Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2015 9:13:19 GMT -6
I haven't played the game yet, but I wonder from how you all (and others) have described it, if you are just trying to play WFB with the new ruleset? What I mean by that is, are you lining up your battle lines and just moving forward in a manner similar to WFB? Because that's what it sounds like. Or are you trying to maneuver to the best advantage like you would in 40K? One of the things I found in designing my own game is that people's first instinct is to just charge straight forward into battle. If I don't reiterate the ways to earn VP's or otherwise guide the players, they just run straight into the opposing side and smash face. A lot of those early games were just a dog pile of characters falling over each other and beating the crap out of each other. It was still fun, but a lot of cool/effective options get missed. And some of that comes from not being familiar with in game options or nuanced special rules. Each war scroll seems to have a bunch of special rules. When you reflect on the game afterward, was dog piling your best option? Would the game be better with more terrain to move around? Has either side been using missile troops? Do they make a difference. Battle Fleet Gothic, Epic 40,000, Warmaster, and others have used 2 dice roll systems and they were all, in their time, considered more strategic games than their 28mm counterparts that involve 3 or more rolls to resolve combat. So even though that's what you're used to, that might not be it. I guess the question I'm posing is: Is it the game? Or is it how you're playing it? Which sounds sassy, but it's an important reflective question. EDIT BY RUSSELL:
|
|
|
Post by Russell on Jul 16, 2015 9:54:41 GMT -6
I, and most, would argue that movement was more important in WFB. Just pushing your lines forward may have been effective for Ogres or maybe WoC. If you pushed forward elves, Empire, or any other 3T models expecting to succeed you were in for a surprise. So, I don't really agree with your sentiment here. We weren't playing like WFB because you can't play it like WFB. The strategy that fell out of the Aos movement phase was when to activate hero abilities and when to swing them around into combat. This wasn't as engaging as, for example, charge redirecting, protecting flanks, or march blocking in WFB.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2015 10:17:23 GMT -6
Russell, my statements dumbed down WFB's intricacies, but my question is still relevant. WFB was definitely about all of the things you described, but regardless of how you staggered your battle lines, essentially the game still largely revolved around one or both sides advancing their battle lines into the field to draw the charge or initiate the charge to get the dominos of your cleverly laid plans of flank charges or whatever else rolling.
What I'm saying is: Remove the context of WFB. When you play AoS are you just running to the middle and fighting because that's your immediate inclination? And if so, if you step back and look hard at your options, is that the best way to play the game or are you neglecting the synergy between your options, special rules, and terrain?
Also, I know the intent in the coming releases is for it to be a scenario driven game. The people who seem to be having the most fun with it are already dabbling with on the spot scenarios. Scenarios and Objectives that break up the need/desire to rush to the middle and thump each other make a huge difference in ANY game.
"Ask not what AoS can do for you... Ask what you can do to get the most fun out of AoS!" -JFK
|
|
dex
neophyte
STATUS
Posts: 739
|
Post by dex on Jul 16, 2015 10:20:07 GMT -6
First, there are no VPs. The only way to win is total annihilation unless forces are mis matched. After that you have to get up in someone's face to knuggy them. So when you start flanking someone they simply slide there army more or less through itself and reform in one movement then attempt to charge 12"
|
|
|
Post by Nick P on Jul 16, 2015 10:35:02 GMT -6
If I don't reiterate the ways to earn VP's or otherwise guide the players. This is a non issue, because unless you play a specific scenario (coming out in the new scenario book released this weekend), there are no VPs or real end-goals other than having more models on the board at the end of turn 6 than your opponent. And some of that comes from not being familiar with in game options or nuanced special rules. "Nuanced" would be an extreme overstatement. Yes, some war scrolls do have what look like special rules at first glance - but what you quickly realize is that they're really just explanations of what their equipment does, which are all pretty generic, and which more often than not are so situational that it doesn't apply in some, if not most, games - things like "ignore rend of -1 with shields, gain a 5+ save vs mortal wounds with shields, if unit is 20+ models reroll 1s to hit, if 30+ reroll all to hit" etc. are pretty ubiquitous. The characters tend to have "special rules" in the form of Hero Abilities - but again, these are so generic and so situational so as to lend virtually zero to the game in the form of a layer of strategy. My Slann for example, gets to make all Lizardmen units roll 2d6 and pick the lowest for their bravery tests...but they are all bravery 10, so it never even comes up. Has either side been using missile troops? Do they make a difference. Yes, I brought some missile troops in the form of skinks with javelins and shields (sorry, Meteoric Javelins and Star-Bucklers) and in the form of a Stegadon with giant blowpipes (sorry, Sunfire Throwers). It honestly didn't make much of a difference - with most missile weapons I've seen having such short range (mine were 8") you're never going to be out of charge range when in range to do damage, so you end up getting swept into melee regardless. Now for the Steg, that wasn't a problem - it was dealing out tons of damage in melee, and really shined - but the skinks were all but useless as anything other than a roadblock for Russell's monster and Blood Stoker. Nick I suggest you try and get a few games in if you can - I think you know us better than to assume we're just muddling into the game expecting it to play like 8th, or that we can't take a ruleset and draw out some basic tactical elements from it like its "my first wargame" haha
|
|
|
Post by jefferestinpeace on Jul 16, 2015 11:11:54 GMT -6
Flanks are irrelevant in AoS, reforming is just as fluid with 40k, and the range on missile weapons is, as Nick said, doomed to draw you into combat. CC is the most effective way to destroy your opponent, as you get twice as many opportunities to roll dice than with shooting anyway. Additionally, many units don't do seem to do anything unless they are in combat. Their nuanced special rules read largely like: "The Pleasure of a Nation: Shamananamana was bedwife to Aboobydowop in the ancient twilight of Gorknuckle's Hegemony. She learned much in the ways of dlorble pleasure and has brought her knowledge to the battlefield, as employed by her Svornak Whip and Slub Tickler. As such, when Shamanamana is charged by a unit of Whimwham Brothers, she gets +1 to hit." When they are completely situational, they don't really allow for structured list building or strategic employment.
