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.

We ran mostly Pitched but a little bit of scenario play on the sides, and those scenarios were always more memorable than Pitched Battles because they come with a story baked in.

auticus wrote:
From 6th thru 7th for a solid 8 years I could never get my area to move beyond pitched battle. It was always about matching tournament standard always and pitched battle was the defacto only used scenario.

One of the things I liked the most about 8th is that it defaulted to scenario play.

Once everyone got rid of watchtower it was even better.

Yeah around where I lived everyone only ever played the standard pitched battle. During my time with 6th and 7th I think I can count on one hand the number of times a different scenario was played.

Oddly it was an issue 40k had too; everyone only wanted to do a pitched battle in that game too despite the actual rulebooks not containing missions like that. It was a mission in the competitive scene which even casual players adopted because, I assume, it required very little tactical thought or depth. It just turned the game into a pure dicerolling thing where all you had to do was either sit and shoot or run and chop and you didn't have to do pesky things like hold objectives or control table quarters. For someone who loved the missions of 40k it pretty much turned me off the game completely during that period.

This is the reason why 5th is still my favourite edition of 40k as the tournament scene (and therefore everyone else) herelly got heavy into those victory by scenario were 6th feelt like a step back

I think as well it was a function of the "listbuilding phase" in that people built lists assuming Pitched Battle, not Rearguard or something wacky like that, and they felt they could be disadvantaged if they played another mission. Probably not even much of a conscious thought. That is why a meta where "rolling for mission" is standard is a godsend, because it means people have to take into account all of the missions when list building. This makes it much harder to make a "power list" because you have to be able to deal with more situations.

Its exactly that people built their list assuming pitched battle and did not like the idea of not knowing what scenario they were listbuilding against (because they coudln't min/max if they didn't know what they were min/maxing against)

I don't know if its purely a min/max thing though.

I think its more that in a pitched battle or known scenario situation a player who has some experience, knows what kind of threats are going to be present as well as what kind of demands are going to be on the board. Even more so when playing at the local club where you've an idea of terrain types and density etc..

Therefore they know the conditions which in turn gives them a framework around which they can base their army.



Now give them random or unknown situations and its harder for them to build an army because they've no real idea where to begin the process. Partly this is a limitation on points based armies without a force organisation chart or similar structure that ensures a "core" is already established. Another part is lack of experience in a variety of situations on the part of the players.



Essentially the more freedom you give people to choose what they want the more some can get paralysed by a lack of ability to choose. This can result in very poor choices which can in turn make people gravitate toward games that reward them in a certain way.

GW could actually address this if they released scripted narration battles more often. Giving players more guidelines on what to take to create certain types of narrated battle.


Of course there will be those who won't want to try new things or who only want straight destructive battles etc...

I consider that min/max. To me optimizing my list based on a set list of conditions I know won't change is min/maxing. Min/maxing is another word for optimiizing which is also another word for competitive listbuilding. They all mean the same thing.

If I know pitched battle is the only scenario I will play I will build a certain way, and in my experience pitch a fit if someone wants to play a different scenario because my army build will no longer be optimal unless iits pitched battle.

If I am playing multiple scenarios then I can't optimize my list properly because I don't know what the conditions are going to be fully. I can only miin/max against what my meta typically brings, but if I roll a scenario that disadvantages my min/maxing, then I have "screwed myself over".

WHile I personally love multiple scenario types because it does hamper listbuilding min/maxing, it was exactly this mindset that was screamed very loudly in my community and on many forums for a great many years.

To this day using a broad number of scenarios is still crapped on because it "screws listbuilding over". In my area in both 40k and aos the same scenarios are used (whatever is tournament standard).

To be fair, though, some scenarios did require that the Attacker and Defender have different points/composition. The Sheer Heroism/Seven Knights scenario comes to mind immediately. My brother and I recently played a game using the Rearguard scenario for 6th, and that required the Defender to have half the points of the Attacker. Now that's easily solvable by either bringing 9 lists to every PUG or to make a list on the spot, but for some odd reason people aren't keen on spontaneous listbuilding.

 Just Tony wrote:
for some odd reason people aren't keen on spontaneous listbuilding.

I think its largely a byproduct of the fact that its hard to carry ones entire collection in a single case now. Granted magnetic trays have made big inroads in helping; but not everyone uses them. With some armies and compositions you can carry your 2K force and a few changes, but to carry most of ones army is a trickier affair.

