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.

 unmercifulconker wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Can't wait to see what, if any, new toys Wanderers get...


Orion just feels so...petty now.

I wonder if they will do a Wanderers BT. Initially it didn't really make sense for them since most Aelf survivors took shelter in Azyr but now life is starting to take hold in Ghyran, maybe a lot of Aelves (Wanderers) re-integrate themselves into their natural environment in harmony with the Sylvaneth. I'd like to see what they're up to but I don't think they will get anything new sadly. Fortunately their models will age really well.

Oh, I doubt the Wanderers will do anything with the Sylvaneth.

There is a lot of bad blood there, per the fluff. The Sylvaneth feel that the Wanderers "let them down" when the gates went down and the Wanderers were basically butchered protecting Ghyran.

Oh, well a fair bit of time has past since so perhaps they have made some amends, or maybe even a war between them has broken out.

I hope in the next campaign book we get snippets of what's happened to the major factions since the war for Ghyran. I haven't had a chance to pick up the new SC BT yet and would love to know if there's anything good in the fluff bubbles pages.

I'm hoping they keep the "wanderer" aspect, being nomads who explore the realms and heal the wounded lands while harmonizing with the unique elements of each realm sounds far more interesting to me than them going back to forest hermits. (IMO)

Agreed on needing more info on the other factions, can't just be Order and it's cities that advanced with the time-skip.

 Vermis wrote:
Gonna be honest, I quite like that. Sounds a bit Miyazaki.

Haha, Castle in the Sky was my first thought when I read about the Steamhead Duardin.

One of the best movies I've ever seen and lord knows how much money I'd give for a Air Destroyer Goliath model.

The warhammer community page recently got a brief article on double turns: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/02/27/tactical-toolbox-double-turns/

It starts off with this intro:

Sometimes it can feel that you lose a game just because you lost that single initiative roll that gave your opponent the double turn. Your troops get shot to pieces, your heroes get trampled to death and all you have left are some scared peasants with pitchforks. It does not have to be this way. In this article, I will try to help you deal with those amazing and awful double turns.

So I was thinking this will be a good article for players, as we all know your opponent getting a double turn can be pretty bad. I'm not a fan of random initiative, but rules are rules and accordingly I think it's good that they offer advice to players on this. In particular it seems like the article is about to have some content on how to manage one's opponent getting a double turn, which is something I'm particularly interested in as that is a weaker area for me. So I am going into this with high hopes.

And instead the entire article is focused on when and how to exploit a double-turn. Not only did it lack any information I needed (it is good for new players in general though) but there is near-nothing on how to deal with a double turn, which annoys me. Now I really dislike random initiative specifically because of the potency of a double turn--I have had a decent number of matches that would have otherwise been decent games had I not gotten a round 1-2 double turn which instead left me with a completely hollow victory. So this is the kind of article I might write, but I'm not GW. GW is supporting random initiative and accordingly I would expect an article about double turns to include something on dealing with your enemy getting them. With this I feel like GW accepts that if your opponent gets a double-turn you are simply hosed and the only counter is to better exploit the double turn that you might get in return, which is frustrating for me since they are the ones who supposedly think its a good idea.

It's like you didn't even read the full article...

Tactical Toolbox wrote:When your opponent could get a double turn after you, keep the following in mind:

* Deny their ranged units and abilities relevant targets in their second turn.
* Make sure your vulnerable units are unreachable after a double move or are well supported by other units with charges or shooting.
* Try to only be in combat where it is in your favour if your opponent has a double turn.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
It's like you didn't even read the full article...

Tactical Toolbox wrote:When your opponent could get a double turn after you, keep the following in mind:

* Deny their ranged units and abilities relevant targets in their second turn.
* Make sure your vulnerable units are unreachable after a double move or are well supported by other units with charges or shooting.
* Try to only be in combat where it is in your favour if your opponent has a double turn.

I didn't claim that it had literally nothing in regards to dealing with double turns. Bringing up that the entire article about exploiting double turns has three bullet points in regards to actually dealing with doesn't refute my point at all.

