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.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Are people buying models for the game, or for other reasons though? It could be that people just like the models, but don't care about the game.

Possible and that does happen that people buy the odd miniature they like here and there. However in general custom from such lines is often far less per customer unless they are buying for another game system. So if GW is seeing solid sales over whole lines and seeing customers buying more than a few odd models then its clear that those people are most likely playing the AoS game than any other.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Are people buying models for the game, or for other reasons though? It could be that people just like the models, but don't care about the game.

This line of thinking is actually what got us the original version of AoS. Kirby and friends thought that they didn't need structure because everyone would just buy the pretty models. That wasn't happening hence the original GHB.

Personally I think AoS is fantastic. It's got better balance than anytime in fantasy since ravening hordes and a great spread of winning armies. There is much more to positioning in AoS than I ever felt with WFB. In 3 years this went from a game on that could have been written on a napkin to a very fun and solid game. Opinions of course will vary.

I think one thing people are still coming to terms with is terrain - even GW - when it comes to fantasy. In the past the board was very open; now AoS actually wants to have tighter terrain rules and more density of terrain on the board and the open moving units favour that kind of setup.

 Hulksmash wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
. There is much more to positioning in AoS than I ever felt with WFB.

Ok, how? In WHFB you had to be careful of your flanks, charges were done before movement so you had to position everything the turn before, and units had facings, so you couldn't just turn around and attack what you want. How is that less positioning than AoS?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
. There is much more to positioning in AoS than I ever felt with WFB.

Ok, how? In WHFB you had to be careful of your flanks, charges were done before movement so you had to position everything the turn before, and units had facings, so you couldn't just turn around and attack what you want. How is that less positioning than AoS?

Individual model position within a unit is extremely important in AoS, thanks to melee weapon ranges, base to base pile-in restrictions, and varying base sizes. While facing isn't important, model position absolutely is. Also, magic happens before movement, and you have the possibility of two consecutive turns for one player, so you want to plan for that.

WHFB had atrocious model balance for most of its lifespan, but it was definitely a much deeper and more challenging and rewarding system than AoS. Not to say AoS is bad - it found a good balance between streamlined play and tactical depth.

It depends on what you are after in a game.

The only thing WHFB and AOS have in common is that they both roll D6s to determine outcomes and both lean heavily on listbuilding over gameplay in comparison to other games like Kings of War, DB2, Hordes of the Things, and even Lord of the Rings (though that being a GW game is more middle of the road with the listbuilding shenanigans, not minimal)

IMO they both have atrocious balance issues when it comes to casual games. In either it is too easy to take a tournament level list and plop it down in a casual game and nuke the other player, intentionally or not.

They both have tactics and strategies.

One game favors maneuver and positioning and battlefield management. The other fields micro management of weapon positions, combo chaining, combo buffs, and maximizing dice odds through command abilities and synergies kind of like CCGs like Warhammer: Invasion do (minus the positioning as in a card game there is absolutely none)

Players looking for a game of maneuver and battlefield management and traditional wargaming tropes will find AOS to have no tactics. Not because there are no tactics, but because there are no traditional wargaming tactics present for the most part.

Or in other words "there are no tactics and gameplay that I am interested in."

Warhammer Fantasy 6th edition was the closest and pinnacle to traditional wargaming and less on listbuilding and combo chaining etc.

ClassicCarraway wrote:

Pancakey wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
I tried AOS and it was, uh, crap
Simply put I dislike the shallowness of the rules and the way that you either have a big thing or you lose. You have the right power units or you lose. You Skaven dont have Verminlords or those new Skyre Ratogres then you dont win, simple as. If you dont bring the Clan formation then you dont get the LD buffs you desperately need (and that used to be army integral and really need to be) and so you lose as your piss-poor LD (or whatever it is called now) coupled with the stupid battleshock system causes entire units to erode away in a single turn. Of course you can counter this by bringing..... What exactly? That one formation again. Thats it.

You see, for me its not just the shallow rules that I cannot stand (and lets face it, there is no such thing as 'tactics' any more, not like there was) but also the need to bring a very limited selection of units from a select number of armies or you will auto-lose.There is no counter-meta, no outsmarting your opponent, none of that. Hell, even your actions dont really have consequences as you can shoot into and even whilst in combat.