So its not just that some hate the idea of writing a list on the spot in 10 mins; but that they just haven't actually got much to change in the army they've brought, outside of things like upgrades.


The other aspect is people build and bring the army they want to play. Before they've even gotten to the club their hope and intention is to use the army they brought.

I loved Rearguard. And I had no problem making a list out of what I had with me, to me it made sense that a rearguard would be a desperate, cobbled together force. That scenario was all about dying heroically to give others a chance, so I was all in for it. Dwarven rearguard vs. Bretonians. Ouch.

That said, it was basically me and two other guys who liked that sort of thing, most everyone else wanted pitched battle. And pitched battle can be a fun game too. Just never as memorable as the scenarios.

I agree. The scenarios were a lot of fun.

But if your environment is like mine, a lot of your community mostly only played tournaments or leagues that emulated tournaments and even their casual games had to be tournament practice games using tournament scenarios.

I remember a nuts game of 40K where about 6 of us got around a single battle table and put a few hundred points of models down (I think 200 or thereabouts). We then had one turn "grace" with no attacking allowed but could move into position.

The alliances that were formed and broken; the back stabbing; the pain; the minifights and grudge matches that appeared in that small game were a lot of fun. Sure it was totally unbalanced; sure it wound up a couple of separate fights that then fell into each other and sure it wasn't fair or balanced in the perfect sense.

But everyone went into it knowing that it was just a bit of fun and because it was split multiple ways you still had that "I want to win" but without it being as strict a competition (esp since the guy next to you - who totally promised they wouldn't attack - did attack you!)

I think its largely a byproduct of the fact that its hard to carry ones entire collection in a single case now. Granted magnetic trays have made big inroads in helping; but not everyone uses them. With some armies and compositions you can carry your 2K force and a few changes, but to carry most of ones army is a trickier affair.

This is the biggest problem. I currently have a fixed 2k Khorne List I can easily fit in a Battlefoam 720 box and it is super nice to just take that bag containing everything. I would hate to have to drag my two 1520s just so I can list build on the spot. Easy when you are playing an elite army, but if you have dozens uppon dozens of models with large behemoths mixed in it all becomes rather cumbersome.

The minis they are creating aren't helping either. Giant with spindly details flying all around them.

 Eldarsif wrote:

I think its largely a byproduct of the fact that its hard to carry ones entire collection in a single case now. Granted magnetic trays have made big inroads in helping; but not everyone uses them. With some armies and compositions you can carry your 2K force and a few changes, but to carry most of ones army is a trickier affair.

This is the biggest problem. I currently have a fixed 2k Khorne List I can easily fit in a Battlefoam 720 box and it is super nice to just take that bag containing everything. I would hate to have to drag my two 1520s just so I can list build on the spot. Easy when you are playing an elite army, but if you have dozens uppon dozens of models with large behemoths mixed in it all becomes rather cumbersome.

Are you using the manga racks or just the foam? I recently switched to the Manga Racks and I found I can fit a TON more models, and they tend to break a lot less often than when I was pulling them out of the foam. I know this is kind of what Overread is saying, but I just switched a few months ago myself and picked up a few more trays on the BF black Friday sale. It really does make a huge difference.

I haven't started AoS because I'm still not completely finished with any of my three 40k armies. My Necrons are the closest to being done, about 6 more units to go which I am currently making progress on. My Eldar and Slaanesh armies are assembled and magneted but barely painted. Still a lot of progress to be made.

However, I really want to start a Seraphon army. Not because they're good (it seems from reading the forums that they are), but because the models look amazing to me. What I would like to do if I ever pull the trigger on starting my Seraphon army is take a one unit at a time approach. Buy a unit, build it, paint it, be done with it. That would avoid the situation I'm in now, but I suppose many warhammer players have said the exact same thing, only to end up with $500 worth of Seraphon the next day.

So if I were to take a one unit at a time approach, what Seraphon unit would I not regret having when I finally start playin? Skinks? Warriors? Knights? I should probably start with the equivalent to troops in 40k if such a thing exists in AoS.

And as long as I'm asking questions, what is a good army to make decent beardy list with? Aside from Seraphom I find Sylvaneth and Beastmen models appealing. The only army find really unappealing is the Stormcast Eternals.

Currently nighthaunt and daughters of khaine are the broken OP lists. Seraphon and stormcast are definitely up there in power. Sylvaneth and beastmen are above the middling line. They can be high powered and can definitely trash any non-book army, though are about even keel with most current gen books barring nighthaunt and daughters of khaine.

