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.

How do?

So more or less giving up on 40k, and instead embracing AoS. A game I’ve barely played, but did enjoy back when it first came out.

What I’m looking to understand are the ‘hidden’ mechanics of the game. I’m more or less clued up enough on the basics, like how to do clever manoeuvres, the importance of not over committing to charges because of how combat works. What I mean by ‘hidden’ is less obvious stuff.

For example? Choosing what weapons I want. Some have better reach, some give fewer attacks but more damage. Others hit easier or wound easier. How do People That Know What They’re Doing assess these decisions? Are buffs to hit more common than buffs to wound etc?

I’m probably going either Ossiarchs or Squigs (trust me, I won’t be a Goblin Army!) so particular examples and explanations based around those two very welcome, but weigh in with general knowledge as well.

I look forward to hearing from you

I like to do test scenarios, meaning get a unit and then roll some dice and see what happens. This gives me an idea for how a particular unit can perform, whether it's a shooting or melee. This also helps if i want to see which weapon works better.

Granted this inst a real game but can give you an idea and something to do when building your army.

I do a linear regression across the whole game and discover what units baseline a predominantly over powered math in the statistics game, then focus on those if I'm trying to compete in tournaments where other people are doing the same, or knowing what units to tone down if I'm not.

Thats the hidden mechanic of AOS. Knowing what units way over perform their points cost, which you can do through a linear regression.

I do basic maths and calculate ideal situation comparisons to get an idea on different weapon performance. Such as the following where I work out which is better for Ossiarchs - spears or swords for both Mortek Guard and Deathriders

https://warminiatures.wordpress.com/2019/12/08/ossiarch-bonereapers-spears-vs-swords/


This lets me know not just the answer, but also gives me the reasoning behind it. With the maths before me I can see that for both swords beats spears when the same number of units get into combat. I can also see that with spears if I take more units and thus not all will make it into base to base contact; having a longer reach will mean more get into close combat.
I can also see that the variation between the two isn't all that great either. They are not a night and day difference. So you could go all spears because they look cool and you like them and the unit isn't underperforming to a huge margin - even if you've only taken a few that, with swords, would all get into close combat range.


I tend to compare things without buffs first then perhaps factor in a buff or two on units. Of course once you start adding your own buffs then there's debuffs from your opponent and buffs to their units etc... which can all mes with things. Which is why I keep it simple to no-buffs in general.

Very few buffs change the nature of a unit, they just enhance its performance.




I don't tend to pick whole armies based on maths, to me that's far too statistical for an army I want to visually and lore wise like and enjoy.



Ossiarchs are really simple in many ways because, like a lot of the smaller AoS armies, the small unit variety means that spotting combos is a lot simpler. So you can play around and see which leaders might buff units the way you want them too.

Generally speaking I find units are about 50/50 on weapon options; half the time certain weapons are good for certain situations but they each have their place, while half the time there is a 'best option' with little to no reason to take anything else. Generally speaking units with hand weapon/spear options fall into the former case where max-size units want spears since the longer melee range allows for more 'ranks' of models getting attacks to compensate for a weaker base profile.

Squigs are simple; boingrot bounderz > hoppers. Herds fill battleline. 2-3 manglers.

Ossiarchs... nothing is bad. The only trap option is if you take morghasts (of either variety) where the halberd is flat-out better than blades.

Given the option between Easier to Hit, vs Easier to Wound? I always* choose Easier to Hit. Why? Because if I don't hit you to start with....
* No, not always. 1) Because sometimes one weapon choice just looks plain cooler model-wise. 2) How my existing models are armed. In these cases I'll just deal with the slight disadvantage.

I never take buffs/debuffs into account. Why? On my end I can't guarantee they'll go off. Any # of things might go wrong (including me just plain forgetting something!). So it'd be foolish to base my math on including those. On my opponents end? I don't know every debuff of every army. (and I don't need to)
So I worry about mods during play, not during list building.

Just a further point on weapons and Ossiarchs. With the Stalkers there's quadblades or twinsword falcions (sp). Now at present taking the quadblades actually proves to be statistically better. However I've opted for the twinswords on the one per three that you're allowed because:

1) the difference isn't vast

2) I didn't magnetise them and thus I'm part future proofing myself because a new version or even updated stats/points/rules could make them superior choices befitting an "optional upgrade" for the unit.





When comparing easier to hit/wound do take into account damage and number of attacks. Sometimes something will hit easier, but each hit does way less damage. Whilst another might hit far less, but when it does hit it does a lot more damage in that one swing. This can mean that a unit is either hitting a lot weaker, making it great at taking out one wound infantry; or its hitting very few times, but doing a lot of damage in one hit, making it a good elite/support hero hunter. So do keep a view to a weapons whole stats even if you're really only comparing the performance of two variable elements.

