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

Remake 2.0 for Age of Sigmar Tactics meaningful?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Hi guys,

does anyone know if Matthijs Mentink is still around in the hobby?

He was the guy making the Age of Sigmar Tactics articles. Some of those were later used by Warhammer Community named "Tactical Toolbox".

As we see, the last Article in AoS Tactics was "Piling In" in June 2017 (so it was in the old AoS Edition). Some of the stuff in there is still quite interisting while other parts are no longer possible after the rule change.

The question is, would it make sense to have a 2.0 remake in case of the changes in gameplay?

Edited by EMMachine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NurglesFirstChosen said:

Yeah this would be a really useful tool for those just getting into the game

Yeah, and it really helped against the "AoS has no tactics" argument, years ago.

At least I think I found @Matthijs account here but sadly the last visit was about 2 years ago. So I sadly think the answer to my question, if he is still in the hobby, will most likely be "no" .

The point is, some of the points he posted in the blog will still work, but other won't work anymore, or became disadvantages because of rulechanges like:

  • wholly within Buffranges
  • restrictions of Shooting in Close Combat
  • changed to summoning
  • changes to coherrency (death of parts of the unit when coherrency is broken in Battleshock phase)

  AoS 2.0 will have his first birthday this year. And some sort of tacticguide for the actual rules could really help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I first got into the game I was warned there was no tactics in AOS as well.  And to be honest, there aren't that many.  But I don't mind that.  AOS is more of a strategy combo game than a tactical wargame, so I can see where the "it has no tactics" argument comes from.  (its not true it has no tactics, they are just not very deep tactics or very many actual choices that I find I have to make, which is what a tactic is)

It has a lot of similarities and feel to my magic tournaments, which is probably why I like it so much.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

It has a lot of similarities and feel to my magic tournaments, which is probably why I like it so much.  

It doesn't really but that also probably explains why you aren't making the podium at majors. If you listen to a guy like James Tinsdale or Ritchie talk about their play you'll understand that movement and positioning decisions are still some of the most important parts of the game. There are a great deal of tactical decisions to made in every game of AoS. 

As to the main topic if he were still around I'd love a revamp of AoS tactics. It was one of the first things that really got me back interested in AoS post WHFB transition. I really enjoyed reading his various thoughts and ideas as he worked out what the new tactics were in AoS as compared to the older RnF WHFB decision trees. But I also generally love consuming basically anything about AoS so any new resources are always a plus for - the more time I can spend reading about the game (or the world behind it) the happier I am. 

Edited by SwampHeart
  • Like 1
  • LOVE IT! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By that logic, the only peoples' opinions that mean anything in the realm of AOS are those that place in the top 2 or 3 at majors, which means a handful of people and the rest of our opinions are useless.

I would suppose then that forums are not needed any longer.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not useless, but I would definitely say that their opinions have more value. Who would you ask for opinion: someone who thinks is an expert or someone whose  achievements tell you his an expert?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

By that logic, the only peoples' opinions that mean anything in the realm of AOS are those that place in the top 2 or 3 at majors, which means a handful of people and the rest of our opinions are useless.

I would suppose then that forums are not needed any longer.

I mean the people at the top understand the game on a very different level compared to a regular dude.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

By that logic, the only peoples' opinions that mean anything in the realm of AOS are those that place in the top 2 or 3 at majors, which means a handful of people and the rest of our opinions are useless.

Not really - it just gives you a bar by which to qualify someone's opinions. Not all opinions are equally valid or valuable - MLB athletes aren't seeking out minor league hitting coaches for advice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:

Not really - it just gives you a bar by which to qualify someone's opinions. Not all opinions are equally valid or valuable - MLB athletes aren't seeking out minor league hitting coaches for advice. 

Please keep in mind that tools of this kind are generally used by people who are new to the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Eevika said:

I mean the people at the top understand the game on a very different level compared to a regular dude.