For me the game just feels like a desperate attempt from GW to milk the old world one last time.

This x40000.

The game has been out for over THREE YEARS.

How long will GW prop up this disaster of “game design”?

You mean the disaster of game design that was basically dragged and dropped into their #1 game system (and probably the most popular tabletop wargame around)? You mean the disaster of game design that has saw sales skyrocket and community growth on a scale that likely has never happened before? THAT game design disaster?

While GW games may not be your cup of tea (and let's be honest, it's not AoS, it's GW designs in general most seem to have issues with), there is no denying that GW and their two core lines are doing better than ever, so they must be doing something right.

It sells well because newspawn to the hobby enter a GamesWorkshop (or as my local one now calls itself "Warhammer") amd get started in the game because they do not know there is anything better out there, and by the time they learn of the wider spectrum it is usually too late because they are now used to beer-and-pretzels level shallowness.

Knight wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Infinity

You need to endure the arrogant attitude and the cult following that makes CB. As long as that situation persists and competitive play is their primary focus, I don't see myself involved with them. Enjoy whatever you do and let others be.

Ive never found arrogance a problem. The rules are tight and the armies balanced (except CA and Tohaa, feth CA and Tohaa) and the players are good natured and fun. There are few rules queries and when there are it takes seconds to resolve them (or as long as it takes to find the relevant rule) and the meta is not stuck in a monotrack like GW's "bring these meta units from these meta factions or have 'fun'. Funnily enough the competitive play nature ot the game eads to it being a lot more relaxing that some of these non-competitive ones, if only because it is actually playtested.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The problem is that the large bulk of the GW players conflate complexity with depth, resulting in a huge pushback against any sort of streamlining.

The problem is GW's games are still too complex even when they are streamlined. Or should I say too messy. Take Bolt Action or Pike and Shot as alternatives, the rules are easy to follow, the activation and fighting mechanisms are simple and the armies are largely similar for the most part. And yet they both manage to have a great scope of tactical depth. WHFB had depth, movement mattered and committing to a charge was a major thing you had to be sure of, but AoS has none of that.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
. There is much more to positioning in AoS than I ever felt with WFB.

Ok, how? In WHFB you had to be careful of your flanks, charges were done before movement so you had to position everything the turn before, and units had facings, so you couldn't just turn around and attack what you want. How is that less positioning than AoS?

Individual model position within a unit is extremely important in AoS, thanks to melee weapon ranges, base to base pile-in restrictions, and varying base sizes. While facing isn't important, model position absolutely is. Also, magic happens before movement, and you have the possibility of two consecutive turns for one player, so you want to plan for that.

Thats micromanagment. In WHFB positioning your units was key, you had to have skirmishers or covering units on your flanks because if you took one in the flank you where in a really bad shape. Charge breakers where needed if you wanted to bait your opponent out of position, or prevent them from hitting your main units. You had to account for terrain and its effect on your moving blocks of troops, you had to guess (at least until 8th) when you where close enough to charge and then go for it, because if you where out you would soon be taking a charge to the face. The position of your general and BSB where key to keeping troops in line and not fleeing. Units had to be facing the correct way or stop and turn or wheel. Positioning and movement where key to winning and losing, and many a time a player has lost because they left a gap in their lines and let skirmishers of cavalry through to ravage their rear, or failed a crucial charge because they failed to account for terrain, or been battered by cannonfire and archers because they left a unit out in the open.
AoS has none of that.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
WHFB had atrocious model balance for most of its lifespan, but it was definitely a much deeper and more challenging and rewarding system than AoS. Not to say AoS is bad - it found a good balance between streamlined play and tactical depth.

Indeed. One of the saving graces of 6th edition was that it was a little more balanced than most and put a leash on some of the more mental army lists.

As for AOS, seeing how simplified the game was from the start was an immediate turn off. It was ridiculous. It gave the impression that the designers weren't taking it seriously, almost like they were trolling the fanbase after squatting WHFB. On top of that the new lore has no appeal. It just seems a bit boring and ultimately pointless. You could have had AOS in the old fantasy setting. The Stormcast models are pretty cool I have to say, but then GW has long had the knack of creating gorgeous/iconic model lines and the Stormcast join that list I think. The problem is almost all the other new models. The newer additions to the orc range look like they were pulled from a free to play Facebook game.

