AoS experience

[GDD]

Cool to hear about your experiences guys. I can't play for a while so I am looking to the internet for info.
I am very sad about the change to the armies looks. I don't doubt that GW will deliver awesome new models, and styles but look at the Stormcast and the Empire. If that is the extent we can expect the changes to be then I will miss the old armies. The dwarfs for example sound like they will have a lot more "steampunk" going on than they used too, which is not a change I am welcoming.

In other news I found something interesting on twitter. I don't quite know the context of this, but it seems like GW stores have been getting an email with some examples to help balance games.

"

1-12 total warscrolls
1-2 heroes
0-2 monsters
No unit may contain more than x wounds
No hero warscroll may be duplicated
Other warscrolls may only be duplicated once

"

Got it from https://twitter.com/Lady_Atia

You could add "previously large target models" instead of monsters. You could also add a warmachine restriction for example. Or a "minimum one previous core unit".
That mostly applies to the old army things though :tongue:

Doesn't look that bad to me? Thoughts?

 

[Demian]

The No Hero warscrolls may be duplicated hinders Konrad's...

...yes I'm telling them. Look I'm writting it now... jeez...

Konrad's command ability to affect more than one model, maybe two since Heinrich Kemmler is also tagged as a Necromancer.

I'd say... okay! we! we'd say that establishing a wound-limit on Heroes can prevent people from fielding too much cheese (as in, up to 20 wounds for Heroes would get you Nagash and a Cairn Wraith, but that's it. Or you could get 4 vampires, etc.

 

[Tawg]

The No Hero warscrolls may be duplicated hinders Konrad's...

...yes I'm telling them. Look I'm writting it now... jeez...

Konrad's command ability to affect more than one model, maybe two since Heinrich Kemmler is also tagged as a Necromancer.

I'd say... okay! we! we'd say that establishing a wound-limit on Heroes can prevent people from fielding too much cheese (as in, up to 20 wounds for Heroes would get you Nagash and a Cairn Wraith, but that's it. Or you could get 4 vampires, etc.

Well, I don't know. Heroes are quite a bit different in this new Age than before. It's nice to think of the old style of play when you could bring a handful of low-cost heroes, or kit out a single super-killy vamp or what have you, but now the dynamic is different.

Sure the wound limit prevents certain combinations, but I dunno. It bears looking into, but it might matter for different armies if wound allocations are different (IE Ogres all have higher wounds in general).

I think the "No duplicating" is intended to stop named characters? I can't quite tell. If that's the only purpose you can declare that without restricting non-specific heroes from being duplicates, which might be alright.

 

[Sception]

My thoughts are that it's not tight enough to allow for competitive list building, so you'll still be choosing units at the table, trying to spitball a fair game by the seat of your pants, rather than tinkering with builds before the game, trying to min-max to eke out an advantage.

 

[najo]

And 90% of it is considered bs cheese tactics by the biggest proponents of the game on this board.

Bit of a split on exactly how far you should go with these very permissible rules.

I understand that there are player's such as yourself that are bitter about WFB. I've loved and played that game for 25 years now, so I understand. But to just denounce AoS, claim that 90% of the people who are for the game claim that the tactics in the game are cheesy.. Come on, seriously? I haven't seen that trend, nor have my own experiences shown that too me. As an experienced student of warfare and wargames, Age of Sigmar is actually fair deep and tactical for such a simple set of rules. My advice is play a dozen games before you write it off.

 

[LordTobiothan]

I understand that there are player's such as yourself that are bitter about WFB. I've loved and played that game for 25 years now, so I understand. But to just denounce AoS, claim that 90% of the people who are for the game claim that the tactics in the game are cheesy.. Come on, seriously? I haven't seen that trend, nor have my own experiences shown that too me. As an experienced student of warfare and wargames, Age of Sigmar is actually fair deep and tactical for such a simple set of rules. My advice is play a dozen games before you write it off.

I actually said 90% of the proponents of the people on this board. If you look at any of the battle reports posted where both players found it a negative experience (which is all of them so far), the next half dozen comments are the people who like this game claiming unsportsmanlike cheese on the winning side, when they did nothing but follow the rules and use tactics like the ones you've mentioned.

Id have said 100% but i cant be sure ive seen every full battle report posted, so i wrote off 10% as possible missed postings. The ones i have seen (and ive followed all new aos thread posts pretty closely) my statement is true.