Nighthaunt? o.O

You sure you aren't thinking of Legions of Nagash with just heavy amounts of nighthaunt in them?

Some of the biggest contenders you see near the top frequently:

Daughters of Khaine
Idoneth Deepkin
Grand Host of Nagash
Legion of Sacrament.

Nighthaunt are mid tier at best. Stormcasts only consistent competitive build is the Gav bomb, which (like the Vanguard Wing before it) artificially holds up the book and will likely be nerfed into the ground.

The main issue is the new high fantasy aesthetic just isn't for me. The mix of the new art and models just doesn't give me a sense of a struggle of good vs. evil, especially when the good guys just respawn if they die and can't remember what they had for lunch. It doesn't feel grim, dark, or gritty, the things that lifted the highly derivative Old World from plagiarism into iconic status.

I also don't quite see the point in removing square bases and ranks when so many players end up using movement trays for their 2x30 Plague Bearers anyway. And even with less models, the removal of square bases made it play similar to 40k as well, and 40k is, imho, a better game with a much better narrative and deeper background. Furthermore, neither AoS or 40k has particularly good rulesets. WFB had a grand narrative and an established background. AoS, while it's getting better, doesn't have a fraction of that.

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate. I'd love to play some Caledorian Dragon-riding survivors, but almost zero of the new models appeal to my low fantasy preferences. I recognise the models are great, they just aren't for me.

I think part of the lack of the Grand narrative for AoS is that GW make the world so grand and huge that the narrative got lost in it. I think the lack of a fixed time line has also harmed things because whilst the big story events clearly play out one after the other; its harder to place the short stories in the "grand scheme of things".
There is also the fact that the lack of a big fixed timeline and map system (we only got some maps in 2.0) means that its hard to even track who owns what and if a certain city being lost really is a huge deal or its just one of a million cities contended over.


I think the good VS Evil struggle comes out a lot more when you're not dealing with Stormcast. I also think that, given time, the way they've setup the alliances will be interesting. Order has factions such as the Daughters of Khaine - violent women who worship the god of murder; Pirates who pillage, raid and take slaves (mostly of other order factions); deep sea aleves who raid to harvest souls of the living like soul vampires etc...
I think there's been a big aim by GW to try and shift away from just purist good vs evil into forced alliances of convenience and also into making the water a bit muddier.

Stormcast are tricky and I don't think it helps that much of their early stories were heavily focused on mulitple battles with very little down time or character building going on. I think that hurt their ability to create heroes readers cared about - plus the rebirthing mechanic = whilst its not perfect - does take some of the gravity out of fights. I fully hope that events after the Necro Quake and other gods and things moving around might see changes to Stormcast. Seeing them stripped or crippled from rebirth; forced to rely on other sources of recruitment etc... would be great to experiment with (and I'm sure has to happen otherwise Sigmar, with reforging, has an endless army that will only ever get bigger as he takes more souls of the faithful into his armies as they die upon the battlefields)

 Overread wrote:
I think part of the lack of the Grand narrative for AoS is that GW make the world so grand and huge that the narrative got lost in it. I think the lack of a fixed time line has also harmed things because whilst the big story events clearly play out one after the other; its harder to place the short stories in the "grand scheme of things".
There is also the fact that the lack of a big fixed timeline and map system (we only got some maps in 2.0) means that its hard to even track who owns what and if a certain city being lost really is a huge deal or its just one of a million cities contended over.


I think the good VS Evil struggle comes out a lot more when you're not dealing with Stormcast. I also think that, given time, the way they've setup the alliances will be interesting. Order has factions such as the Daughters of Khaine - violent women who worship the god of murder; Pirates who pillage, raid and take slaves (mostly of other order factions); deep sea aleves who raid to harvest souls of the living like soul vampires etc...
I think there's been a big aim by GW to try and shift away from just purist good vs evil into forced alliances of convenience and also into making the water a bit muddier.

Stormcast are tricky and I don't think it helps that much of their early stories were heavily focused on mulitple battles with very little down time or character building going on. I think that hurt their ability to create heroes readers cared about - plus the rebirthing mechanic = whilst its not perfect - does take some of the gravity out of fights. I fully hope that events after the Necro Quake and other gods and things moving around might see changes to Stormcast. Seeing them stripped or crippled from rebirth; forced to rely on other sources of recruitment etc... would be great to experiment with (and I'm sure has to happen otherwise Sigmar, with reforging, has an endless army that will only ever get bigger as he takes more souls of the faithful into his armies as they die upon the battlefields)

Good vs. evil isn't that intrinsic, but something heroic is maybe what I should've written. When everything is amazing, nothing is.