I don't disagree.  But what does and does not constitute heavy tactics or light tactics is going to be in the eye of the beholder.  Someone great at the game saying that the game has heavy tactics does not make the game have heavy tactics (or vice versa).   Objectively speaking, a tactic is a decision.  The number of tactical decisions in the game is limited to a few factors.  Just because those few factors have to be taken into account does not make the game heavily tactical.  It means that there are a few tactical decisions that you need to be aware of.

Objectively there seems to be a lot less tactical decisions overall to make.  Not none.  But a lot less than other games that exist, which gives the impression and feel to a lot of people of it being and having less tactics, especially against its predecessor.    

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

I don't disagree.  But what does and does not constitute heavy tactics or light tactics is going to be in the eye of the beholder.  Someone great at the game saying that the game has heavy tactics does not make the game have heavy tactics (or vice versa).   Objectively speaking, a tactic is a decision.  The number of tactical decisions in the game is limited to a few factors.  Just because those few factors have to be taken into account does not make the game heavily tactical.  It means that there are a few tactical decisions that you need to be aware of.

 Objectively there seems to be a lot less tactical decisions overall to make.  Not none.  But a lot less than other games that exist, which gives the impression and feel to a lot of people of it being and having less tactics, especially against its predecessor.    

The game might be heavy in tactics with out you even realising A good might player probably makes decision that regular people dont even think about. When I started I didnt really think about deployment or unit placement or think multiple turns ahead about possible outcomes and such but those are things people at the top level think about. AOS is a easy to learn but very hard to master game and that does not make it light on tactics there are just a lot of stuff people dont think about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

...it being and having less tactics, especially against its predecessor. 

But this is patently false. I played WHFB (at a high level - wins at Alamo, The Hillbilly, Lonewolf, etc) from late 5th all the way through 8th and I can tell you that I make as many decisions in a game of AoS that are meaningful to the course of the game as I did during WHFB. The mistake people make is they mistake rules complexity (i.e. wheeling, pivoting, flanks, etc) for tactical complexity. AoS is just as tactical a game as WHFB ever was - just in its own rights. It involves make a different type of decisions than WHFB (i.e. individual positioning, pile in moves, etc.) but certainly no less in its overall decisions. And I circle back around to the main point - why would I listen to someone with no major podiums opinions on the level of tactics involved with the game? Surely if this was correct and the game could be played like MtG you'd have more overall tournament success no? 

Edited by SwampHeart
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might've been mentioned but in the video game world they balance units, characters, whatever exclusively from the feedback they get from professional players (or by analyzing their matches) - I think that's the right way to go here as well, even if it means that my opinion (or that of other casuals, albeit I'm probably way, way worse at the game than most of you guys here) is of no consequence to them as I'm simply not good enough at the game. I can live with that perfectly fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I circle back around to the main point - why would I listen to someone with no major podiums opinions on the level of tactics involved with the game? Surely if this was correct and the game could be played like MtG you'd have more overall tournament success no? 

If you say so.  If you wish to turn this into personal attacks and insults, I suggest hitting up reddit instead.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

If you wish to turn this into personal attacks and insults,

Statements of fact are neither a personal attack or an insult. I'm simply drawing what I think is a logical conclusion - if your assessment of the state of game play is correct then you should be demonstrating a high level of success. You've said the game lacks tactics and plays closer to MtG (a game you have experience with and enjoy), if we assume that is true then we should see players who have a high mastery of that given skill set (I'd assume its safe to say that's you given your general posting history) would be achieving a high level of success at the game. 

What I'm then pointing out is that (that AoS lacks tactics and is MtG like) is wrong - using the experiences of players who have achieved a consistent high level of success who exhibit a different skill set mastery. I'm also offering corroborating evidence regarding the perceived lack of tactics in AoS as compared to WHFB using my own experience (again at a high level of play) in WHFB. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. Saying that age of sigmar is without tactics is completely missing the mark, although I would say that it favours strategy over tactic, if it came down to the wire. 

As for lack of tactic articles and such, there was an attempt a while back to get the article section of the forum back up and running, but I don't know if anything came of it. It would inevitably have featured tactics and such, but the usefullness of it really depends on the person writing it. 