 

[Tawg]

I actually said 90% of the proponents of the people on this board. If you look at any of the battle reports posted where both players found it a negative experience (which is all of them so far), the next half dozen comments are the people who like this game claiming unsportsmanlike cheese on the winning side, when they did nothing but follow the rules and use tactics like the ones you've mentioned.

Id have said 100% but i cant be sure ive seen every full battle report posted, so i wrote off 10% as possible missed postings. The ones i have seen (and ive followed all new aos thread posts pretty closely) my statement is true.

Whoa whoa whoa, hold your horses.

I posted a battle report as well as @Malisteen and neither of us ended it with "F$*K AoS". In fact I'm quite sure we both said that while we may have reservations about it, and are perhaps hoping that it will develop something moving forward, we had fun playing the games we did.

Unless you're only accepting Battle reports from random people on YouTube, but I don't see how ours would be discounted.

 

[Sception]

In Toby's defense, the vast majority of battle reports I've seen elsewhere have been negative, especially on youtube, and in particular from a number of youtube battle reporters who I greatly respect (lord tremendous in particular). And they have many good points and cogent criticisms, if perhaps voiced in a more 'spirited' manner than is strictly called for, imo. Criticisms I tend to agree with, even if the didn't stop me from enjoying the games I played. And I remain deeply skeptical of AoS as a game and especially of its prospects down the line.

The game requires a peculiar bit of doublethink, where you cannot be trying to win the game until the moment the game starts, otherwise you kind of stop having a game at all. Instead you have to be aiming to create as fair a game as you can, since GW didn't even try, during the process of army construction and scenario selection. It's only after the first turn starts that you actually start trying to win, and trying to limit your opponent's chances of victory. And it can work, for at least a handful of games. At least, I've enjoyed my games so far. Whether I'm still enjoying it two weeks from now is an entirely different question.

 

[najo]

Age of Sigmar has the following: Alternating Deployment, Movement scores, To Hit and To Wound rolls, Saves, magic spells, numerous special rules for the regiments and a Morale system. Those are all components its shares with Warhammer Fantasy. The main difference is instead of regiments with facing and arcs, we have units with 3" control zones and weapon reach. We trade WFB redirecting and leapfrog for actually building spearhead and wedges, shield walls, defensive columns, echelons, squares etc that function very similar to real historical formations. In Age of Sigmar, you can actually march block and still perform pincer attacks, denied flanks, linebreakers, etc. You can build real combined arms and staggered formations! Take a unit of armored warriors and encircle spearmen or missile troops with them and you have armored tortoise or archer/gun platform! So far, most real life tactics actually hold up in AoS better than they do in WFB.

The thing I've seen in those battle reports, most players make no attempt to enact any of these tactics. Instead they run their units together, and basically do a frontal assault. The units all pile in together and then you roll dice. Well, that is exactly what happened in WFB when you play that way. That was the reason a lot of player played Deathstars too. But it is the wrong way to play both WFB and AoS.

In WFB, you want to divide their army, out maneuver them and then get in flank and rear charges or combined charges while stalling their main fighting units. In AoS, you are going to use throw away and decoy units to slow down and divert units (like redirecting), while going into formations that control what can pile in and where enemy can move. For example, an echelon or wing is going to funnel enemy models up along its formation as long as you do not break formation and pile in. Instead of piling in, you support trouble spots with characters and secondary units that can fight from behind the frontline troops.

We are just scratching the surface of AoS. It has the potential to be a more complex wargame that has a lot of subtly in its deployment, movement and positioning. There is no way anyone has those subtleties figured out yet, but if I can see them and other players I know who have experience playing historical wargames see them, they are there. What I've seen so far is players whose only experience is with fantasy wargames just throw out armies similar to what they already play, run their models into each other and then pile in. There is no tactics in doing that in the game or in real life. That's called a war of attrition, and in those, both sides sustain heavy casualties and its the worst possible way to fight.

The one thing I will grant that AoS lacks compared to WFB is LOS arcs. Though historically, units can't run up alongside another unit and hide in their flank within 1" (2-3 yards) of them. So if you want to get technical, AoS is more realistic there too.

