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.
jonolikespie wrote:Is it even possible to fight a mass battle without ranks from either a historical or fantasy perspective?
I'm not really an expert on historical military maneuvers, but weren't ranks used in battles with thousands, and even hundreds of thousands of troops, not a few dozen? And ranks never survived contact with the enemy. They were largely an organizational effort for positioning and tactics, but once they broke rank, it was just a jumble of sweaty, shirtless men rubbing up against each other in slow motion (at least, according to Spartacus)
Herzlos wrote:Points are the absolute best way to approach it; all of the other systems are really just emulating points anyway (and pretty badly, in the case of model counts).
That shows a lack of imagination and isn't even remotely true. Points are probably the simplest way to do it, the most unilateral way to do it, but it isn't the best way. It's just so ingrained in the way people think about miniature games that it is difficult for them to let go of the idea. You literally don't need any army building rules beyond mutual agreement, and points are a neutral way to confirm that agreement ahead of time - but it isn't the only way, and I'd consider many, many more options before I declared it the "absolute best" approach.
Also; there's literally nothing you can do in AoS that you couldn't do at least as easily in WHFB, and it really says something that even the biggest advocates of AoS (including Guy Haley, who gets paid to write AoS fiction) admit it has flaws or they don't like the way some things work.
If the presence of flaws were reason enough to ignore a miniature game, there wouldn't be any miniature games left. Everything is imperfect. Doesn't mean we can't still enjoy them for what they are. Besides, I'm sure if he didn't admit the flaws, you'd just be complaining that he was blinded by loyalty and refused to admit that the game wasn't perfect. There's no (positive) opinion that this guy could have that you wouldn't find some way to trivialize and dismiss.
Guy Haley doesn't talk about historical battles, he talks about fantasy battles as seen in movies, which I have already shown him to be wrong about.
In terms of examining historical battles, it isn't necessary to argue that AoS is realistic. It's a set of fantasy rules.
Historical records are incomplete, and they tend to concern larger rather than smaller battles for obvious reasons. However, everything that we know about it tells us that armies have always been composed of fairly standard size units equivalent to the squad, platoon and company, etc. It has been suggested that this is due to aspects of psychology
Second, that organised armies have always used used drill and blocks (ranks, formations) because it gives various advantages over running around in a mob.
Third, that breaking the enemy's formation was a good thing, and losing your own formation was a bad thing.
What we know of small engagements such as Saxon battles and Rorke's Drift, is that ranks/blocks/formations were used.
Minijack wrote: I think the point that people are making about AoS being smaller armies,is that you don't need to have 2 groups of 50 night goblins then 30+ Savage orks as your troop blocks then another 25 or so models in the elite and support areas.Sure you can do that if you want,but its just not really made for those large blocks of troops.
You know, this is something I find interesting. Was I alone in enjoying the idea that you should have to bring so many spearmen and so many bowmen before you can bring your elite units to the table? That felt practical, it felt realistic, and above all it felt fluffy to me. I liked the 25% core minimum and I say that as a Vampire Counts player who felt like if he brought 502 points (out of 2,000) of core because a zombie was 3 he had waited 2 points.
Leaving the zombies and skeletons at home would have allowed me so many knights or grave guard or just more ungodly beatstick vampires... but that wasn't how the army was supposed to play and that was not how they functioned in the fluff. I much prefer that to 'bring whatever the you want'.
The core requirement of WHFB was fine,im mainly stating that now you don't need such a huge amount of core troops.AoS allows it to be scaled down nicely to say instead of 50 Goblins I run units of 20.Basically all across the board you don't need the high model count,,unless you want to do that of course,heh.
OOooooooh, actually if we're still on this I'm going to lik Battle of Nations, a sport more people need to know exists.
21 vs 21, so well within the realm of 'skirmish' for what we're discussing but I think it's a great example. The fight doesn't begin until 5 minutes in but you can see how they try to form a line and maintain a formation. I got lucky pulling this video at random too as you can see the one russian breaks the line and runs straight for the back fence to break the american line. They try briefly to maintain a formation but it devolves into a scrum on their side and that's match.