Cheers for the replies so far

May....may have spent a few hundred on Ossiarch’s today...

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Cheers for the replies so far

May....may have spent a few hundred on Ossiarch’s today...

Welcome to where I was when they launched - now hopefully you get cracking and build them faster than I did (albeit getting distracted with Eldar half way through did NOT help my progress)

So what did you get?!

Basically cleaned out my local GW.

From there one of each character, barring Nagash and Arkhan, two sets of Mortek Guard, two Harvesters, box of Tol Bois, box of Cavalry.

Coming from Element around Saturday? Two catapults, two boxes of Tol Bois, two boxes of Cavalry, one box of Mortek Guard.

Should be a decent enough variety for me to tinker with my list as I learn the ropes.

 Overread wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Cheers for the replies so far

May....may have spent a few hundred on Ossiarch’s today...

Welcome to where I was when they launched - now hopefully you get cracking and build them faster than I did (albeit getting distracted with Eldar half way through did NOT help my progress)

So what did you get?!

Woa I didn't know you played OBR Overread! I thought you were a nice person

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Cheers for the replies so far

May....may have spent a few hundred on Ossiarch’s today...

Welcome to where I was when they launched - now hopefully you get cracking and build them faster than I did (albeit getting distracted with Eldar half way through did NOT help my progress)

So what did you get?!

Woa I didn't know you played OBR Overread! I thought you were a nice person

You do realise that I collect Daughters of Khaine - Slaanesh and OBR?

I mean they are all in various states of not being built but darn it for some reason every time I pick a cool army for AoS GW makes it broken (and by the time I get to the table chances are they'll nerf them like crazy ).

DoK actually got me into AoS - Morathi is such an awesome model and I love the Khinari and the whole idea of an army of murder dancing sheaelves.

Slaanesh was actually a reboot for me - I'd started a Chaos army years and years ago and never finished so Slaanesh getting new stuff and the awesome fiends (gosh I wish GW would change depravity so I can feel like putting more fiends down)

And yeah Reapers - another freaking awesome looking army (all they need now is a super fantastic bone construct dragon like the undead army in Ghoul Slayer had)

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Basically cleaned out my local GW.

From there one of each character, barring Nagash and Arkhan, two sets of Mortek Guard, two Harvesters, box of Tol Bois, box of Cavalry.

Coming from Element around Saturday? Two catapults, two boxes of Tol Bois, two boxes of Cavalry, one box of Mortek Guard.

Should be a decent enough variety for me to tinker with my list as I learn the ropes.

Mortek Guard are your hammer and anvil. One of the best battle-line out there, and their damage is quite impressive. Harvesters keep your Mortek Guard standing up, effectively giving them a 4+ FNP, with some extra cheeky flexibility and tricks you can pull with moving models that die around, chaining them to reach objectives or draw an enemy in to combat they may not want. However, this style of army is quite slow. 4" move on the Mortek Guard, up to a 7" move if you opt to use one of your Unique Command Points (Relentless Discipline) then + d6+1 for a run. Playing OBR in this style, I've found it difficult to claim objectives early, and have even effectively lost a game on the first turn due to mission/objective layout and the army I was facing.

Lots of tricks available to this army, and I think you'll be happy to know you've picked an A to B tier army, reaching S tier, depending on army composition and subfaction choices. There are easy, obvious ways to power down, or power up a list if it's no fun for you or your opponent.

 Overread wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Cheers for the replies so far

May....may have spent a few hundred on Ossiarch’s today...

Welcome to where I was when they launched - now hopefully you get cracking and build them faster than I did (albeit getting distracted with Eldar half way through did NOT help my progress)

So what did you get?!

Woa I didn't know you played OBR Overread! I thought you were a nice person

You do realise that I collect Daughters of Khaine - Slaanesh and OBR?

I mean they are all in various states of not being built but darn it for some reason every time I pick a cool army for AoS GW makes it broken (and by the time I get to the table chances are they'll nerf them like crazy ).

DoK actually got me into AoS - Morathi is such an awesome model and I love the Khinari and the whole idea of an army of murder dancing sheaelves.

Slaanesh was actually a reboot for me - I'd started a Chaos army years and years ago and never finished so Slaanesh getting new stuff and the awesome fiends (gosh I wish GW would change depravity so I can feel like putting more fiends down)

And yeah Reapers - another freaking awesome looking army (all they need now is a super fantastic bone construct dragon like the undead army in Ghoul Slayer had)

Ah, I see, you are a powergaming WAAC TFG! I would never have guessed!

