Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Ozzy0sb

Behemoths/Large models and objective control

Recommended Posts

Me and my friends started playing AoS a few months ago. This is our first mini game. We had the chance to play about 20 games now.

Now, all the game we did as of yet have been straight forward deathmatch because we are still learning all the mechanics and units rules. Myself, I have been asking to start playing objective games to spice things up but have been meeting resistance from other people in the group because they  play large/behemoth units (i.e.Thundertusks/Great Unclean ones/Nagash)and are under the impression that they will be at a disadvantage against my Stormcast army since I have more models on play.

I assume the game is balanced to take this into account in the point allocation on units, but I would like to know the opinions of more experienced player regarding the point control mechanics. Does having behemoths really put you at a disadvantage? Do some of you use house rules to help? I have been thinking of counting behemoths unit remaining HP divided by 2 as model count toward objective control.

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The game is most certainly more balanced around using objectives in matched play. Ignoring them just edges lists to be as killy as mathematically possible. Behemoths do have a disadvantage 1 on 1 for controlling objectives, as they tend to be outnumbered. That being said, the Nurgle and Undead player can easily put more models in a single unit than you might show up with for your entire Stormcast army, even when using Nagash and GUOs. Your Beastclaw friend is going to have trouble regardless of how you play the game because they are just a poorly implemented book with far too limited options.

Edited by AverageBoss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bear in  mind as well that behemoths have a bigger base so can control a large amount of space on the objective. 

They definitely have a disadvantage in comparison but it’s just another aspect of pushing lists to be more well rounded armies. 

Also with matched play there are many different battleplans which favour different builds. Some favour heroes/wizards making them count as 20 models for the purposes of objectives for example. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The others have already said but the game is definitely balanced around objectives. The idea is not to just take a bunch of behemoths and call it a day, you're supposed to be thinking about balancing model count with killing power.

Unfortunately this does mean Beastclaw Raiders struggle a bit, they cant really get the numbers other factions get and yet their killing power isn't quite high enough to make up for this. It could be possible you implement the wound rule for just them and the rest of you follow the normal rules.

As AverageBoss said, Death and Nurgle armies actually shouldn't have any issue with numbers, with Death in particular having access to very cheap and effective horde infantry. Stormcast is actually supposed to be a lot more elite than them (outside Blight King focused Nurgle) and their main weakness as a faction is actually their low model count that makes every death hurt! This means if they have less models that you then their armies are the exception to the norm for those factions and whilst that's totally up to them it's not really fair of them to push a version of the rules that benefits their weird army builds.

Edit: Also, Death with Nagash is one of the strongest armies in the game right now, regularly winning tournaments that ALWAYS use objectives. He is definitely not going to make it impossible to win in an objective based game but rather make it easier to hold them with his crazy magic output and great command ability that stops your other stuff on objectives from dying.

Edited by Yoshiya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also think of it this way, imagine if someone had a shooting heavy army and tried to argue that there should be no terrain in the game.

That's roughly the same thing as people playing behemoth heavy and not wanting objectives involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They will be disadvantaged but theres need to be drawbacks to taking massively powerful single models, or they will dominate the game. Regardless scenarios should always be played as the game at it's core it's balanced around matched play scenarios. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can go on and play normal scenarios and if they don't like it - tell them to git gud you can try to do some house rules, and yes, it is true that monsters get a disadvantage at scoring objectives, but such armies as beastclaw can just punch you in the face hard enough for you to not be able to recover. They can also ally in some gnoblars for bodies and don't tell me they don't want because they want just play 2 models and roll dice, thats boring

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, XReN said:

You can go on and play normal scenarios and if they don't like it - tell them to git gud you can try to do some house rules, and yes, it is true that monsters get a disadvantage at scoring objectives, but such armies as beastclaw can just punch you in the face hard enough for you to not be able to recover. They can also ally in some gnoblars for bodies and don't tell me they don't want because they want just play 2 models and roll dice, thats boring

Gnoblars cannot be buffed, and just evaporate (6+ save, bravery 4).

In addition, most BCR players have to spend their ally points on Butchers/Firebellies/Fungoids as they have no wizards.

Edited by Kyriakin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kyriakin said:

Gnoblars cannot be buffed, and just evaporate.

Killing gnoblars require getting close to them, which will mean engaging BCR first, when usually you can debuff and engage stonehorns, shoot thundertusks and casually walk into control range without having to get into melee with anything else

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Kyriakin said:

Gnoblars cannot be buffed, and just evaporate (6+ save, bravery 4).

In addition, most BCR players have to spend their ally points on Butchers/Firebellies/Fungoids as they have no wizards.

 

4 minutes ago, XReN said:

Killing gnoblars require getting close to them, which will mean engaging BCR first, when usually you can debuff and engage stonehorns, shoot thundertusks and casually walk into control range without having to get into melee with anything else

Take 2x40 gnoblars. Use a CP to prevent battleshock and you can easily use their bodies for control. If the gnoblars are your objective campers move your behemoths forwards. If you dont want to engage with your thundertusks screen your opponent with the gnoblars to prevent them contesting for that extra turn.  With Gutbusters they are a mainstay. It does help if you bring a tyrant and make them battleshock for the game in turn 1. 

On 2/3/2019 at 2:53 AM, Ozzy0sb said:

I assume the game is balanced to take this into account in the point allocation on units, but I would like to know the opinions of more experienced player regarding the point control mechanics. Does having behemoths really put you at a disadvantage? Do some of you use house rules to help? I have been thinking of counting behemoths unit remaining HP divided by 2 as model count toward objective control.

 

Like others have said, the game is better with the scenarios. Deathmatch games are over long before the last kill. With objectives the advantage keeps switching longer meaning the games are often more interesting till the end in my experience. Besides just Deathmatch must get boring right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day its your group so play what suits you all.

That said, if you want to play other people you need to understand what rules are in play and what you are changing.

Try a few games by the scenario rules (some actually favor monsters/heros).  Then try a few tweaks if it was a bit unfair.  A quick change could be number of wounds (either on profiles or wounds remaining) instead of models, that would swing it back to balance a little more if their armies are heavilly weighted that way (and why shouldnt they, big monsters are cool as heck!  Id hate to persuade someone to buy something they dont want when you can easily just tweak the rules between friends)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another way other than wounds to balance with house rules is to count matched play point values for monsters vs the point values of your troops. Might have to wiggle it around, or expand the objective zone so that its able to fit errrbody in, without getting to crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could compromise and pick battleplans with less or central objectives like knife to the heart, border war, and that one that has the objectives fall randomly on each half. That way you still have objectives but smaller armies dont have to spread out as much.

Or use the open war cards, there is a good mix of objective based scoring and kill point type scoring.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beastclaw Raiders have Frost Sabres (each 20 points) and Icefall Yhetees (each 40 points) for scoring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...