General Tatics, Strategy and Unit Purpose?

[Ravinsild]

Just wondering if real life warfare tactics and strategy works in Age of Sigmar, as well as real life battlefield roles translating to table top. 

Theres no real supply lines or any sort of infrastructure so that entire part of war is ignored, which leads Calvary raids on supply lines and such a defunct strategy. 

However are there roles such as Light and Heavy Calvary, Artillery, Armor, Infantry, Cannon Fodder etc? 

Are there any sites dedicated to tactics or strategy and how to improve or breaks downs of units function and purpose within the army? 

For instance I play Ironjawz but I can’t quite figure out what ‘Ardboyz or Gore-Gruntas purposes are. The leaders have pretty much clearly defined roles and Brutes are big monster and leader hunters as well as elite infantry capable of chewing through lesser hordes fairly capably but what role is that and what’s the best use of each unit? 

Just wondering how to improve and if there’s any way to study it or read more about how to be a better “general”. 

[MacDuff]

I'd like to see more of this, too. I see a lot of army lists but far less discussion of how the units are successfully used in a tactical sense.

[michu]

I can only talk for Skaven, but it's easy for Clanrats -they're infantry cannon fodder. They are not to win battles, they are to hold the line or die trying (Any similarities to God-Emperor's brave Astra Militarum is HERESY).   

 

[Kramer]

3 hours ago, Ravinsild said:

For instance I play Ironjawz but I can’t quite figure out what ‘Ardboyz or Gore-Gruntas purposes are.

I don't play IronJawz but from an opponents experience I would say 'Ardboys as objective holders. Without battleshock they are your cheapest option to hold an objective effectively. Gore-Gruntas offer you speed you otherwise lack. If your counting on your Brutes to do the heavy lifting you need something to act as a speedbump where you want them and can tie up shooting units quite effectively with the new rules and there durability. 

But play a couple of games without them and see if you feel you lack something, and then try to fill that role with one of those (or allies) and see what sticks. 

Did you check out ?? Might be a better place for this discussion   

 

[Guest]

The way I see it, AoS isn't really meant to simulate the realities of warfare. The 'war' element is just a thematic device to add colour and context - just like chess really. In chess you have 'knights' but you aren't really thinking about charging or flanking the enemy. Similarly, AoS is a highly abstracted game that you pretty much have to play on its own terms. It's not a simulation and it doesn't try to be. You might be able to glean some inspiration from Sun Tzu's Art of War or something like that, but as for applying actual specific battle strategies to the game I think you'd be barking up the wrong tree.

[MOMUS]

4 hours ago, Ravinsild said:

Just wondering if real life warfare tactics and strategy works in Age of Sigmar, as well as real life battlefield roles translating to table top...

...are there roles such as Light and Heavy Calvary, Artillery, Armor, Infantry, Cannon Fodder etc? 

 

Nice thread ?

Those units roles were more of a WHFB thing, where units had more specific roles such as chaff, WM hunters, etc

I find AoS a little simpler in approach mainly due to the little composition rules in matches play. In WHFB players were forced to find roles for the core tax (easier in some armies than others) in AoS players don't have this burden as Battleline is only 3 units.

Towards the end of the last GHB in my area I was seeing armies devolve into two extremes of min or Max Battleline depending on viability/battalion.

As general composition for armies I usually see I normally categorise them into the below based on the primary motivation for taking them.

1. Objective holder. Units usually that are cheap or resilient, often from Battleline tax for efficiency of points. Can be used as screens/chaff in missions/match ups not objective dependant.

2. Buff/Neg. Units designed to either buff your kill units or neg the opponents, usually heroes. Sometimes can also be kill units.

3. Kill units. Elite troops that get the Lions share of the points, designed to destroy and be expended doing so.

 

[Ravinsild]

7 hours ago, MOMUS said:

Nice thread ?

Those units roles were more of a WHFB thing, where units had more specific roles such as chaff, WM hunters, etc

I find AoS a little simpler in approach mainly due to the little composition rules in matches play. In WHFB players were forced to find roles for the core tax (easier in some armies than others) in AoS players don't have this burden as Battleline is only 3 units.

Towards the end of the last GHB in my area I was seeing armies devolve into two extremes of min or Max Battleline depending on viability/battalion.

As general composition for armies I usually see I normally categorise them into the below based on the primary motivation for taking them.

1. Objective holder. Units usually that are cheap or resilient, often from Battleline tax for efficiency of points. Can be used as screens/chaff in missions/match ups not objective dependant.

2. Buff/Neg. Units designed to either buff your kill units or neg the opponents, usually heroes. Sometimes can also be kill units.

3. Kill units. Elite troops that get the Lions share of the points, designed to destroy and be expended doing so.

 

Aaaah that’s a great breakdown. I play Khorne and IJ, so my objective holders would be Blood Warriors and Bloodreavers, all of my heroes buff and my elite troops would be Skullreapers or Wrathmongers. 

For IJ my heroes are all buffers too via command point, proximity or innate ability (Warchanter), elite troops are definitely Brutes, objective holders would be Ardboys and Gore-Gruntas have a flex role of either tying them up until everyone else can catch up or go objective hunting with their speed, or being held back and reinforcing points where the enemy is weak and trying to trigger a smash and bash.