due to inexperience, taking a chance with it and getting lucky) made for a really awesome narrative experience. We could certainly try to do the same thing without structure, but it would be very difficult and likely just wouldn't have the same impact. That's what I see dividing me from MongooseMatt's experience with AoS - I think it's awesome that he is able to set up things to have such an RPG-like experience, but there's nothing in AoS itself (other than the lack of things, if that can be considered something) to help the rest of us have that RPG experience.

I could really be interested in something that goes for that - heck, I think that's what a lot of people wanted when rumors were circulating about it being similar to Mordheim in some respects. But I just don't see that it's there, even though Warhammer World, MongooseMatt, and some others are making a really admirable go of implementing it outside of the structure provided. Any RPG needs that, of course - but they usually give you a sturdy scaffolding to build off of, whereas AoS is more like a completely blank piece of paper that you can fill in anything you want on. That can be awesome, too, with the right people... but it is much less accessible than other RPG-type systems, with the normal added barriers of miniature gaming, to boot.

It certainly doesn't help that the traditional market for this type of wargaming is a competitive hobby, rather than some sort o shared storytelling experience hobby like D&D.

Not every RPG has volumes of rules, and not every RPG has balancing structures.

My favorite RPG is AD&D, and there certainly aren't many balancing structures in there at all.

I've also played RPGs that had 10 pages or so of rules.

An RPG is nothing more than a game where you assume the role of a character. It can have a ton of rules or not very many rules or something in between.

A wargame also can be a competitive endeavor or it can be a storytelling endeavor. People that say wargaming is not a storytelling endeavor aren't really being honest or accurate, because it can be and certainly is to some people, it just may not be what the person stating that would like wargaming to be, which is a completely different perspective.

A lack of balance is not inherently a rpg aspect, nor a narrative one. There are plenty of people that enjoy games with an in depth ruleset. I don't think AoS would do well with the level of rule detail WHFB had. But some level of personal choice for an army would be appreciated. Like for me: it would be nice if I could take different weapons for my hags. Maybe let me take the spears present on the cauldren . or have different armor choices for a chaos lord. If this game doesn't care about balance, why take away all these options?

Auticus - For what it's worth, I agree. If you added a Game/Dungeon Master element to AoS, you could approach it somewhat like an "army level" RPG. I guess my point is even just from a storytelling perspective, it's hard to get into right now. But if someone like MongooseMatt were "GM'ing" the game / series of games I think it could be really fun

Does AoS have rules for determining a winner at the end?

If yes, it it a competitive experience and not a colaborative one like an RPG.

For some reason I've never really seen GWs prices to be too much. A lot of models I buy online that I get for painting I can spend up to $30 for.

I like to think of the models as a time investment. You know, building, painting, etc. It all makes it worthwhile.

 Hayley Williams wrote:
For some reason I've never really seen GWs prices to be too much. A lot of models I buy online that I get for painting I can spend up to $30 for.

I like to think of the models as a time investment. You know, building, painting, etc. It all makes it worthwhile.

Yeah but if you can get the same amount of time and entertainment building, painting and etcetering cheaper models it kinda makes GW look bad.

Two things on my 'want to get' list right now are the AoS gaunt summoner and this lovely lady:
http://nocturnamodels.com/product.php?id_product=71

She is 70mm resin with a much higher level of detail, and only $7 australian more at the current conversion rate...

RPGs don't need a balancing structure because they have a Games Master who provides that function.

Similarly, wargames with a player or team versus an umpire running a hidden enemy, and be balanced by the umpire; this can also be done in versus games. It is not ideal, since players tend to suspect the umpire is manipulating the results to present the narrative he prefers, even if he isn't.

There's no reason you can't use the AoS rules as a kind of very simple RPG or with an umpire. There almost certainly are better rules for doing such a function. AoS is designed for medium to large scale skirmishes between two players. This would tend to indicate that scenario design should be done by one or both of the players involved, if you don't want to just buy the GW scenarios.

As I've been saying all along, points and villages. It's all we need :-p