BTW, to pull off a flank attack in AoS, you need to bait enemy units in so they end up charging one of your units (or you charge them) and they end up with a second unit from you within 3", you then let them activate, you then activate all your other top priority fights first, then when you make your way back around to this fight, you activate the engaged unit and then activate and pile in the secondary unit within 3". This should deal a massive amount of damage if you chose your units for those roles well. Something armored to accept the charge and something killy with reach to do the flanking.

 

[Tawg]

That's fair to say there is a vast majority of reviews coming out via the internet that are negative, I just wanted to point it out because he said "Which is all of them". And I disagree with that.

Plus it's important to note the type of people who would be expected to be making these reviews are often of a certain mind set. I would not ask a question on these forums and then declare a statement about the majority of the player base (Which is NOT what he did, just leading towards a point), and that's because the "sample" of individuals who bother to post on the internet are going to be ones who are fairly deeply involved in the game/hobby/what have you. Players don't typically start out on the internet, this is usually a place for veteran players to congregate. And with that, I would say it's dangerous to take what we see in this "vacuum" online, as it may be vocal minorities that express the most opinions, making it look far worse than it is. Not to mention people in general tend to exaggerate/make a much bigger fuss when they perceive something as negative rather than in a good light.

So I'm just saying that going along with the doom saying for the sake of going along with the doom saying is a poor choice.

I can't disagree if someone thinks the game is inherently poor. @najo's blog-post about the game is fairly interesting, and there are points I identify with more strongly as positives, but in the end his message/advice is the most sound. If you don't try it you will literally never know. Although for anyone who would go into such a "trial run" of AoS with a very negative attitude, it's probably not worth it, since all they'll be able to see in their tunnel vision will be what they perceive as wrongs against the community/the bastardization of the game. And that's cool. But it's people who both think so negatively, and speak negatively that in the end are creating the worst perspective of the game for others to be guided by.

It's the same as any thing (Or anyone for that matter) that has prejudice leveled against it. I won't disagree with the fact that WHFB is dead, and this is not that if that's all you were interested in, but it's interesting, and it's worth giving an honest spin. And if you and your mates can't have fun playing it, or find it too off putting then perhaps it's not a fit for you. But I feel like many of the opinions of AoS are boarder line slander.

It is, however, fair to say that Adem Jesnsen speaks the mind of much of the community, regardless of their views on AoS, when he said, "I never asked for this."

 

[LordTobiothan]

I saw your and Malisteens brief overview of your games, neither actually went through the events of the game, making them not full battle reports.

This is important because when deciding the merits of the game details are so important you could almost leave out any information about the big picture.

Seeing how units moved and which rules were played as minimally as possible to not break the game (whether intentionally or not) are the only reports I was considering.

Id love to see the full battle report of najos game as it sounds like he pushed the system pretty far and still enjoyed it.

Because by explanation alone it sounds like it became a game of who can line up their models in the best way at any given time to abuse the movement and combat rules of the game, which is a silly concept in my opinion in a game consisting of over 100 models on each side where that sort of formation breaking should be suicide.

 

[Tawg]

I saw your and Malisteens brief overview of your games, neither actually went through the events of the game, making them not full battle reports.

This is important because when deciding the merits of the game details are so important you could almost leave out any information about the big picture.

Seeing how units moved and which rules were played as minimally as possible to not break the game (whether intentionally or not) are the only reports I was considering.

Id love to see the full battle report of najos game as it sounds like he pushed the system pretty far and still enjoyed it.

Because by explanation alone it sounds like it became a game of who can line up their models in the best way at any given time to abuse the movement and combat rules of the game, which is a silly concept in my opinion in a game consisting of over 100 models on each side where that sort of formation breaking should be suicide.

I won't disagree with that last part, and I know you mentioned the Hodge-podgery of nonsense that is "formations" now, which I personally didn't experience since I just made mini-blobs that were roughly akin to 8 or 10 by X ranked troops. And I don't really plan to change how I form up my units any time soon to be honest, so hopefully there aren't abusively stupid things going on when players start to try and see what they can do to their fullest.

Well, I dunno, I thought I highlighted a fair bit of the "events" in the game, just not with strict measurements and pictures since I didn't go into the game with the mind to report the battle. I still think I covered most everything that happened in respects to the "minor" interactions that you'd have been looking for. I'll maybe get a bit more detailed in the next game I play, maybe if I have one this weekend.

