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.

OgreChubbs wrote:
Couldn't tell ya typed in aos battle reports and these are the only ones dumb enough to try in with a camera on.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=age+of+sigmar+battle+report

 Ghaz wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
Couldn't tell ya typed in aos battle reports and these are the only ones dumb enough to try in with a camera on.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=age+of+sigmar+battle+report

I think you are seeing something differnt then me

OgreChubbs wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
Couldn't tell ya typed in aos battle reports and these are the only ones dumb enough to try in with a camera on.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=age+of+sigmar+battle+report

I think you are seeing something differnt then me

Indeed. It's almost like YouTube has and algorithm that filters results based on previous videos viewed or something. . .

OgreChubbs wrote:
Couldn't tell ya typed in aos battle reports and these are the only ones dumb enough to try in with a camera on.

Had to scroll a while but here

21 min all centre https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=euoum_IOjAs

You do realize that in minute 30 the focus moves towards other bits of the battle, don't you? As in, he basically makes a pince manneuver on thos skelletons. by attacking from the rear the backline of the other death units.

23 min atleast fast forwarded and they are all bottom right https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h7yCKI5UF2U

And in this one the two forces are almost evenly split on multiple areas, with 1.2k on the destruction player on that poin and 0.8k doing other stuff.

 EnTyme wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
Couldn't tell ya typed in aos battle reports and these are the only ones dumb enough to try in with a camera on.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=age+of+sigmar+battle+report

I think you are seeing something differnt then me

Indeed. It's almost like YouTube has and algorithm that filters results based on previous videos viewed or something. . .

If that was the case I would have ALOT of fnaf lol. My kid watches that guy with pink hair playing fnaf constantly, and watches people play with the stuffies.

Btw I must admit I never googled aos battle reports before..... ever. I find the game painful and imbarassing to watch. I would rather get caught watching something dirty lol.

But this is off topic and I am done have a nice day and let me end it with ALL TO THE MIDDLE

OgreChubbs wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
Couldn't tell ya typed in aos battle reports and these are the only ones dumb enough to try in with a camera on.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=age+of+sigmar+battle+report

I think you are seeing something differnt then me

Spoiler:

You do realize there's more than one page of results...

Lord Kragan wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
Couldn't tell ya typed in aos battle reports and these are the only ones dumb enough to try in with a camera on.

Had to scroll a while but here

21 min all centre https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=euoum_IOjAs

You do realize that in minute 30 the focus moves towards other bits of the battle, don't you? As in, he basically makes a pince manneuver on thos skelletons. by attacking from the rear the backline of the other death units.

23 min atleast fast forwarded and they are all bottom right https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h7yCKI5UF2U

And in this one the two forces are almost evenly split on multiple areas, with 1.2k on the destruction player on that poin and 0.8k doing other stuff.

Pretty much this!

Things like weapon ranges mean that if you just slam into your opponent without thought you can try to grind them down but at that point you are taking unnecessary loses when proper positioning or even feinting with a disposable unit could yield your units a better chance to inflict maximum damage, not to mention utilizing stacking buffs and command abilities in order to clear your opponent from an objective. If you are smart you will even utilize speedy units to tartpit a larger unit far away from an objective while someone else can claim it. By his logic every single game of 40k is 2 sides shooting at each other without moving toward the middle.

???

Why are we talking about bad youtube battle reports when MongooseMatt, among others, have posted their well done battle reports on this forum?

Anyway, if GW see a reason to change the system they will. It hasn't been a massive complaint so they probably won't but who knows.

Just house-rule it if it suits your fellow players and have fun.

IMO there is no reason to change the rules only because the rules are slightly complicated for games with more than 2 players. It is quite clear that the rules are made for a 1vs1 game, where this system works great and allows for tactical decisionmaking. Even if they encourage larger games it's completely normal that some adaptations on the ruleset might be needed for ease of play (so-called house rules).

Atleast with everyone I have ever played with this would be no more complicated than a simple question before starting the game "Let's do combat initiative on a player by player basis instead to make it simpler?" (sorry, not a native english speaker so the question could possibly be different, but you see my point)

Oh lord no.

Picking your fights is a massive part of AoS. Pick too many, and you may see your favoured units beaten up before they can swing.

Pick too few, and you hand control to your opponent.

Introducing Initiative changes that massively. Then we're back to Elves going first all the time, thus giving them favourable conditions for massed charges, whilst discouraging say, Orcs and Ogres from doing the same - because they'll typically be striking last anyway.

The alternating combat activations is one of the best parts of the rules. In fact I'd like to see the rest of the game go that route. With initiative you just end up with one army always going first and the other always going last, as in WFB. i think it'd be step back despite some issues it causes in multiplayer battles.

In 1vs1 and 2vs2 I have had little problem when the current system, but I have to admit that I have has some of this problem when it comes to 3vs3 and larger games. With a one at a time approach that will leave 5 people standing around waiting for one person to role combat. Now the book does have rule in the coalition of death section that has one person on each side swing with one of there units at the same time, but I feel like this could be easily exploited. That being said reintroducing initiative would only serve to create greater issues within the rules. My proposal would be that on your teams turn, you can nominate one unit to swing first, after that all engaged units then pile in and attack at the same time. Now this solution isn't perfect and I think should only be applied in situations where there is a high number of players. Maybe I'm wrong though and the Coalition of Death rules are actually a better solution, I haven't had the chance to properly use the Coalition of Death rules in a larger game and my proposed solution is only something I came up with one day after having a lager that average game with multiple players.

Totalwar1402 wrote: I think when GW wrote these rules they envisaged this as just a simple back and forth that would simplify the game. However, this ignores human nature because gamers simply try to be gamey with this mechanic and in a multiplayer match it degenerates into a petty wrangling as its a group decision. I can't just focus on what my units are doing, I have to confer with everyone else and keep track of four separate armies without much knowledge about how they all play and what should go first. Which is very confusing and slows the game down as they have to explain why their unit should go first.

It is a simple back and forth. Deciding what happens is up to your team, if you guys can't then how simple the rules are is not going to help all that much.

So I think they should bring back initiative or FAQ the rules so that your movement or some other stat is used to measure who goes first in combat. It should be something arbitrary and should force it to be on a combat by combat basis. There shouldn't be that decision making process because I don't think they ever intended there to be a decision making process involved. You shouldn't have to consider the whole army and situation every time the close combat phase starts and then go to committee in a multiplayer match. If the rules are supposed to be casual and easy to understand then this mechanic runs counter to that because it introduces a convoluted layer of decision making to an otherwise straight forward game.

Are you seriously suggesting that the game changes because making tactical decisions in a 3v3 is a problem for you? You would rather have an arbitrary advantage given to some models? It is an extra layer of tactical thought and you should have to consider the entire situation when you do anything in a battle.

Totalwar1402 wrote:People that I saw actively tried to gain an advantage by selecting units that would cause the most damage and deciding which combats they could afford to go last in. That's bad enough.

That is how it is supposed to work.

NinthMusketeer wrote:We're you doing one unit at a time? In the battles my flgs has always done one unit per player. So it would be three units going on your side, then three on the other, etc.

Because the rules as written state that its one unit per army.