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.

Wanting smaller armies is almost meaningless. AoS and 40k allows you to play at any agreed upon point value for both armies. Hell, there are different game options for matches that don't use points.

You don't NEED to play 2k pts of any particular army to play AoS.

While I do agree that smaller mats IF they're cheaper would lessen the barrier to entry, my post comes from the mindset of those that already play and have game mats, or play at stores with game mats.

Now, my partially-jaded view leads me to believe that even though GW is going to make smaller mats and boards, they're not going to be any cheaper than they already are. Probably siting more advanced manufacturing processes to justify the stagnation, or even increase in prices despite the smaller size.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 auticus wrote:
The reason I don't like that size is because it further removes maneuver from the game by penning the game into a small box. Of course the game rules itself have done a good job at removing a lot of maneuver since many things can just charge you in turn 1 anyway, so that is probably a moot point.

Smaller tables doesn't mean smaller No man zones, those will stay the same (18-24" apart). Its 4" less in the back and 6" less on each side, the sides are what is the big change. Really as long as terrain rules get a little better it will be completely fine. My only worry is table room for large footprint armies.

Smaller tables means no flanks or edges any more. Everything gets funneled forward. Using the wide part of the table is something that I enjoy seeing, you can't do that with these new table sizes.

Conquest came out the gate with a 4x4 playing area and the community there widely panned that in favor for a 6x4 table for the same reason. We want our battlefield edges and like flanking style maneuvers you simply cannot do when bottlenecked into a 4x4 with a 2000 point army (which has similar model counts for both games).

I will get the 2.0 core rules tomorrow but I was wondering what the 2.0 terrain rules were compared to current 40k rules?

Almost non-existent. Terrain doesn't do much in AOS. It has random effects that you have to keep track of, and its main use is to block line of sight if you can find pieces big enough to do that. It doesn't hinder movement at all. Hills are beneficial in that you can bend true line of sight even more, so there is that usefulness. The GW kits have a lot of open spaces and windows that make it really hard to block line of sight though, you can usually find a way to shoot something if you really want to. If Bob's right hand is sticking out from around the building, you can shoot at his entire unit.

 Thadin wrote:
Now, my partially-jaded view leads me to believe that even though GW is going to make smaller mats and boards, they're not going to be any cheaper than they already are. Probably siting more advanced manufacturing processes to justify the stagnation, or even increase in prices despite the smaller size.

yeah I am new to the hobby but I can agree that it won't be any cheaper. If the starter sets they sold had EVERYTHING you needed, like the 2 killteam maps, codexes, rules and terrains they could get so many more people by getting started with 2 1,000 armies.

On a side note, I wish the core books and codexes/tabletomes had a condensed version. While I appreciate the big ass book, sometimes a smaller book without fluff would be better. I know they also have the ebooks but I work in front of a computer so I like using books


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 auticus wrote:


Smaller tables means no flanks or edges any more. Everything gets funneled forward. Using the wide part of the table is something that I enjoy seeing, you can't do that with these new table sizes.

Conquest came out the gate with a 4x4 playing area and the community there widely panned that in favor for a 6x4 table for the same reason. We want our battlefield edges and like flanking style maneuvers you simply cannot do when bottlenecked into a 4x4 with a 2000 point army (which has similar model counts for both games).

I will get the 2.0 core rules tomorrow but I was wondering what the 2.0 terrain rules were compared to current 40k rules?

Almost non-existent. Terrain doesn't do much in AOS. It has random effects that you have to keep track of, and its main use is to block line of sight if you can find pieces big enough to do that. It doesn't hinder movement at all. Hills are beneficial in that you can bend true line of sight even more, so there is that usefulness. The GW kits have a lot of open spaces and windows that make it really hard to block line of sight though, you can usually find a way to shoot something if you really want to. If Bob's right hand is sticking out from around the building, you can shoot at his entire unit.

losing the flanking aspect of the game would be something I wouldn't want. But even with the full size mat 2,000pt 40k battle reports I still see 85% of all of the "action" just funneling towards the center.

