Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,384 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I had my first game of AoS today, played with the larger Tomb Kings formation (10 models per unit, 3 necro knights) with a liche priest and three chariots against both Ork formations, with units fo 10 (bar the standard boyz in units of 15). Felt like a fairly balanced game due to my standard making it hard to keep units dead, as well as my ranged abilities to compared to his lack of. We added some objectives to capture as an initial game we played led to a massive build up in the middle, so objectives actually gave us a reason to retreat occasionally.

The game itself feels like a build up to the combat phase, as little else really happens at any other point, though that will probably change as new models were released, as at present we are using a lot of 8th ed, which was very combat focussed anyway.

The combat phase is where the tactics come in, I can certainly see why the initial rumours suggested it was like chess. Knowing which unit to attack with first is key to reducing how much your opponent can attack with, as well as how to charge to force you unit to split out of coherency - as units have to pile in to the closest model, but then if they have to get abck to 1" coherency in their next turn they will be forced to retreat, as you either stay stationary or retreat out of 3".

Not measuring base to base is awkward, as it leads to bases overlapping to get in range etc. and models such as the giant are really easy to attack as they have an arm stickingout the side that models can stand under. As a thought for improvements we discussed measuring base to base (as the base shape will have pros and cons to units which balance out, or are negligible) and being base to base with a friendly model in base contact with the enemy counts as being within 1" for the purposes of attacking.

The system is good, and with the addition of more in depth scenarios and models designed for AoS it could be brilliant, there is a lot of tactical thought required, but the lac of balance mechanic is the massive kicker, and it certainly has a long way to go before I play regularly.

What are your thoughts so far?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,323 Posts
The system is good, and with the addition of more in depth scenarios and models designed for AoS it could be brilliant
This is heartening to hear, given the overwhelmingly bad response to the whole AoS idea I have read from a lot of Heresy members. Blew me away when I saw that all the rules were on the GW site for free, I'll have to take a closer look.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,246 Posts
Absolutely love the game and the new rules, and placed an order straight away.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,384 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
@ntaw, don't get me wrong it does have a way to go, but then there is news of plenty still to come, so I'm optimistic for the time being :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
522 Posts
As far as balance goes, I noticed that there are "formations" for armies. I wonder if competitive play would be possible if tournaments organised events and stated that only army formations could be taken?
It also gives some structure that some people are looking for.
 

·
Herald of The Warp
Joined
·
2,752 Posts
I tried the game last Saturday as well. Honestly I think the core system is solid - If you don't overthink it, it has a fair flow and easy to get into.

I am looking forward to the more advances set of rules, but for starters it got me interested in Fantasy: Something I never was before.

The sky is still in place. Who would've known.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,384 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
@R_Squared, that's effectively what we did, it worked really well and felt quite balanced, as then the only real discussion is how big you want the units which generally works at 10 per unit
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,561 Posts
As far as balance goes, I noticed that there are "formations" for armies. I wonder if competitive play would be possible if tournaments organised events and stated that only army formations could be taken?
It also gives some structure that some people are looking for.
From the warscrolls I have read, the formations are designed to be thematic rather than balanced: the two WoC formations are definitely of unequal power.

However, as AoS includes a mechanism for unequal forces, it could work.

I suspect it depends on what you mean by competitive play: using formations would remove all the need for army list scoring and such, so would make the game about how you play your army; but also removes the strategy of building your forces to meet unknown opponents, so turns one part of the competition from optimise your forces to pick from two options.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
811 Posts
I played a quick game just it test the mechanics. It is very fast and quite elegant.

A lot of people have criticised the standardising of rolls but it means that there is very little downtime and chance to make mistakes (we all know that feeling when your opponent tells you his guys were actually toughness 3 instead of 4 right after you roll). I don't think the argument that 'why can my guy wound a snotling as easy as he can a bloodthirster' holds much water either as this is compensated for hugely in wounds, armour and special rules.

However the model-to-model measuring rubs me the wrong way slightly. I understand the idea behind it as it removes the standardising of basing and makes the transition to circular bases while meaning you can keep your square bases smoother, but the concept of having someone overlap their bases onto mine to get more attacks doesn't appeal to me. What about people who make scenic bases? I can see a lot of people houseruling it back to base-to-base measuring.

I'm interested to see the system for competitive balance that is confirmed for coming at some point.