*Edit*
I don't know why we are still on this topic but I suggest everyone watch that and some of the other videos of it just because it is awesome
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/12 15:18:37
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
While you are on the topic of formations, I'd like to hop in and point out that the Stormcast fight in formations all the time and in all the books so far . Seeing that GW have made a mission for virtually every battle in the books, it comes to me that a person, unfamiliar with any other rule set, may want to see a certain representation in some scenario - "Aha, just like in the book!". One can, of course, line up his troops, but an additional rule to stir the imagination and make cross-references with the lore would certainly be welcome IMO. Maybe not for every army, but why not for stormcast?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/12 15:31:59
Kilkrazy wrote: That is certainly true. And there's nothing in the rules to require you not to put your goblins in a block
Oh look!
About a dozen troops formed up in ranks for mutual protection of their shields against incoming arrows.
It makes a good defensive formation, but when you actually get around to swinging your swords around, I'd want some space. And I'd stick the left handed guys on the left. You ever try to eat a meal next to a left handed guy? It's basically war every time one of you reaches for your drink...
It makes a good defensive formation, but when you actually get around to swinging your swords around, I'd want some space..
Nope. Space is bad in battle.
Number one - it opens your lines and let's you get exposed. Any slinger or whatever can lob whatever he needs into your back ranks. It also means you yourself are open to bring isolated, cut off or flanked on both sides. It also means you lack protection from the guys next to you if you get into trouble. Heaven help you if there is cavalry on the other side too.
Space is a premium on a battle. You won't have it.
The Romans for example did as well as they did (and the Greeks before them, with the phalanx, although that had its issues) because they kept tight, compact formations where shield was almost laid across shield, where, when the Gauls (or whoever, who were often spread out so they could have space to swing their swords round) went up against them, they were often outnumbered two or three two one in the crunch area of the battle,( because the Romans were so tighly packed, every Gaul who charged in ended up facing a lot more Romans per square inch than there were gauls).
As to needing space to swing your sword round, that's pure Hollywood hokum. Why did the Romans do so well in battle? The gladius. Short swords.you don't need space to swing. Just a simple thrust. In those melees, space doesn't exist. You're face to face. Toe to toe. With fifty people crowded into an area where you wouldn't want to put six. And another dozen on the ground, screaming, trying to hold in their guts, or just bleeding out. Short weapons are the key. Stick it in a few inches, twist, pull back out. Aim for the neck, groin or belly. It's all you need to do.That guys a goner, and his blood will slick up the grass and muck up the next guy charging. Your guys in the second rank can stab down and finish off their wounded guys as they step over them.
And I'd stick the left handed guys on the left. You ever try to eat a meal next to a left handed guy? It's basically war every time one of you reaches for your drink...
So he's holding his shield in his right hand? Lol thanks, I can imagine him getting in everyone's way even more.
Lefties are great for storming castles. All those clockwise staircases that are such a hindrance to righties? Yeah, we ignore that quite handily.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/12 16:12:50
Yup. If you're fighting by yourself (In a group of soldiers of course) against an enemy army you might be able to take on one enemy soldiers but then his mate can come around and stab you in the side. If you can take on two then his other mate can come and stab you in your back. And if you can take on three then some guy can come and stab you when you aren't looking. This is true on the offensive as it is on the defensive.
The best way to mitigate this? Have allies surrounding you.
Thought for the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
30k Ultramarines: 2000 pts
Bolt Action Germans: ~1200 pts
AOS Stormcast: Just starting.
The Empire : ~60-70 models.
1500 pts
: My Salamanders painting blog 16 Infantry and 2 Vehicles done so far!
I read a very interest article in Slingshot (Society of Ancients magazine) about storming castles. The writer had the idea of doing a bit of archaeology by recreation, and borrowed a small castle and a load of LARPers for a weekend, to see what sort of tactics realistically would work.
It makes a good defensive formation, but when you actually get around to swinging your swords around, I'd want some space..
Nope. Space is bad in battle.