I do think the wizard/magic rules are a little bunk. I feel poorly bringing Necromancers/any Summoner against opponents who have no chance to counter the spells. And even then the fact that the 18" range is the same for everyone means your casters are either attempting to seek out and dispel your opponents magic or they are attempting to push through their own spells unhindered. And that is not very interactive IMO. Because knowing that I can walk away to summon with no chance for rebuttal is silly to me, as is knowing you need to take a wizard to stop that sort of non-sense. But that was playing with only 1 Hero, and one of the first few games I played, so positioning may simply be a new "art" in AoS. Just as well could having more heroes than 1 meaning that there is far less of a premium on their position, since you could cover more "board" with them. And it's really only bad with summoning unhindered, since it's crazy good to just produce 1/3rd of your army every turn in such small battles. It might just need to be limited in very skirmish matches, I guess we'll see moving forward :ghost:

 

[Dragonet]

Najo this sounds brilliant! I always accepted that wargames could never really represent a real battle in the way I hoped, but they were as close as we'd get. This seems revolutionary, my only concern being the scale of the game, isn't it a skirmish rather than a battle or army level game? I suppose each model representing a squad of 10 men would make sense to me and account for the permeability of formations.

 

[Tawg]

Najo this sounds brilliant! I always accepted that wargames could never really represent a real battle in the way I hoped, but they were as close as we'd get. This seems revolutionary, my only concern being the scale of the game, isn't it a skirmish rather than a battle or army level game? I suppose each model representing a squad of 10 men would make sense to me and account for the permeability of formations.

How you flavor your interpretation of what happens in the battles is entirely up to you (And doesn't change anything). Call Each model 10-man squads if you like the idea of the battle being super massive. It won't change the functionality of the game (Unless you start house ruling things). I never played Epic or Warmaster, but it would be a similar concept (Albeit those games have different rules).

The important question you're asking is, can AoS only be used to represent small battles? This I don't have an answer to yet. I have only fielded two battles, both with 3 or less units (Due to time, and just dipping our feet the first day), so I can't say I have experienced the scale of fights we use to do with WHFB. But I am very curious to do so if players would be willing. Maybe this weekend I'll find a player who is alright with trying. Although I have heard the game can be bogged down or overburdened by larger battles. But I.. don't know. The system is loose and once learned to competency, which is funny to suggest of a 4-page rule game, but I mean as in feeling confident you are not doing things incorrectly/checking rules too much. Especially learning your Warscolls will speed up games if you happen to do so. At any rate, I bet games take longer with more models (GW advised that 100 model matches last an evening was it?) I don't know that the rules system will be weaker when used this way. For one, Magic seems more balanced the larger the fight you play, which is good IMO.

 

[LordTobiothan]

I won't disagree with that last part, and I know you mentioned the Hodge-podgery of nonsense that is "formations" now, which I personally didn't experience since I just made mini-blobs that were roughly akin to 8 or 10 by X ranked troops. And I don't really plan to change how I form up my units any time soon to be honest, so hopefully there aren't abusively stupid things going on when players start to try and see what they can do to their fullest.

Well, I dunno, I thought I highlighted a fair bit of the "events" in the game, just not with strict measurements and pictures since I didn't go into the game with the mind to report the battle. I still think I covered most everything that happened in respects to the "minor" interactions that you'd have been looking for. I'll maybe get a bit more detailed in the next game I play, maybe if I have one this weekend.

I do think the wizard/magic rules are a little bunk. I feel poorly bringing Necromancers/any Summoner against opponents who have no chance to counter the spells. And even then the fact that the 18" range is the same for everyone means your casters are either attempting to seek out and dispel your opponents magic or they are attempting to push through their own spells unhindered. And that is not very interactive IMO. Because knowing that I can walk away to summon with no chance for rebuttal is silly to me, as is knowing you need to take a wizard to stop that sort of non-sense. But that was playing with only 1 Hero, and one of the first few games I played, so positioning may simply be a new "art" in AoS. Just as well could having more heroes than 1 meaning that there is far less of a premium on their position, since you could cover more "board" with them. And it's really only bad with summoning unhindered, since it's crazy good to just produce 1/3rd of your army every turn in such small battles. It might just need to be limited in very skirmish matches, I guess we'll see moving forward :ghost:

Those mini blobs are exactly what najo was saying people shouldn't do when playing, and if you two were to play a game and you didnt adapt to the erratic wonky formations, najo would likely stomp you every game because his oddly shaped unit got more attacks then your ranked formation, with no penalty.