With regards to the Stormcast specifically, for me the major issue is the aesthetic. They are clad in high fantasy plate that wouldn't be amiss in World of Warcraft. This is in extremely stark contrast to the people of the Empire or Bretonnia. Sure, you had Grail Knights and Knights Panther etc, in addition to silly things like the Steam Tank, but it had an aesthetic that was much more realistic than the Stormcast's look.

Just to re-iterate, I don't think it's an objectively bad look, it just doesn't appeal to me.

Personally the only thing I really want from stormcast are the awesome mounts they get - annoyingly the SC models themselves are so large and broad that its near impossible to convert their mounts for use by many other races. That is unless you're going to go nuts shaving off all the saddle and harness parts moulded onto the model and strip it back to a wild beast and add your own smaller saddle setup.

Lore wise I think the new novellas really pushed forward the idea of individual heroes within the setting really well. AoS does lack some show-heroes for many armies, but I think that given time the lore will evolve some. PlusI think there will be a big shift when we see GW add a couple of human factions to the game.

Ultimately I think AoS is not designed with low-fantasy players in mind, originally it was most likely to differentiate themselves from other similar low-fantasy games who were in competition, but now they have Lord of the Rings to fill that slot.

Aye the old world fantasy sort of walked the line between low and high with more a leaning to low. I think that was partly its original inspiration being Lord of the Rings and also the fact that rank and file and metal and the sculpting of the times were better geared toward more foot warriors and archers and fewer big monsters and mounts.

Fast Forward and AoS is very much high fantasy and is using all the advantages of modern materials and sculpting and casting to push the limits with a lot more monsters and beasties and such.


I well agree if you want low fantasy then AoS is certainly not really the ideal pairing.

 Eldarsif wrote:
Ultimately I think AoS is not designed with low-fantasy players in mind, originally it was most likely to differentiate themselves from other similar low-fantasy games who were in competition, but now they have Lord of the Rings to fill that slot.

 Overread wrote:
Aye the old world fantasy sort of walked the line between low and high with more a leaning to low. I think that was partly its original inspiration being Lord of the Rings and also the fact that rank and file and metal and the sculpting of the times were better geared toward more foot warriors and archers and fewer big monsters and mounts.

Fast Forward and AoS is very much high fantasy and is using all the advantages of modern materials and sculpting and casting to push the limits with a lot more monsters and beasties and such.


I well agree if you want low fantasy then AoS is certainly not really the ideal pairing.

Aye to both. I think GW also did a smart move, in retrospect, in moving to high fantasy, as it has a bigger appeal, with me being a casualty. If they re-release Mordheim, I'll play that (unless it's full of Stormcast), but for now my eyes are on Frostgrave, Erehwon, and Oathmark, and possibly Hail Caesar. The Kings of War-aesthetic doesn't appeal to me either, tbh.

Kings of War have a huge "retro" feel to so many of their designs. They feel like if they'd started in the 80s they'd have been ok, but in todays world their sculpts just don't stand up well compared to others.
That and their paint style also feels retro so even on some of the cooler looking stuff it still looks wrong to my eye.

Some of their newer models are looking much improved, but I think that they've just got a style that doesn't appeal to me either.



It wouldn't surprise me if we see GW push movement trays into LotR games. It would be one big way to preserve the classic rank and file fantasy with another game system.

The thing with KOW is you can use whatever models you want. I love my GW models and continue to use them. Mantic models are coming up in quality (the new titan giant is pretty awesome).

I don't think GW is going to rank and flank in LOTR.

LOTR is kind of strange in that its the same scale and presence as AOS (skirmish, focused on heroes) with different mechanics that accomplish a similar result.

The main diff in LOTR is that the models are more "normal" and tolkien fantasy vs high fantasy of AOS.

I would be head over heels in love if they brought LOTR with some rank and flank or made it a game about maneuver and positioning.

Currently only KOW really feeds that in regards to professional companies with a presence and not fan made (hail caesar does as well but is historical and the fantasy plug in is fan made so repels people that don't want to touch fan systems)

Conquest coming out in June has a lot of peoples' attention in that it is also rank and flank and Alessio wrote that as well (the author of Kings of War, and one of the designers of WHFB 6th edition)

War of the Ring as a rank and flank existed and to a certain extent continues to exist.