Does AoS provide a more varied flank strategy?

And yes I agree that I wish GW terrain didnt have so MANY windows. For that reason I was considering blocking a few structures windws to make LOS matter in 40k games.

As for the terrain not mattering much in AoS, I did notice that after watching a few battle reports where the mat was basically without any terrain.

-Endless Spells Nighthaunt

Can you still return and refund the box once you receive it? Cause those things are dead weight and you're objectively better bringing no endless spells than one of those in your army.

Does AoS provide a more varied flank strategy?

No. I would say what you see in the battle reports is real life. AOS is not a game of maneuver with one caveat:

Where you position your model in combat matters a lot. Thats where it gets really fiddly, to try and deny attacks to your enemy.

 auticus wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 auticus wrote:
The reason I don't like that size is because it further removes maneuver from the game by penning the game into a small box. Of course the game rules itself have done a good job at removing a lot of maneuver since many things can just charge you in turn 1 anyway, so that is probably a moot point.

Smaller tables doesn't mean smaller No man zones, those will stay the same (18-24" apart). Its 4" less in the back and 6" less on each side, the sides are what is the big change. Really as long as terrain rules get a little better it will be completely fine. My only worry is table room for large footprint armies.

Smaller tables means no flanks or edges any more. Everything gets funneled forward. Using the wide part of the table is something that I enjoy seeing, you can't do that with these new table sizes.

Conquest came out the gate with a 4x4 playing area and the community there widely panned that in favor for a 6x4 table for the same reason. We want our battlefield edges and like flanking style maneuvers you simply cannot do when bottlenecked into a 4x4 with a 2000 point army (which has similar model counts for both games).

I will get the 2.0 core rules tomorrow but I was wondering what the 2.0 terrain rules were compared to current 40k rules?

Almost non-existent. Terrain doesn't do much in AOS. It has random effects that you have to keep track of, and its main use is to block line of sight if you can find pieces big enough to do that. It doesn't hinder movement at all. Hills are beneficial in that you can bend true line of sight even more, so there is that usefulness. The GW kits have a lot of open spaces and windows that make it really hard to block line of sight though, you can usually find a way to shoot something if you really want to. If Bob's right hand is sticking out from around the building, you can shoot at his entire unit.

Nah, especially if everything goes up by 20% in points, then its the same space for the amount of units.

Cronch wrote:

-Endless Spells Nighthaunt

Can you still return and refund the box once you receive it? Cause those things are dead weight and you're objectively better bringing no endless spells than one of those in your army.

yeah I can, I saw them used on a battle report on YT and they seemed good to use. I wouldn't be so opposed to keeping them and used them once a while since the model was "cheap" in GW terms

Are the nighthaunts your main army?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:

Does AoS provide a more varied flank strategy?

No. I would say what you see in the battle reports is real life. AOS is not a game of maneuver with one caveat:

Where you position your model in combat matters a lot. Thats where it gets really fiddly, to try and deny attacks to your enemy.

k so it is more about deployment rather than movement within the game correct? Like 80-20 deployment vs movement per say


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 auticus wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 auticus wrote:
The reason I don't like that size is because it further removes maneuver from the game by penning the game into a small box. Of course the game rules itself have done a good job at removing a lot of maneuver since many things can just charge you in turn 1 anyway, so that is probably a moot point.

Smaller tables doesn't mean smaller No man zones, those will stay the same (18-24" apart). Its 4" less in the back and 6" less on each side, the sides are what is the big change. Really as long as terrain rules get a little better it will be completely fine. My only worry is table room for large footprint armies.

Smaller tables means no flanks or edges any more. Everything gets funneled forward. Using the wide part of the table is something that I enjoy seeing, you can't do that with these new table sizes.

Conquest came out the gate with a 4x4 playing area and the community there widely panned that in favor for a 6x4 table for the same reason. We want our battlefield edges and like flanking style maneuvers you simply cannot do when bottlenecked into a 4x4 with a 2000 point army (which has similar model counts for both games).