So you'd need to adapt or find only like minded opponents to yourself. (Or najo would have to agree not to use the tactics that are his favorite part of aos' rules).

 

[Tawg]

Those mini blobs are exactly what najo was saying people shouldn't do when playing, and if you two were to play a game and you didnt adapt to the erratic wonky formations, najo would likely stomp you every game because his oddly shaped unit got more attacks then your ranked formation, with no penalty.

So you'd need to adapt or find only like minded opponents to yourself. (Or najo would have to agree not to use the tactics that are his favorite part of aos' rules).

Now, I can't speak for @najo, but I think his concern lies in utilizing and working with the new ' 3" command zone ' units have over the battle field. I mean, I understand the concept of ranking a unit up differently to force an opponent around, or what have you. I'm just saying I'm probably not going to be making flying V formations.. unless I'm playing Britonians

I dunno, it'll be something that will come with player opponents. You'll clearly adapt to the situation at hand, unless you're utterly clueless, so I'm interested to see how more games play out. But I don't plan on setting up 30 zombies as a "boarder" across my deployment zone to create a literal wall of zombies you'd have to punch through to even move to the other half of the table. That just sounds stupid (And maybe scenarios will fix issues like that, hell, it might not even be something worth considering an issue at all besides to the player trying to move such a unit, that would just be cumbersome).

 

[najo]

I think lines of troops would have short lived benefits as they suffer causalities and shrink. You are better off to layer and focus your formations. Exactly how and when is going to only be discovered by playing.

Sidenote, you can deploy zombies in a line across the table in Warhammer 8th too. That abuse is not new to AoS. I've summoned 120+ zombies and split tables in half in 8th edition.

 

[Tawg]

I think lines of troops would have short lived benefits as they suffer causalities and shrink. You are better off to layer and focus your formations. Exactly how and when is going to only be discovered by playing.

Sidenote, you can deploy zombies in a line across the table in Warhammer 8th too. That abuse is not new to AoS. I've summoned 120+ zombies and split tables in half in 8th edition.

Oh don't worry I know. And the 2xX zombies that try to abuse "Wheel" movement to swing a full unit entirely across the board?

Yeah, I know it was a thing before as well as now, and in both cases I declared it stupid as sin. And I stand by that stance.

 

[LordTobiothan]

Oh don't worry I know. And the 2xX zombies that try to abuse "Wheel" movement to swing a full unit entirely across the board?

Yeah, I know it was a thing before as well as now, and in both cases I declared it stupid as sin. And I stand by that stance.

That wheel thing was actually not legal within the rules, people were measuring from the back model as their units movement instead of the model opposite the one doing the pivot like the rule book tells you to do. Long time cheat that became so commonplace that people thought it was just a bad rule allowing it.

 

[Dragonet]

It's interesting, I think I remember historically that although the most famous formations (hoplites, legionnaries, pikemen) generally had a straight rank in the front line, a lot of medieval forces began to use wedge formations to funnel enemy troops into deathtraps where they could be easily surrounded and entrapped, which might legitimise the use of odd shapes in the ranks?

I take your point that rules wise it doesn't matter how many troops one model represents, but I need to know what scale of battle we're trying to capture. If it's a few guys dukeing it out I can watch that on TV or go roleplay it for far more realism; for a battle I really want to see the science of warfare represented, else it's just a game with cool models.

 

[Eyeless]

A though on rules and gameplay. Currently in AoS there is no reason should pick a unit of hand weapons over a unit of archers. archers can shoot, while in combat, at units in combat and attack in close combat. I believe it would be fair to only shoot while in combat or attack in melee? I mean if there guys have bows and they are in combat they are supposed to shoot then unsheathe their weapon and attack? I know this is within the rules but it's kinda too much. Else a hero with 4 weapon choice should attack with all, like use the sword, then the dagger, then the spear and lastly pull out your 2H axe and cleave. I know it doesn't work this way but it's kind of the same don't you think?

 

[hairyjeff]

Purely personal opinion, and I don't expect many to agree - 3 games in, it's no fun, it's repetitive, it's unbalanced( I know that's still in the pipeline.) When GW finish writing the rules for this, I'll give it another go, open minded. Until then, as far as I'm concerned, it sucks.