Oh and £60 for 5 blood knights? Have a fething word with yourself GW.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Are people buying models for the game, or for other reasons though? It could be that people just like the models, but don't care about the game.

Definitely buying OOP models, but the new stuff is just too expensive. Some of it is nice, but to me, much of it is just over the top silly looking.

@master of ordinance

I call bs. You're just describing other micro management by your own definition. Field positioning matters in both WFB and AoS. Flanks matter in AoS & WFB. Proper deployment means the difference between winning and losing. And at least there isn't only DE/VC/and Daemons that are viable now

In fact AoS actually requires you to play the game. Something that didn't happen much in WFB because it was just about slugging it out. AoS revolves entirely around objectives and board control.

Because I refuse to play with unpainted figures, but I'm also horrendously slow at painting. I am basically my own obstacle.

 Hulksmash wrote:
@master of ordinance

I call bs. You're just describing other micro management by your own definition. Field positioning matters in both WFB and AoS. Flanks matter in AoS & WFB. Proper deployment means the difference between winning and losing. And at least there isn't only DE/VC/and Daemons that are viable now

In fact AoS actually requires you to play the game. Something that didn't happen much in WFB because it was just about slugging it out. AoS revolves entirely around objectives and board control.

Reread the 6th Edition rulebook, there are plenty of scenarios in that book alone that focused on objectives and themed play. Also I see another dig on 7th, Thankfully, NOBODY here is even MENTIONING playing 7th.

I started in 7th. It was ok. I liked it more than 8th, which added a bunch of stupid crap I didn't like.
I thought it was more tactical than 8th, which to me boiled down to "hurr, I have a bigger block then you! I am unstoppable!" or "hurr, I cast purple sun! There goes your elite infantry!"
8th still had the same movement restrictions though, so you could at least try to loop around the huge block and hit something else.

By the sound of it, I probably should have started WHFB earlier. 6th ed sounds more to my liking, and I do have the 6th ed Lizardman Army book, which is just fantastic. Army books back then had so much more content than they do now. Now its just pretty pictures.

I physically CANNOT recommend 6th edition enough, it was pretty much the benchmark for balanced rules that was only spoiled by some poorly written Army Books. You can say the Army Book balance got Thorpe-d.


And before it starts, you'll hear nonsense about how 5 man knight units wiped out all infantry on the charge. Ignore it, there's more than enough math to disprove that as the average.

@Hulksmash I think the key difference is that in the old fantasy rules if you attacked on a flank (side) or rear of an enemy unit block (or monster) then the way the attack resolved was different. You'd gain a bonus in attacking the sides and the rear over just charging in the front; taking down a bigger monster or unit block might have you attack one on the front to tie it up; and then sweep others around the sides whilst trying not to expose one of them to a further counter attack to their rear/sides.

In AoS that is mostly gone because no matter at what angle you attack from the attack profile and the way it plays out is always the same. The only variation is how many units are in and out of range. Which curiously affects how many attacks can be made, but doesn't affect where models can be removed from when the player allocates wounds.


So yes you can still charge the rear or sides but you gain nothing over charging the front - and by nature of how units move now there is no clear front/back/sides to the block of models themselves (unless you choose to move them in a block formation).


Of course now if your opponent has strung out their units into a line you can hit one part of that line to do as much damage as you can whilst getting far less back. And the lack of fixed formations means you can move more tightly around terrain and other units.


So there is gain and loss in how things work; some parts are lost and others are gained. Forward planning is still important, but not in the same way. Indeed this can be a good thing because it cuts down on the skill curve to getting started since now movement is a bit easier to get to grips with without having to consider turn circles etc...

@Overread

Oh I understand the difference in the how flanking was handled but that's not what they are really saying. They're saying hitting a flank has no purpose in AoS and you don't need to worry about positioning. That's false as hitting a flank is still as "good" of tactics in AoS as it was in WFB. Just annoyed that people point to WFB as a place of superior tactical depth. Like Auticus said, it's different functional tactics but the depth is there for both games.