Sorry man, but I read it and thought it was pretty cut and dry.
Double Turns happen, and you need to focus on mitigating damage. It's one of the testa of a good tactician in Age of Sigmar.
This article advised players on how to make the most of a double turn, and how to survive the enemies double turn.
Sorry if that doesn't help you, but it's not the articles fault.
Also, it's a toolbox, not a walk-through....

The first example about retreating out of combat deals directly with losing the double turn, as well as forcing the difficult decision onto your opponent.

Great article

In my group we house rule that turns alternate. We do this because double turns really favor shooty armies. If you have never given a Skaven shooty army two turns to unload on you, try it, and you will see what I mean. For tournaments we alternate because the rules say we have to, but I am hoping they change that for match play in one of the General's Compendium iterations.

I have to say that I hope they keep turn initiative. It actually helps a lot with the set game round length and objective style of the missions.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
So this is the kind of article I might write, but I'm not GW.

The guy that wrote it has nothing to do with GW either - it's just a fan blog https://aos-tactics.com/. He may even be here on Dakka for all we know...

I recommend the more sensitive of you to stay away from the "zoning & denial" article. Sometimes, seeing formations like these, literally turns me off the game - I can only imagine what they can do to a mind that hasn't been exposed to the gamey side of miniature battles. People are used to see rank and file formations, endless lines or columns of advancing infantry or even an amorphous blob of charging barbarians not these ... star shaped and "E" shaped and god-knows-what shaped groups of model that just look plain ugly, contrary to what GW is trying to promote in their game.

 CoreCommander wrote:
I recommend the more sensitive of you to stay away from the "zoning & denial" article. Sometimes, seeing formations like these, literally turns me off the game - I can only imagine what they can do to a mind that hasn't been exposed to the gamey side of miniature battles.

Someone who's never played a GW game, you mean?

 CoreCommander wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
So this is the kind of article I might write, but I'm not GW.

The guy that wrote it has nothing to do with GW either - it's just a fan blog https://aos-tactics.com/. He may even be here on Dakka for all we know...

I am

I feel the need to contribute to this discussion to make some stuff clear, I hope you all don't mind!

About a month ago I started my blog, https://aos-tactics.com/ because I had the feeling that a lot of people were negative about the game's balance and rules because there was so little tactical information. People, including myself, blamed the game for their own lack of tactical knowledge. I hoped that by starting this blog I could help players like you and me to see those losses not as a fault in the game but as a challenge to get better.

With all my articles I try to refrain from saying "do x to win" since I believe that if we grow our understanding of the game's mechanics we can find our own ways of dealing with specific scenarios.

With this specific article, I hoped to give players enough about the double turn so that you know how to use one or defend against one. Reverse engineering and all that.

In theory, each game only has to have 1 double turn, the rest can be prevented by simply not taking it when the chance occurs.

I love this game and am happy to see soo manny discussions about it! Yay!

GW seems to no longer want to use the clear flying base for flying units. Huge mistake imo, as these silly thing that connect them to the base look way worse in most cases.

 streetsamurai wrote:
GW seems to no longer want to use the clear flying base for flying units. Huge mistake imo, as these silly thing that connect them to the base look way worse in most cases.

While they may not be perfect, I like them. Something different than seeing clear plastic bases that take the idea of a unit flying but only hovering on ugly plastic. That said, it is getting tiring seeing ribbons all the time though.

Matthijs wrote:

 CoreCommander wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
So this is the kind of article I might write, but I'm not GW.

The guy that wrote it has nothing to do with GW either - it's just a fan blog https://aos-tactics.com/. He may even be here on Dakka for all we know...

I am

I feel the need to contribute to this discussion to make some stuff clear, I hope you all don't mind!

About a month ago I started my blog, https://aos-tactics.com/ because I had the feeling that a lot of people were negative about the game's balance and rules because there was so little tactical information. People, including myself, blamed the game for their own lack of tactical knowledge. I hoped that by starting this blog I could help players like you and me to see those losses not as a fault in the game but as a challenge to get better.