 

[Demian]

Archers (at least our archers) have a poor to Hit and to Wound rolls, both Ranged and Melee weapons, so while they get to perform an extra attack during your turn, they don't outperform a specialized melee unit anyways.

However, charging archers does not automatically mean they are destroyed, since they can score a few extra wounds with their bows now.

 

[Woolly.Mammoth]

Bases dont matter, period. They do sell 20mm if you're afraid of size. Or you could simply stack your bases; have skeletons on top of each others bases to squeeze them all in. Since skeletons are so small you can easily do this. Also on top of your opponents base. Another thing is you could model half of them with swords sticking way forward, so that they go over the guys in front so that their sword tip is within 1" of what you're fighting.

Regardless, skeletons have 3 attacks each when over 30 models. 4 if Krell is the general. (Sword Skeles) are hitting on 3+ if there's a hero nearby and wounding on 4+, with tons of improvement depending on who your General is. Danse Macabre allows you to attack twice in one phase. So even with 30 lowly skeletons, you can get in 240 attacks with good hit/wound chance. This is in a single combat phase before your opponent can retaliate. In most situations, even without maximized frontage & especially with double pile-in from danse, you're not going to have any difficulty killing things with a large block of skeletons regardless of their bases or modelling.

 

[Alabaster427]

Age of Sigmar has the following: Alternating Deployment, Movement scores, To Hit and To Wound rolls, Saves, magic spells, numerous special rules for the regiments and a Morale system. Those are all components its shares with Warhammer Fantasy. The main difference is instead of regiments with facing and arcs, we have units with 3" control zones and weapon reach. We trade WFB redirecting and leapfrog for actually building spearhead and wedges, shield walls, defensive columns, echelons, squares etc that function very similar to real historical formations. In Age of Sigmar, you can actually march block and still perform pincer attacks, denied flanks, linebreakers, etc. You can build real combined arms and staggered formations! Take a unit of armored warriors and encircle spearmen or missile troops with them and you have armored tortoise or archer/gun platform! So far, most real life tactics actually hold up in AoS better than they do in WFB.

The thing I've seen in those battle reports, most players make no attempt to enact any of these tactics. Instead they run their units together, and basically do a frontal assault. The units all pile in together and then you roll dice. Well, that is exactly what happened in WFB when you play that way. That was the reason a lot of player played Deathstars too. But it is the wrong way to play both WFB and AoS.

In WFB, you want to divide their army, out maneuver them and then get in flank and rear charges or combined charges while stalling their main fighting units. In AoS, you are going to use throw away and decoy units to slow down and divert units (like redirecting), while going into formations that control what can pile in and where enemy can move. For example, an echelon or wing is going to funnel enemy models up along its formation as long as you do not break formation and pile in. Instead of piling in, you support trouble spots with characters and secondary units that can fight from behind the frontline troops.

We are just scratching the surface of AoS. It has the potential to be a more complex wargame that has a lot of subtly in its deployment, movement and positioning. There is no way anyone has those subtleties figured out yet, but if I can see them and other players I know who have experience playing historical wargames see them, they are there. What I've seen so far is players whose only experience is with fantasy wargames just throw out armies similar to what they already play, run their models into each other and then pile in. There is no tactics in doing that in the game or in real life. That's called a war of attrition, and in those, both sides sustain heavy casualties and its the worst possible way to fight.

The one thing I will grant that AoS lacks compared to WFB is LOS arcs. Though historically, units can't run up alongside another unit and hide in their flank within 1" (2-3 yards) of them. So if you want to get technical, AoS is more realistic there too.

BTW, to pull off a flank attack in AoS, you need to bait enemy units in so they end up charging one of your units (or you charge them) and they end up with a second unit from you within 3", you then let them activate, you then activate all your other top priority fights first, then when you make your way back around to this fight, you activate the engaged unit and then activate and pile in the secondary unit within 3". This should deal a massive amount of damage if you chose your units for those roles well. Something armored to accept the charge and something killy with reach to do the flanking.

I understand all of these words that you are saying, but I can't picture it in action. I'm more of a show me, don't tell me kind of person. Do you think you could draw up some examples or a video explaining how some of these work?