I'm not saying there isn't a game here or that fun can't be had, no one is saying that. But WFB was a strategically complicated game. The movement rules alone were fascinating, and I think if GW embraced alternate activations with it, it would have been pretty singular. It just required a huge amount of money and played around in a pretty tired sandbox. AoS, in comparison, is really watered down as a game as GW is much more concerned with creating intellectual property.
Eventually, the game will be allowed to exist on its own merits, but there's gotta be a grace period for comparison, as it's all we got. No one's playing it like WFB because it can't be played like WFB. It plays much more like 40k without guns and objectives. Which... well... you would just run at each other and see what happens. There's nothing else to do.
It's still very early however, and there's lots of room to explore. We're all open to playing the game more and trying different things, but as it stands, it's pretty thin out the gate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2015 12:18:03 GMT -6
Nick, I wasn't trying to imply you were playing like a bunch of noobs.
But the one thing I can say about how I experienced seeing you guys play in NDG was that I never saw anyone walk in and say:
"Hey, I have this idea for this scenario..."
Tons of intelligent and creative minds in that store, but whether it was structured play or not, it always seemed like it was "Okay, you want to roll for a mission from the book?" "Yeah, sure."
The only exception was probably Apocalypse because I saw you guys have "night before" planning sessions.
Everything I'm reading is lending itself to it's intended to be that sort of game.
Walk in and be like, "these two towers 6" across at the front edge of your deployment zone are a dimensional gate. If I get my Stegadon through it, its worth 5 VPs. Any of my other units are worth 1 VP. You get 1VP for each unit destroyed and 5VP for capturing the ritual circle in my own deployment zone that is powering the gate." And then throw down.
Now you have reasons for cris-crossing the board and for keeping units held back.
I don't disagree that I need to play the game. Without a doubt I do. But at this point GW has given you an actual sandbox. Why not play in it?
|
|
dex
neophyte
STATUS
Posts: 739
|
Post by dex on Jul 16, 2015 12:47:10 GMT -6
We played combined arms, Monsters, Big Blocks, Cannons, Calvalry. Everything go squish in the middle. Target priority with the cannons and then squishy
|
|
cj
neophyte
Posts: 734
|
Post by cj on Jul 16, 2015 12:54:42 GMT -6
Is everything still on square bases, transitioned to round, or a mix and match?
|
|
|
Post by Nick P on Jul 16, 2015 14:05:25 GMT -6
Is everything still on square bases, transitioned to round, or a mix and match? The new models are all on round bases, but the bases don't matter because you measure from model to model rather than base to base - using my squared bases vs Russells round bases didn't impede play in any way. I'll likely keep my fantasy stuff on squares so we can play both 8th and AoS in the future. And Nick, I think you're right that this game is probably best played using specific scenarios and writing narratives and campaigns within the sandbox GW has provided; but I think I don't just speak for myself when I say that for the most part,I find Fantasy and 40K lend themselves pretty well to that aspect of the hobby *in addition* to the more balanced, list building, skill-testing part of the hobby that AoS abandons. Now again I want to reiterate Russells point that this game is literally a week old, and we plan on playing the shit out of it for a while yet to get a better opinion of the types of games that it lends itself to - and with the scenario book coming this weekend, we might find that it very much is instrumental in making the game more fun and balanced enough to make it a facet of our core gaming routine.
|
|