With all my articles I try to refrain from saying "do x to win" since I believe that if we grow our understanding of the game's mechanics we can find our own ways of dealing with specific scenarios.

With this specific article, I hoped to give players enough about the double turn so that you know how to use one or defend against one. Reverse engineering and all that.

In theory, each game only has to have 1 double turn, the rest can be prevented by simply not taking it when the chance occurs.

I love this game and am happy to see soo manny discussions about it! Yay!

Ah, well that makes me feel better.

Davor wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
GW seems to no longer want to use the clear flying base for flying units. Huge mistake imo, as these silly thing that connect them to the base look way worse in most cases.

While they may not be perfect, I like them. Something different than seeing clear plastic bases that take the idea of a unit flying but only hovering on ugly plastic. That said, it is getting tiring seeing ribbons all the time though.

I also like the change from clear plastic connectors. Even if it can be a little weird at times (Aetherwings) I like it better than having a non-model part of the model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CoreCommander wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
So this is the kind of article I might write, but I'm not GW.

The guy that wrote it has nothing to do with GW either - it's just a fan blog https://aos-tactics.com/. He may even be here on Dakka for all we know...

I recommend the more sensitive of you to stay away from the "zoning & denial" article. Sometimes, seeing formations like these, literally turns me off the game - I can only imagine what they can do to a mind that hasn't been exposed to the gamey side of miniature battles. People are used to see rank and file formations, endless lines or columns of advancing infantry or even an amorphous blob of charging barbarians not these ... star shaped and "E" shaped and god-knows-what shaped groups of model that just look plain ugly, contrary to what GW is trying to promote in their game.

It's not as bad as it may seem from that article since those tactics are just tools in the larger toolbox so to speak. They show up sometimes, but other times spacing units out isn't desirable since it allows a smaller & weaker unit to win in combat by attacking just one end or corner and leaving the spaced-out unit unable to attack back with most of its models. Similarly, a unit that is bunched up with minimum distance between bases can often get a lot more of its models attacking in melee (2 'ranks' of 25 or 32mm based models can get 1" melee range). That article was specifically about how to space out when it is called for (and does a good job at that), but that doesn't mean its always the best option (far from it).

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It's not as bad as it may seem from that article since those tactics are just tools in the larger toolbox so to speak. They show up sometimes, but other times spacing units out isn't desirable since it allows a smaller & weaker unit to win in combat by attacking just one end or corner and leaving the spaced-out unit unable to attack back with most of its models. Similarly, a unit that is bunched up with minimum distance between bases can often get a lot more of its models attacking in melee (2 'ranks' of 25 or 32mm based models can get 1" melee range). That article was specifically about how to space out when it is called for (and does a good job at that), but that doesn't mean its always the best option (far from it).

Yes, I know that one doesn't juggle all the time with these strange configurations, but if there was one aspect of AoS that I'd keep hidden from the public it would be this. It just personally troubles me to no end that a game designed to be a visual hobby first and most could be turned to some hideous Go variation. And coming to think of it, as Vermis suggested above, of all games that I've played it only happens in GW's ones (for various resons) - the same ones that tutor you to build cinematic clashes and heroic tales before anything else.

That Zoning article is EPIC @Matthijas!

That zoning article reminds me of 5th ed 40k and not in a good way. The 2" coherency chains and spam lists ruin the experience of a game.

 CoreCommander wrote:
It just personally troubles me to no end that a game designed to be a visual hobby first and most could be turned to some hideous Go variation. And coming to think of it, as Vermis suggested above, of all games that I've played it only happens in GW's ones (for various resons) - the same ones that tutor you to build cinematic clashes and heroic tales before anything else.

Not trolling, by the way. I see the same: GW aren't the only ones to stick 'gamey' stuff in their games, but from what I've seen they stick in the most - and they somehow manage to convince players that it's 'fluffy'.

(And outwardly they might tutor you to put spectacle first, but there's that Rick Priestly quote about sales driving the studio. Funny how GW's games about heroes' escapades tend to involve bigger and bigger headcounts.)