Number one - it opens your lines and let's you get exposed. Any slinger or whatever can lob whatever he needs into your back ranks. It also means you yourself are open to bring isolated, cut off or flanked on both sides. It also means you lack protection from the guys next to you if you get into trouble. Heaven help you if there is cavalry on the other side too.
Space is a premium on a battle. You won't have it.
The Romans for example did as well as they did (and the Greeks before them, with the phalanx, although that had its issues) because they kept tight, compact formations where shield was almost laid across shield, where, when the Gauls (or whoever, who were often spread out so they could have space to swing their swords round) went up against them, they were often outnumbered two or three two one in the crunch area of the battle,( because the Romans were so tighly packed, every Gaul who charged in ended up facing a lot more Romans per square inch than there were gauls).
As to needing space to swing your sword round, that's pure Hollywood hokum. Why did the Romans do so well in battle? The gladius. Short swords.you don't need space to swing. Just a simple thrust. In those melees, space doesn't exist. You're face to face. Toe to toe. With fifty people crowded into an area where you wouldn't want to put six. And another dozen on the ground, screaming, trying to hold in their guts, or just bleeding out. Short weapons are the key. Stick it in a few inches, twist, pull back out. Aim for the neck, groin or belly. It's all you need to do.That guys a goner, and his blood will slick up the grass and muck up the next guy charging. Your guys in the second rank can stab down and finish off their wounded guys as they step over them.
And I'd stick the left handed guys on the left. You ever try to eat a meal next to a left handed guy? It's basically war every time one of you reaches for your drink...
So he's holding his shield in his right hand? Lol thanks, I can imagine him getting in everyone's way even more.
Lefties are great for storming castles. All those clockwise staircases that are such a hindrance to righties? Yeah, we ignore that quite handily.
Also, just pointing out that with the exception of the romans with their gladius (gladii?*) people fighting with swords was not as common as Hollywood would make us think. Swords were expensive so most soldiers got spears and things like that which consist of a lot less metal and require a lot less of a busy blacksmith's time to make.
(*Hey it is gladii according to google)
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
Another example of fighting in formation, even on a small scale. I can't say how historically accurate Vikings is; it at least tries harder than most shows.
"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." -Napoleon
The thing is, AoS has basically given you only one way of playing
No more or less than WFB did. You can play any way you want with AoS, you can play any way you want with WFB.
True. It's just bloody lot harder to do that in AOS.
It's harder than ever to have 2 guys have in quick time reasonably balanced game with AOS. For all FB's problems at least it was miles ahead to AOS in that regard.
...And if you really think pointless is somehow good then it took all of 1 second to archieve same in FB. Having even some sort of reverse takes hell of a lot more than 1 second.
There is a whole segment of gamers that just want to play casual themed games and could care less how well they play toys soldiers because no matter how tactical you think you are,,after all you are just playing with toy soldiers,its just a game.They just want to socialize and have a good time and use the cool models they painted up.GW is going after this segment and from what I'm seeing and hearing its working.Just this weekend Ill be hosting another session at the largest game shop in the city,this time will have 2 more new members joining us,not to mention the watchers we get from the 100+ patrons that are usually in the store on Saturday evenings.
Yes there are. And points aren't evil enemy for players of that segment. In fact it just makes it _easier_ as you have some of the base work done to ensure there's reasonable chance for both without spending multiple practice runs to get one reasonable scenario for anything but small handful units scenario.
Nevermind silliness like taking one model which then barring seriously bad luck spawns close to 100 models in turn. Then on 2nd turn those 100 models minus whatever opponent kills each spawns close to hundred new models. Good luck with having fun with that one. Worst cheese FB had pales in comparison to taking one meagre hero in AOS
(nevermind AOS having fluff that takes away reason to fight. When fluff is set up so that it's by default eternal draw there's no incentive to fight anymore. Result is irrelevant. At least in fluff of FB there was _hope_ of better. Now there's no hope, no despair, no nothing)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/15 08:37:56
Kilkrazy wrote: I read a very interest article in Slingshot (Society of Ancients magazine) about storming castles. The writer had the idea of doing a bit of archaeology by recreation, and borrowed a small castle and a load of LARPers for a weekend, to see what sort of tactics realistically would work.