I will get the 2.0 core rules tomorrow but I was wondering what the 2.0 terrain rules were compared to current 40k rules?

Almost non-existent. Terrain doesn't do much in AOS. It has random effects that you have to keep track of, and its main use is to block line of sight if you can find pieces big enough to do that. It doesn't hinder movement at all. Hills are beneficial in that you can bend true line of sight even more, so there is that usefulness. The GW kits have a lot of open spaces and windows that make it really hard to block line of sight though, you can usually find a way to shoot something if you really want to. If Bob's right hand is sticking out from around the building, you can shoot at his entire unit.

Nah, especially if everything goes up by 20% in points, then its the same space for the amount of units.

waiting to get the battletome to see what units would be good to get. I def would like to get blackcoach, lady oly and reikenor just because they look so good

Nah, especially if everything goes up by 20% in points, then its the same space for the amount of units.

Most definitely its not the same space for the amount of units.

12" on each side missing is a huge difference.

It may not be a huge difference to you, but for others it is a big difference. It doesn't matter if you have 5 units or 12 units, distance doesn't change or morph based on unit count.

Missing a foot on either end of your play space has an impact. Whether or not you feel thats a positive, negative, or negligible is personal opinion of course.

In a game like AOS its probably negligible since most games played on a 6x4 tend to funnel in the middle anyway and there is no real incentive for flanking type maneuver, so playing on a 4x4 smaller table will give you the same experience as playing on a 6x4.

The only real difference is that your objectives aren't going to be as spaced as far away, which will mean your units can support themselves even easier since they have less tablespace to travel to get to the next one.

In a game like whfb or conquest or kings of war, going from a 6x4 to a 4x4 has a much bigger impact.

Would smaller tables create problems for armies with a lot of models or with big models, because the smaller tables do create problems for armies in like IG in w40k, that some builds can not just be deployed, if you are also using the proper amount and proper kind of LoS blocking terrain?

 auticus wrote:

Nah, especially if everything goes up by 20% in points, then its the same space for the amount of units.

In a game like AOS its probably negligible since most games played on a 6x4 tend to funnel in the middle anyway and there is no real incentive for flanking type maneuver, so playing on a 4x4 smaller table will give you the same experience as playing on a 6x4.

The only real difference is that your objectives aren't going to be as spaced as far away, which will mean your units can support themselves even easier since they have less tablespace to travel to get to the next one.

that was my impression as well. Everything funnels towards the middle in AoS as well after watching some battle reports. I have a bunch of the 9th edition 40k foldable 2 sided mat boards so i can make 30x44, 44x60 and 44x90.

I will probably play using the 44x60 mats for AoS 2,000pt armies and the 30x44 for AoS skirmishes of 1,000 or less on my desk.

I am fairly positive GW will follow suit the new 40k map sizes with AoS 3.0 so might as well get used to it now lol

It would make deploying them harder, if not impossible in some cases (usually your opponent is reasonable... or you have to have a tournament organizer force them to be reasonable if you run out of room on smaller tables).

It also puts everything into a giant blob of models just pounded into a small deployment area.

If you're a fan its easily hand waived as not a big deal.

For AOS I'm not sure its really a problem since you get the same basic gameplay anyway smashed together or spread out.

that was my impression as well. Everything funnels towards the middle in AoS as well after watching some battle reports.

There are some scenarios where the objectives are spread out where it won't funnel into the middle simply because there are no objectives in the middle. Basically wherever the objectives are, thats where the game will funnel towards. In theory if the objectives are spread out, then the game should spread out. With the tables likely going to smaller sizes, the benefit for the ease of entry people that don't like when they make bad decisions and it punishes them, the objectives will be even closer, so they will be able to correct any mistakes with minimal punishment since the objectives will be closer together.