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Cheers for the replies so far

May....may have spent a few hundred on Ossiarch’s today...

Welcome to where I was when they launched - now hopefully you get cracking and build them faster than I did (albeit getting distracted with Eldar half way through did NOT help my progress)

So what did you get?!

Woa I didn't know you played OBR Overread! I thought you were a nice person

You do realise that I collect Daughters of Khaine - Slaanesh and OBR?

I mean they are all in various states of not being built but darn it for some reason every time I pick a cool army for AoS GW makes it broken (and by the time I get to the table chances are they'll nerf them like crazy ).

DoK actually got me into AoS - Morathi is such an awesome model and I love the Khinari and the whole idea of an army of murder dancing sheaelves.

Slaanesh was actually a reboot for me - I'd started a Chaos army years and years ago and never finished so Slaanesh getting new stuff and the awesome fiends (gosh I wish GW would change depravity so I can feel like putting more fiends down)

And yeah Reapers - another freaking awesome looking army (all they need now is a super fantastic bone construct dragon like the undead army in Ghoul Slayer had)

Ah, I see, you are a powergaming WAAC TFG! I would never have guessed!

Yep the sad news is the new Luminoth army are going to have weak rules, as will the new Giants army. Since I won't be collecting them fate will currently dictate that they will be underpowered. However when GW gets around to the Shadow Aelves they might end up overpowered - depending on how they look.

Quite enjoying the concept of an army with no real duff units. Means I can rule of cool it, and still enjoy the majority of my games.

Gonna have a bit of a build day today, and hopefully get some spray basing done.

 auticus wrote:
I do a linear regression across the whole game and discover what units baseline a predominantly over powered math in the statistics game, then focus on those if I'm trying to compete in tournaments where other people are doing the same, or knowing what units to tone down if I'm not.

Thats the hidden mechanic of AOS. Knowing what units way over perform their points cost, which you can do through a linear regression.

I want to say something very important here. This is ALWAYS the case with EVER game. BUT and i mean a very big but! AoS isn't always about damage. I win games doing 1/4 of the damage as my oppoents, normally i'll only have 2-3 units doing damage all game, the rest are just in the way and holding objectives.

When you can have units literally moving 24"+ and are dirt cheap (60-80pts) with a 12x2" foot print (18x8" don't touch me zone) your damage doesn't really matter, as almost every unit in the game can kill off that chaff unit, but if you can't deal 10+ wounds from spells then your movement phase is gone and you can't score objectives.

So value in AOS isn't just Power, its also utility, movement, etc..

Trust me, those of us who run numbers factor those in as well.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Trust me, those of us who run numbers factor those in as well.

Yes but coming from 40k, the weight of those numbers are different and just wanted to make sure people know its not the same as 40k.

Auticus' focus has always been on Fantasy, he was one of those doing points for AoS before the first General's Handbook was released. And they were good, too. Far better than any of GW's renditions.

 Overread wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Cheers for the replies so far

May....may have spent a few hundred on Ossiarch’s today...

Welcome to where I was when they launched - now hopefully you get cracking and build them faster than I did (albeit getting distracted with Eldar half way through did NOT help my progress)

So what did you get?!

Woa I didn't know you played OBR Overread! I thought you were a nice person

You do realise that I collect Daughters of Khaine - Slaanesh and OBR?

I mean they are all in various states of not being built but darn it for some reason every time I pick a cool army for AoS GW makes it broken (and by the time I get to the table chances are they'll nerf them like crazy ).

DoK actually got me into AoS - Morathi is such an awesome model and I love the Khinari and the whole idea of an army of murder dancing sheaelves.

Slaanesh was actually a reboot for me - I'd started a Chaos army years and years ago and never finished so Slaanesh getting new stuff and the awesome fiends (gosh I wish GW would change depravity so I can feel like putting more fiends down)

And yeah Reapers - another freaking awesome looking army (all they need now is a super fantastic bone construct dragon like the undead army in Ghoul Slayer had)

Ah, I see, you are a powergaming WAAC TFG! I would never have guessed!

Yep the sad news is the new Luminoth army are going to have weak rules, as will the new Giants army. Since I won't be collecting them fate will currently dictate that they will be underpowered. However when GW gets around to the Shadow Aelves they might end up overpowered - depending on how they look.

I hope that is just sarcasm and not inside rule information

 Tiger9gamer wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Cheers for the replies so far

May....may have spent a few hundred on Ossiarch’s today...

Welcome to where I was when they launched - now hopefully you get cracking and build them faster than I did (albeit getting distracted with Eldar half way through did NOT help my progress)

So what did you get?!