I suggest checking out some of the blogs @Nico made if you're feeling starved for content. I'll highlight his skaven and goblin strategies as particularly clever. Mind, it is outdated, but the principles are pure gold, and served as a massive inspiration to my own competitive achievements. Go check it out! :D

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NurglesFirstChosen said:

Please keep in mind that tools of this kind are generally used by people who are new to the game. 

👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻

Why this has turned into a debate about who’s opinions are more viable I don’t know.

The original article was one that discussed the mechanics of things like piling in and charging - not tournament winning formulaes but more of an explanation for people more new to the game.

Please note also that this game at its root is a narrative game. To teach someone tactics in the game you don’t need to win tournaments. It’s also worth pointing out that doing well at tournaments is as much about list writing and decent matchups as it is about tactical skill.

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NurglesFirstChosen said:

It’s also worth pointing out that doing well at tournaments is as much about list writing and decent matchups as it is about tactical skill.

To a point but a large part of the game is dealing with bad match ups and finding a way to win (see for example Russ's game against Sylvaneth at WHW Heat 1 this weekend). Having a good list is basically the base line for being successful at an event but the way you pilot it and how you deal with match ups is what determines if you're going to make a podium or top 10 spot. If list and match ups were 33% each of a 33/33/33 ratio you wouldn't see similar names placing consistently in multiple events. Player skill is still worth more than either of those 2 variables. The argument isn't actually about who's opinion is more valid, its about 'is there tactical depth to AoS?' - the answer (based on observable metrics) is yes. 

And yes new players use tools like AoS tactics - 100%. However the validity of those tactics is still worth talking about. We don't want or need a 1D4Chan situation here where people can go to a place and consume massive amounts of bad advice. One of the reasons AoS Tactics was such a valuable resource is that the author was putting out tested and valid advice that was useful to more than just new players. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+++ Mod Hat On +++

Just want to wade in and point out we’ve had a report on this thread, so can I just remind people about the rules of TGA and think before you post as you may type one thing but it can come across as something else.

+++ Mod Hat Off +++

on topic..

Whilst I like the idea of tactic sites, they are really just a primer aimed at new players. People who know how the game works would be best listening to podcasts (JustPlay ones are good) or watching top players play. 😉

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm, I hadn't thought that the mood of this topic would go down hill like that.

I actually don't know why it would be made by the top players (would they even spend time for something like that). I mean, there could be categories (like "basic", "advanced", "expert"). For "basic" and "advanced" level tactics you don't need a top player, only for "expert" level tactics.

13 hours ago, SwampHeart said:

One of the reasons AoS Tactics was such a valuable resource is that the author was putting out tested and valid advice that was useful to more than just new players. 

An interesting point here is that Matthijs wasn't a top player in AoS, when we look at the description he made on aostactics

Quote

After getting absolutely destroyed in the first turn of my first tournament, I was hopelessly hooked on Age of Sigmar.

This was a game that holds a true tactical challenge.

With this website I try to enthuse others to see a defeat not as a setback but as a chance to learn and to get better.

Understand the game, make better choices and wreck face!

One of the mainproblems right now, is that aostactics is partly outdated right now because of 2.0.

The one thing I could read out of the thread is that at least I would be the wrong person to make an update, partly because of the part I marked in my Quote above and I'm not high enough in player the player ranking (but also don't want to be a top player ). I only had the feeling it would help the community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, EMMachine said:

The one thing I could read out of the thread is that at least I would be the wrong person to make an update, partly because of the part I marked in my Quote above and I'm not high enough in player the player ranking (but also don't want to be a top player ). I only had the feeling it would help the community.

Too be fair, I think it really needs somebody who is methodical and is happy to practice what they suggest in their guide. Tried and tested as there are plenty of people who claim to be good players but don't do any of the stuff they suggest. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, EMMachine said:

The one thing I could read out of the thread is that at least I would be the wrong person to make an update, partly because of the part I marked in my Quote above and I'm not high enough in player the player ranking (but also don't want to be a top player ). I only had the feeling it would help the community.