I also feel the same about those zoning and denial configurations. I guess you could call it tactical if it involves on-board decisions, but something about it gives me a queasy Lovecraft-style vibe. What loose formation - squad or platoon or whatever - would tie itself in such knots for these advantages? I have to agree it feels 'gamey': not arising naturally from the actions allowed in the core rules (especially since there's hardly any) or by how troops and armies would realistically behave, but - with respect to Matthijs - the result of looking for loopholes and cracks in the mechanics to exploit. 'Tactical metagaming', to coin a phrase. I doubt that Jervis or whoever wrote the rules snuck in E-shaped and star-shaped formations as easter eggs to delight us all with their hidden depths...

It may turn out to be a different thing but I highly doubt it so I'm going to let the Hype flow:



IT IS REAAAAL! IT IS REAAAAL! STEAMHEADS ARE COMING THIS MARCH!!!!!

Guys, the whole zoning thing is just regular 40k bubblewrap & area denial. But it uses Fantasy figures. Carry on.

ZOMG, is that robot looking thing as big as a Bloodthirster!! Did AoS progress 29k years into the future and we are this close to bridging the gap between Fantasy and 40k!

Robots everywhere!

I'm betting it's a mech-suit rather than a robot but who knows, if GW go full Castle in the Sky with this then it could very well be a robot to go along with their airships. (Would be interesting to hear why Duardin rather have machines do the jobs they could do instead, is it that dangerous amongst the skies in the mortal realms?)

Can't wait for a bigger image. Hype!

@Matthijs, awesome job on the article! Good to see it got such great recognition.

As for the zoning stuff, I can't say I'm a fan either of the idea ot everyone turning it into a "must" thing to win but at least it adds another depth to AoS gameplay.

I did something similar at the Empire site with putting up landsknecht formations that took advantage of the reach of pole-arms or funneled an attacker into a tougher unit.

It was mostly cumbersome blobs though so I thought that balanced out the advantages in attacks.

 CoreCommander wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
So this is the kind of article I might write, but I'm not GW.

The guy that wrote it has nothing to do with GW either - it's just a fan blog https://aos-tactics.com/. He may even be here on Dakka for all we know...

I recommend the more sensitive of you to stay away from the "zoning & denial" article. Sometimes, seeing formations like these, literally turns me off the game - I can only imagine what they can do to a mind that hasn't been exposed to the gamey side of miniature battles. People are used to see rank and file formations, endless lines or columns of advancing infantry or even an amorphous blob of charging barbarians not these ... star shaped and "E" shaped and god-knows-what shaped groups of model that just look plain ugly, contrary to what GW is trying to promote in their game.

This is a game and at the level of play those techniques are going to make a difference in, aesthetic takes a backseat. If you want to see pretty go to an art gallery.

So... First we got Sigmarines, now we're getting Sigtitans? Awesome!

Can we get more 40k in our Fantasy? The mind boggles!

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
So... First we got Sigmarines, now we're getting Sigtitans? Awesome!

Can we get more 40k in our Fantasy? The mind boggles!

Maybe the Emperor's death throes will open a rift to the Mortal Realms. I'm sure Sigmar has the time and resources to forge a new Astronomicon. Go full on Warmahordes for 8th

I dont play dwarfs or really like their over all design in any setting, just not a dwarf guy. That being said, I love me some steampunk, if GW can pull off a steampunk robot suit I would be super happy. I loved the gyrocopters but the price for a model the size of a paint pot was a no go. Lets hope they get a start collecting box!!

Can't make it out... TBH that brownish bit at the bottom centre of the pic reminds me of a sailing ship's rudder, but maybe I'm reading into it.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Guys, the whole zoning thing is just regular 40k bubblewrap & area denial. But it uses Fantasy figures. Carry on.

Oh, well that makes it alright then.

Yeah, the more I look at it the more it looks like a ship hull. So I'm changing my bet to small airship about to ram that bloodthirstier.

Haha, it'd be fun to see the Steamheads as the new cavalry army with all flying mobile units and the ship crews as foot sloggers.

If the Grot air pirates appear soon as a counter force then we could get some epic air battles artwork between every alliance.