Woa I didn't know you played OBR Overread! I thought you were a nice person

You do realise that I collect Daughters of Khaine - Slaanesh and OBR?

I mean they are all in various states of not being built but darn it for some reason every time I pick a cool army for AoS GW makes it broken (and by the time I get to the table chances are they'll nerf them like crazy ).

DoK actually got me into AoS - Morathi is such an awesome model and I love the Khinari and the whole idea of an army of murder dancing sheaelves.

Slaanesh was actually a reboot for me - I'd started a Chaos army years and years ago and never finished so Slaanesh getting new stuff and the awesome fiends (gosh I wish GW would change depravity so I can feel like putting more fiends down)

And yeah Reapers - another freaking awesome looking army (all they need now is a super fantastic bone construct dragon like the undead army in Ghoul Slayer had)

Ah, I see, you are a powergaming WAAC TFG! I would never have guessed!

Yep the sad news is the new Luminoth army are going to have weak rules, as will the new Giants army. Since I won't be collecting them fate will currently dictate that they will be underpowered. However when GW gets around to the Shadow Aelves they might end up overpowered - depending on how they look.

I hope that is just sarcasm and not inside rule information

It's a play on the fact that thus far each AoS army I start collecting at launch ends up being "overpowered to the max" in the game rules.

Daughters of Khaine were about the first "overpowered" army and maintained that slot almost right up until Slaanesh stole it with keeper armies summoning more keepers; then Ossiarchs came along with their +1 save army bonus in one of thier sub-faction options; which goes on top of units that typically have really good saves to start with.

Thus as I'm not planning on either Luminoth nor Giants, neither one will be overpowered. OF course its a total bit of sarcasm - hopefully they are neither over nor under.

Is it true, that GW has an A and B AoS design team, and that A team builds good books that they want to play at tournaments, while the B team makes for fun armies that are comicaly weak comparing to the power builds?

Karol wrote:
Is it true, that GW has an A and B AoS design team, and that A team builds good books that they want to play at tournaments, while the B team makes for fun armies that are comicaly weak comparing to the power builds?

Not quite no, though its theorised that there's two teams with different focuses.
Furthermore I'd argue that the balance variation is not quite as cut and dry as the internet makes it out. There are some armies that need a leg up just at there are some which need a bit of a push down. I'd say AoS is in better shape than 40K; then again its also got some benefits. For example in AoS the rules don't let you "soup" the different sub-factions within a single army together in a standard army. Plus alliances are strictly limited on what you can take. Whilst in 40K its almost the other way around; your army wants to be two or three subfactions from your book so that you can use the best closecombat for your close combat units etc...; meanwhile armies like the Imperium have so many ally options that they can min-max to quite extreme degrees.


AoS has much more of a focus toward "pure" armies being the powerhouse and standard.

AoS I get the feeling is improving in balance, but broken armies can take a while to be brought into line. It's not cut and dry though and its not night and day different; but there are imbalances which could be addressed.

I remember someone showing me that there is an actual patern, but not which armies. At the time his army of 4 zombi dragons was followed and preceded by some comicaly weak armies, then some power army came, then another weak one.
Even if the patern is a false one, not indicating anything, it is funny to me. And I general, I don't find much stuff funny.


With w40k I don't think they think much durning design of rules. There seems to be a lot of copy paste stuff, and similar army got X,Y and Z, so this one will get it too, just with different names. they are often even situated in same spots on pages in other codex. Only way to do it worse, would be if they randomly generated the rules for each entry.

I do agree 40k is in pretty bad shape as well. There is a price you pay when you want the norm to be minimize restrictions as much as possible.

I wish GW games had something like a pre build mode. Number of models etc don't matter, just armies that do well against each other, and don't feel like your either playing half the points of your opponent, or that some free stuff is too good to be free, while some paid stuff wouldn't be worth taking even if it cost 2/3ed the points.

AoS seems to be GWs second best balanced game though. Not sure if that is sad or funny though.

Considering its matched play balance is quite bad barring the two opponents rocking top of the line lists at optimal power, I would say a combo of sad and funny.

I started enjoying AoS a lot more by lowering my expectations. I trained myself not to expect any sort of decent balance out of matched play, and to essentially give up on it as a serious game mode. I see it as a secondary method of play to AoS' primary focus of narrative. This mentality is a work in progress; I still slip into taking matched play seriously once in a while and have to stop and remind myself that it's kind of just a big joke.

And here I am wondering if I should up my expectations and look for a solidly competitive army and come to terms with the fact Warhammer will never be a proper narrative focus anyways so why purposely gimp myself by trying to force it?