The thing that makes me the most nervous is the confirmation that they are going it phase out the old model line. How can we tell what is staying and going beyond the snippets of fluff changes been revealed so far?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,694 Posts
What about people who make scenic bases? I can see a lot of people houseruling it back to base-to-base measuring.
Hey, that's me! :biggrin:
Honestly, even measuring from the middle point of the base could have been better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,323 Posts
don't get me wrong it does have a way to go, but then there is news of plenty still to come, so I'm optimistic for the time being
As someone who has long looked at WFB models and thought 'damn I wish I owned that' but never bought any because I didn't play a game which seemed more convoluted than 40k, would you say this is an easier system to throw a few models down on the table and skirmish it out while interest in a larger force is developed? I mean, with the rules free to download I'm more willing to buy a couple boxes and see what's up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,384 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
The thing that makes me the most nervous is the confirmation that they are going it phase out the old model line. How can we tell what is staying and going beyond the snippets of fluff changes been revealed so far?
Yeah there is a lot of mixed messages regarding that, on Natfka last night they were saying a customer services rep said they would be contiuing to make fantasy models for the foreseeable future.

As someone who has long looked at WFB models and thought 'damn I wish I owned that' but never bought any because I didn't play a game which seemed more convoluted than 40k, would you say this is an easier system to throw a few models down on the table and skirmish it out while interest in a larger force is developed? I mean, with the rules free to download I'm more willing to buy a couple boxes and see what's up.
Absolutely, and I think that's what GW was trying to do. The starting costs for AoS in tiny in comparison to any of their other systems. With 2 boxes of units and a hero you could have a pretty reasonable games, and you can split the units into any size you want to vary the individual complexity of the game. The rules themselves are incredibly simple, you can see where the initial chess comparison came from but has a lot of tactical scope. So if you are interested in the miniatures but always felt you never reallyliked the system so felt it would be a waste, this is the perfect excuse.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
522 Posts
I played a couple more games today in store one of which appeared to be quite a lop-sided game at one point. An army of Dwarves and lizardmen Vs Ogres and Goblins.
Basically, the terrifying large monsters, Giants and Mangler Squigs, were all destroyed by the end of turn 1 leaving a swirling shooting/ melee of units.
We had a couple of ambush units, and some camouflage skinks which, in cover managed to throw a confident pair of opponents completely off guard.
We also discussed game breaking deathstars. Units of Ogres, backed up with multiple wizards casting Mystic shield against the same unit to give unbeatable armour saves, 1+ save anyone? However, -2 rends and Mortal wounds helped there.
It was interesting fun, and we all seem to be learning the strengths and weakness of the format.
One thing that leapt out at me was the balancing system. We didn't adopt one, apart from our opponents self-regulating their ogre spam. However, this consisted of, "you can't take that whole load of Ogres, they've only got 2 units of skinks and some quarrellers."
Not really the best method TBH, but in the absence of anything else, it's all we have.
The games were fun, and I was surprised at how much strategy, team work and sportsmanship came out of the games. More so than the usual 40k games I've played.
Sportsmanship and team work particularly, were very obvious. Both sides were genuinely seeking opportunities for everyone to enjoy themselves, and were playing with that in mind. Strategy came from studying our unit abilities and working out how to best place and utilise them in the face of what appeared to be overwhelming superiority.
With those aspects in mind, it's been a winner for me so far.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,697 Posts
I've tried the new game a few times and it's ok for a quick battle but it really seems to lack the depth that kept me playing warhammer for years.
It's a bit early to write off the whole system until more factions are released but depending on how that's handled I doubt I'll invest to much into the game.
I'm not a massive fan of the tourrettes system giving you bonuses for random shouting and awkward eye contact but then I'm a grown up and British so maybe could do with being less reserved.
On the bright side the new Khorne models however poorly named are pretty and if you squint the Sigmar stuff doesn't all look like the love children from a Necron and Blood Angel orgy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
302 Posts
I can see a lot of people houseruling it back to base-to-base measuring.
Thats the first thing we did when we tried the system :p Otherwise I really like it. Im even contemplating on building on my Gfs High Elves again :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,246 Posts
As for me, I am going to get my first game this w/end, and i'll play as the good guys.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
302 Posts
As for me, I am going to get my first game this w/end, and i'll play as the good guys.
A tip for your first game, add 3 objectives to the middle of the field, spaced 1 fot from edge, middle, 1 fot from edge. If a unit stands within 3" and its uncontested you gain 1 point, first to 6 wins. We have tried this and it makes for great games, less of a cluster of minins where the biggest fight happens to happen :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,384 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
^This works, any sort of objectives which claim points at the end of a turn really breaks up the battlefield and stops a pit in the middle
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,694 Posts
^This works, any sort of objectives which claim points at the end of a turn really breaks up the battlefield and stops a pit in the middle
stops it by breaking the big moshpit into several smaller moshpits.
Sorry, i couldn't help.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top