The only real impact I see it having on AOS is that the mob of models will be denser. As I say above, its the same basic gameplay smashed together or spread out.

yeah i posted the new 40k map sizes above and 44x60 should be more than enough for AoS 2,000pt games tbh


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:


There are some scenarios where the objectives are spread out where it won't funnel into the middle simply because there are no objectives in the middle. Basically wherever the objectives are, thats where the game will funnel towards. In theory if the objectives are spread out, then the game should spread out. With the tables likely going to smaller sizes, the benefit for the ease of entry people that don't like when they make bad decisions and it punishes them, the objectives will be even closer, so they will be able to correct any mistakes with minimal punishment since the objectives will be closer together.

The only real impact I see it having on AOS is that the mob of models will be denser. As I say above, its the same basic gameplay smashed together or spread out.

yeah I would probably play those scenarios more often to add some variety as well.

WFB looked like a much bigger game so it made sense to have the gigantic play area.

I think it was a good move to reduce the map size in 40k since outside of a few instances, most of the map was wasted space in most games. And it looks like AoS would be ok with that change as well.

WFB looked like a much bigger game so it made sense to have the gigantic play area

Model count in whfb or aos at the standard level is roughly the same. My armies weren't terribly different in model count from the two. AOS went bonkers and lets you field tiny monster-based armies now so it is true a lot of armies can be much much smaller now though.

WHFB was a game about maneuver and flanking though so having everything in a smaller box would have killed that.

 auticus wrote:

WFB looked like a much bigger game so it made sense to have the gigantic play area

Model count in whfb or aos at the standard level is roughly the same. My armies weren't terribly different in model count from the two. AOS went bonkers and lets you field tiny monster-based armies now so it is true a lot of armies can be much much smaller now though.

WHFB was a game about maneuver and flanking though so having everything in a smaller box would have killed that.

I like that since I personally lean towards better detailed more powerful smaller units/monster armies rather than patrol spamming like I see in some battle reports.

 auticus wrote:


Smaller tables means no flanks or edges any more. Everything gets funneled forward. Using the wide part of the table is something that I enjoy seeing, you can't do that with these new table sizes.

Which is why Meeting Engagements battles using these smaller tables in AoS actually use Reserve rules, so that you can't put your whole army right on the table on first turn. It is divided in different parts you don't know in advance which will come first, so you have to gamble or divide equally.

It's pretty well made for having played those a few times. And it's a proper answer while using smaller tables.

Sarouan wrote:

 auticus wrote:


Smaller tables means no flanks or edges any more. Everything gets funneled forward. Using the wide part of the table is something that I enjoy seeing, you can't do that with these new table sizes.

Which is why Meeting Engagements battles using these smaller tables in AoS actually use Reserve rules, so that you can't put your whole army right on the table on first turn. It is divided in different parts you don't know in advance which will come first, so you have to gamble or divide equally.

It's pretty well made for having played those a few times. And it's a proper answer while using smaller tables.

yeah that seems something that is used a lot even on big tables

After 20+ games i 9th ed already with a "fast flanking army" its was something i was really worried about too and from experience, it didn't make any difference. I am around 700pts less than what my 8th list was.

Yes if we still have 4pt chaff, and 200-400pt monsters it will be rough, but if the cheap things like Ungors, Rats, etc..if everything goes up 25-33% (4pts to 6pts, 200pts to 266pts, etc..) then you have 1/4-1/3 less of the things on the table.

So coming from the other game that did it, it doesn't seem that bad at all.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
After 20+ games i 9th ed already with a "fast flanking army" its was something i was really worried about too and from experience, it didn't make any difference. I am around 700pts less than what my 8th list was.

Yes if we still have 4pt chaff, and 200-400pt monsters it will be rough, but if the cheap things like Ungors, Rats, etc..if everything goes up 25-33% (4pts to 6pts, 200pts to 266pts, etc..) then you have 1/4-1/3 less of the things on the table.

So coming from the other game that did it, it doesn't seem that bad at all.

did you use the spells expansions?