Do you know if the experiment was ever done, or if the article was online anywhere?
The experiment certainly was done because he wrote it all up in Sligshot and it was a very interesting read. I am pretty sure the article was this one:
A practical guide to storming a castle, by John Curry, published in 2000. It won an editor's prize.
IDK if I still have the issue with this article. I have been a member on and off several times over the past 30 years, and whatever copies of Slingshot I still have are scattered around various boxes from moving house frequently in the past few years.
SOA has made available 45 years of Slingshot on DVD for £35.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The clip from Vikings is fun but looks unrealistic in terms of tactics.
The Saxons obviously outnumber the Vikings quite badly, as well as having better armour and weapons. In the circumstances, they should have kept the Vikings under a steady fire from their archers, to stop them moving and split the spearmen for a simultaneous frontal and a flanking attack.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/15 11:12:25
Necro-warning perhaps, but I feel this topic might be worth taking a second look at in light of changed circumstances.
I assume Haley and the supporters here of his views will now be mourning GW's latest move of promoting a points system as one of the ways to play the game?
Will this arbitrary system of points attribution provide a cloak of legitimacy to peoples frightening need to prove their validity as human beings by winning at toy soldiers?
Dai wrote: Haha, this is going to be a real "gotcha" moment for some individuals isn't it?
It probably should, but I kinda doubt it.
After all when armies are mismatched, a little gentleman’s discussion, and we can add or take units away. It works better than points values. BETTERhow great of GW to provide us a alternative way of playing..
Dai wrote: Haha, this is going to be a real "gotcha" moment for some individuals isn't it?
It probably should, but I kinda doubt it.
After all when armies are mismatched, a little gentleman’s discussion, and we can add or take units away. It works better than points values. BETTERhow great of GW to provide us a alternative way of playing..
Also, we have always been at war with Eurasia.
Meh, I don't think I have any need for points. Fair enough to the company for providing it to those who do though.
Everyone need's to understand that GW are not on some kind of moral crusade planning to bring back the golden age of gentlemanly fun wargames. They just want to make money. Clearly GW now feel they lost too many players and sales by not having points in AoS.
Ironically we will soon be in the situation that you can choose to play with points or not. It will be interesting to see if this destroys the game.
It seems like Haley was on just such a moral crusade though. And several others who made similar arguments as a backhanded way of justifying the lazy design of AoS.
The way Haley attempted to paint anyone arguing in favour of a fair points based balancing system as some kind of immature powergamer uncaring of others enjoyment was really acting like a big douche IMO.
To be fair, there's nothing wrong with "the golden age of gentlemanly wargaming". It's just that it's not conducive to the pickup game culture, and despite what GW seems to think not everyone has a gaming club they are a part of where you have club rules to sort that kinda thing out.
WayneTheGame wrote: To be fair, there's nothing wrong with "the golden age of gentlemanly wargaming". It's just that it's not conducive to the pickup game culture, and despite what GW seems to think not everyone has a gaming club they are a part of where you have club rules to sort that kinda thing out.
It's not counter to the pickup game culture though. People have been playing AoS since launch without points and clubs. I never had issues with it until these stupid tournament packs started coming out.
Kilkrazy wrote: I used to play a lot of points based games during "the golden age of gentlemanly wargaming", and a lot of non-points based games too.
It is the kujibiki unbalance of the points systems created by GW that led to rampant min-maxing.
As such, it must be a worry that the new system for AoS might have the same level of failings.
I agree.
No points is arguably better than a poorly balanced point system.
A properly balanced points system is better than both though. Especially as long as players are prepared to also try out stuff outside the balanced baseline. If the latter is impossible, then that's not a failing of the game, but a deficit in the adventurousness and imagination of it's players.
I think a good points system with a restrictive army list is best for normal competitive games in tournaments and pick-up formats. It can also be a useful way to balance scenarios created by an umpire.
For campaign play and more interesting command ability testing games, a system that prevents a player from picking his ideal force is much better.
you want'.
. Seeing that 
The Empire 
1500 pts
: 
& 