@JustTony

I was more referring to the tournament scene for 6th. At least for me locally and at west coast GW GT's. Objectives rarely, if ever, came into play. It's why you had gunlines and other issues that some armies simply couldn't play around. 6th was by far my favorite WFB edition (though I liked a lot of the changes in 8th outside of big blocks of win).

 Hulksmash wrote:
@Overread

...hitting a flank is still as "good" of tactics in AoS as it was in WFB..

100% no

Interesting title for the thread.

Every AOS model I see looks identical to another that I've seen. Is it possible to convert them, and is this something people do? If I start building an army, am I going to have enough options to actually want to customize it's appearance?

 Overread wrote:
@Hulksmash I think the key difference is that in the old fantasy rules if you attacked on a flank (side) or rear of an enemy unit block (or monster) then the way the attack resolved was different. You'd gain a bonus in attacking the sides and the rear over just charging in the front; taking down a bigger monster or unit block might have you attack one on the front to tie it up; and then sweep others around the sides whilst trying not to expose one of them to a further counter attack to their rear/sides.

In AoS that is mostly gone because no matter at what angle you attack from the attack profile and the way it plays out is always the same. The only variation is how many units are in and out of range. Which curiously affects how many attacks can be made, but doesn't affect where models can be removed from when the player allocates wounds.


So yes you can still charge the rear or sides but you gain nothing over charging the front - and by nature of how units move now there is no clear front/back/sides to the block of models themselves (unless you choose to move them in a block formation).

You can trap the unit and prevent them from retreating, which is kind of a Big Deal. You can also mess up their unit coherency which is a Big Deal.

Pancakey wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
@Overread

...hitting a flank is still as "good" of tactics in AoS as it was in WFB..

100% no

I know you won't but please elaborate.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Interesting title for the thread.

Every AOS model I see looks identical to another that I've seen. Is it possible to convert them, and is this something people do? If I start building an army, am I going to have enough options to actually want to customize it's appearance?

The downside to the more dynamic posing is that customization is more limited now. It's not quite the monopose apocalypse some people claim, but you definitely can't make your models look quite as unique as you could with things like the squattymarine line.

 Hulksmash wrote:

Pancakey wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
@Overread

...hitting a flank is still as "good" of tactics in AoS as it was in WFB..

100% no

I know you won't but please elaborate.

Hitting flanks or rear is still good for reasons elaborated above, but its not the "same" as it was before. Furthermore there is no inherent combat bonus to hitting any one part of the unit save for its relative positioning. That's really where we get down to the main difference. In original if you hit the flank or rear you got combat bonuses over the defending side; in the current you don't inherently get any bonus; the bonus is in if you can prevent a retreat or box in a unit or attacking from a different angle lets you connect more in close combat to do more damage.

So it still hurt, but its not quite the same thing.


It's like in Total War Warhammer there are very few actual formation settings but there are a LOT more activated abilities (many area restricted and/or based on key timing). So the nature of the tactical elements shifts

There is no mechanical benefit to hitting flanks or rears in AOS, which to many people equates to there being no benefit at all.

There can be an actual benefit sometimes to hitting a flank (reduction in return attacks) but those are not guaranteed, whereas in WHFB if you hit the enemy flank there were mathematical bonuses you always got (remove rank bonus and only the models on that flank could fight).

This was an argument I had with someone on warseer before being banned for trolling by supporting AOS back on AOS release (yes... supporting AOS on release back in 2015 was a bannable offense because no one could really like it, so you were trolling)... I argued that there was a benefit to flank charging in AOS, just not a mechanical one and that was shouted down.

If anything flank charging in AOS is less impactful as it was in WHFB, but not negligent.

Holy smokes, the whole AoS has no tactics is still a thing? Lol
Honestly, played since 5th ed. and have to say that with 7th and 8th the game was on rails. So what if flanks granted bonuses, because once deployment was over two experienced players could just discuss the outcome with relative certainty due to the restrictive nature of movement. Never understood how an enemy unit outside of your units arc of sight could march block, even though I couldn't see them. See, where some people see tactics I just saw dumb restrictions that made no sense. To me the older editions tactics were defined by what your units "couldn't" do which I didn't know I hated until AoS and the more free flowing gameplay. Sure it may not be everyones cup of tea, but different strokes for different folks. Game on whatever you want so long as you have fun, I say.