Probably a language difference thing but the line you quoted doesn't require you to be a top tier player - it just requires your advice be sound and something you've actually tested rather than pure 'theoryhammer' as it were. 

I have 2 distinct points I'm making - the first revolves around if AoS has tactics or not (it does). My comments regarding skill/experience are largely directed towards that point (i.e. we see people who are consistently successful at AoS demonstrating a grasp and application of higher level tactics than simple list building and synergy). The second point is that I think something like AoS tactics would be fantastic - assuming the information it conveyed was of quality. You don't have to be a tournament winner to write quality tactica at all - just someone who plays consistently and can convey the information in a clear and consistent way. 

I'll be the first to admit that I take issue with the 'AoS has little to no tactics' refrain - its oft repeated and wrong every time. I don't appreciate seeing a game that has some of the most depth of a game GW has produced (at least for a mainline game) reduced to 'it works like MtG'. And it simply isn't something I'm willing to leave alone because I passionately disagree with that thought process.  

Edited by SwampHeart
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2019 at 6:00 PM, Mayple said:

As for lack of tactic articles and such, there was an attempt a while back to get the article section of the forum back up and running, but I don't know if anything came of it. It would inevitably have featured tactics and such, but the usefullness of it really depends on the person writing it. 

I suggest checking out some of the blogs @Nico made if you're feeling starved for content. I'll highlight his skaven and goblin strategies as particularly clever. Mind, it is outdated, but the principles are pure gold, and served as a massive inspiration to my own competitive achievements. Go check it out! :D

Thanks for this. Yes there are blog posts in the NicoLab stretching back to AoS v1.0:

There are some more recent posts covering recent topics such as Sylvaneels (an extreme example of what can be done using Winterleaf’s 1 Order Unit) in the NicoLab as well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

On 3/11/2019 at 2:52 PM, SwampHeart said:

And I circle back around to the main point - why would I listen to someone with no major podiums opinions on the level of tactics involved with the game? 

Just to add my two cents. By making it this simple 👆You are missing out on a whole lot of input and missing the reality of coaching and being a top player a bit in my mind. 

I've been a hockeycoach and trainer for over 15 years. I've worked and talked to coaches that made it to the national and international stage and not everyone of them made it to the international stage as a player. Sometimes by choice, sometimes because they weren't good enough. But teaching/coaching is a different skillset than executing it. Yes great overlap, that's why former top players often perform well as coach but that proves you don't have to be an, equivalent to, top 1&2 player to be great at getting other players to that level. 

The other side of that coin is true as well. I've coached and worked with players that got into the national teams (or very close to) and some of them have great tactical awareness but a lot don't. They couldn't explain certain choices let alone teach others to make the right ones. If those kinds of players who did get to that level you are describing was telling you about advanced tactical choices...

You could well be better off with the coach that never made it him/herself but does know how it works and is able to teach it.

On 3/11/2019 at 2:52 PM, SwampHeart said:

Surely if this was correct and the game could be played like MtG you'd have more overall tournament success no? 

And to bring it back to your second element of your main point. There could be many reasons for someone not to have more tournament succes to the level you describe. Maybe a players is amazing tactically and is able to explain it, but the player just can't handle the pressure of a tournament setting very well and therefore chokes. Maybe it's a concentration thing with too many games in a weekend, maybe it's one of another myriad of reasons someone might not be able to execute but still be able to understand and teach it to that level.

Someone could be the best tactical teacher in the game, but you disqualify him/her for not being a top player. That's a shame in my mind. So not to restart the whole discussion, just wanted to give some input that hopefully widens the view of the arguments a bit.

 

TLDR: My main point. While it sounds logical what you are saying at a base level, your argument skips that being a top tactical teacher/coach is a different thing than a top tactical player. There might be overlap but you're shooting yourself in the foot if you would only listen to the top tactical players. 

Sidenote: I do fully agree that there is a lot of tactical depth in AoS and it's worth it to explore if you want to improve. And top players can be good sources of that.

Edited by Kramer
  • Like 2

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...