 Overread wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:

Pancakey wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
@Overread

...hitting a flank is still as "good" of tactics in AoS as it was in WFB..

100% no

I know you won't but please elaborate.

Hitting flanks or rear is still good for reasons elaborated above, but its not the "same" as it was before. Furthermore there is no inherent combat bonus to hitting any one part of the unit save for its relative positioning. That's really where we get down to the main difference. In original if you hit the flank or rear you got combat bonuses over the defending side; in the current you don't inherently get any bonus; the bonus is in if you can prevent a retreat or box in a unit or attacking from a different angle lets you connect more in close combat to do more damage.

So it still hurt, but its not quite the same thing.


It's like in Total War Warhammer there are very few actual formation settings but there are a LOT more activated abilities (many area restricted and/or based on key timing). So the nature of the tactical elements shifts

Well said!

WHFB had more rules depth. Flanking is a great example.

Pancakey wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:

Pancakey wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
@Overread

...hitting a flank is still as "good" of tactics in AoS as it was in WFB..

100% no

I know you won't but please elaborate.

Hitting flanks or rear is still good for reasons elaborated above, but its not the "same" as it was before. Furthermore there is no inherent combat bonus to hitting any one part of the unit save for its relative positioning. That's really where we get down to the main difference. In original if you hit the flank or rear you got combat bonuses over the defending side; in the current you don't inherently get any bonus; the bonus is in if you can prevent a retreat or box in a unit or attacking from a different angle lets you connect more in close combat to do more damage.

So it still hurt, but its not quite the same thing.


It's like in Total War Warhammer there are very few actual formation settings but there are a LOT more activated abilities (many area restricted and/or based on key timing). So the nature of the tactical elements shifts

Well said!

WHFB had more rules depth. Flanking is a great example.

In contrast once your unit was deployed it basically stayed in formation until it was destroyed. In theory (from what I recall) rules did let you change formations, however because most people used movement trays it wasn't often done unless there were few enough units to make a tray not essential. As a result many movement elements were simplified. You couldn't wrap a unit around a building or terrain or file through between a tight spot between terrain features etc... So in some ways AoS has a superior system considering the number of models on the table that we use.

Furthermore it wouldn't be an advantage to have flanking rules now on anything but big based models. Anything smaller is just too numerous to quantify in that manner (could you imagine working out the flank attacks if you had two full units of clan rats blend into each other for combat - it would be far too complex for fun in a tabletop wargame).

So because the movement system changed the rules shifted to be suitable alongside it. Personally I do agree that a lot of AoS rules do feel too simple even now. However GW have basically started a new phase and era of rules and I hope that with annual revisions and with AoS growing in strength we will see some additional depth creep in every so often. We've already gained increased spell depth with not just a wider variety of real spell choices (which if you use realm spells makes allied wizards even more viable as they gain the realm spell lore); but also Endless spell.s

In short:

1. no psychology rules
2. the morale system
3: the ttk is way to low (time to kill) with mortal wounds etc

I like games where there is a risk of losing control of one's units.

I'd play if there existed some "advanced" rules that addressed these three issues. Rank and flank is not necessary for my enjoyment of a game, and aos is a veritable sandbox as far as conversions and lore are concerned, which I like.

I'm not playing it because currently although I love the new aesthetic I'm still waiting to see what will happen to some of the old armies we know and love. Whilst I appreciate soulless sea elves, medusa elves, aetheist sky dwarves and naked dragon riding dwarves there's a lot of weird crossover with the WHFB range and some models don't quite fit. When the vision for the Mortal Realms is more unified I'll be more willing to jump in.

I'm playing and currently have 3 armies on the go. To be honest, after playing old WHF for many years, I just got so bored of it (both in play style and aesthetic) that AoS was a real shot in the arm. And purely anecdotal I know, but the new people I've encountered that play AoS seem to be a lot more...pleasant for the lack of a better term. Don't know why, but they just seem more fun to pick up and play against than the older crowd.