Is AoS still a skirmish game?

[Greybeard86]

When WHFB was nuked and replaced by AoS, one of the premises is that AoS would follow WH40k in being a "skirmish" game. Units moving from "regiment" were individual models didn't matter that much, to rules based on a model by model basis (touching bases, distance to base).

However, since I have come back I cannot help but think that AoS has gone back to the "large unit" sizes of WHFB, while keeping the "skirmish" rules. In competitive play, it is very common to see "blocks" of 20-40 models in units (mortek guard, witch aelves, hearthguard, handgunners, you name it).

At this point, can we call it a skirmish anymore? Are the "skirmish" base to base rules functional when you are moving around big blocks of infantry? What is the "gain" in having skirmish rules in massed infantry games? In 40k, blobs are still uncommon, and the game more naturally flows around model based rules, but clearly that is not the case at all in AoS.

So, again, what is the point?

[El Syf]

I mean it's not quite back to 8th ed yet but the fact lots of people will put bigger units in movement trays speaks volumes.

If we had square bases we could have ranks,  flank and rear charges again and something with a bit more to it than the non event battleshock is for most armies.

[Greybeard86]

17 minutes ago, El Syf said:

I mean it's not quite back to 8th ed yet but the fact lots of people will put bigger units in movement trays speaks volumes.

If we had square bases we could have ranks,  flank and rear charges again and something with a bit more to it than the non event battleshock is for most armies.

Aren't units awkwardly "ranked" anyway nowadays? It just does not matter from a rules perspective, but the OCD in me starts arranging the moment I see 10+ unit sizes.

[Overread]

The thing is when you've a popular game with a lot of model variety people want to put their collections on the table. There's a balance point GW has to find for the average game (2K points) between enough models that those with larger collections are getting to use their models; that there's room for variety within armies on the tabletop and so that its not such a huge barrier for new people.

 

Now GW has improved the last one by also promoting, marketing and making more lower point value games as their own thing. One big problem Old World had wasn't the model count alone. It was that the rules and structure didn't really work well at much lower values. With a dwindling population of new players it also meant there was much more pressure to play the big 2K games and many new people burned out before they reached it. With Warcry, Underworlds, Meeting Engagements and such GW is pushing those smaller games where new people grow their armies from nothing to something. It bridges the gap and gives them something to focus on on their path to a bigger game. 

 

You won't get rid of the big game aspect, its too much of a draw and as AoS has grown fast in popularity the big game has grown with it. The game is still skirmish in so much as its not regimented movement. Though whilst that means we get some gains (terrain can be more diverse and dense) we also get some losses (we have to move all 30 models not just 1 movement tray). 

We've also seen sculpts get more dynamic with more base overhang because models don't have to rank-up perfectly. It's also given designers more feel for dynamic and classic poses in the models. Even though models like the Witch Aelves were from the rank and file days - showing that you can get dynamic poses, its much easier when they don't have to rank up. 

 

 

I don't think AoS will ever be a skirmish game in the same way as early Warmachine was or Infinity or Malifaux. At least not at its core; at its core its a wargame designed to have big models and large armies on the tabletop fighting it out. Alongside it GW has experimented with light true skirmish games like Warcry and Underworlds and heck perhaps we'll even get a true "Mordheim/Necromunda"  style game for AoS one day*. But that day isn't now. 

 

*Having seen the multi part models for Necromunda, if we got that for AoS it would be freaking awesome. Heck even if its a straight return of Mordhiem from the Old World it would be awesome models and variety to see. 

[JackStreicher]

Has it ever been a Skirmish Game?

Edited November 23, 2020 by JackStreicher

[michu]

No. Point values changed but not unit sizes (at least not much).

[Saturmorn Carvilli]

Depends on what one means when they say skirmish game.

In the common parlance of what skirmish is defined by modern miniatures war games, I don't think AoS ever was.  Well except for SoB now.  Since skirmish is synonymous with low model count where most individual models operate as independent  units.

However, if one is talking about the older definition of what a miniatures skirmish game is: a game where models are individually based and do not have to maintain a  set cohesive formation.  Then AoS is still very much that and unlikely to move away from that.

Even with the inclusion of rules such as the LRL which offer bonuses for forming in particular formations or players making use of movement trays usually setup to place their units more in line formation doesn't change that AoS is still a skirmish game under the older definition.  As a commentary, I like it that way much more.  Rank and file games often like to pretend that soldiers didn't form uneven formations and were very good at keeping a very uniform shape.  Many rank and file games like to turn combat into  a sort of geometry and ray (the mathematical definition of ray) puzzle where even if a single man crosses so terrain hazard the entire formation has to suffer.

Age of Sigmar, on the other hand, allows for more free form unit formations.  A player isn't bound to some arbitrary shape predefined by the game.  They are free to experiment with various shapes (though some shapes are more optimal than others) as well as mold their units to the situation  more readily.  As a result, I think in many ways AoS is more honest in its approach when players with significantly large units of infantry meet.  Frontage is still important as is flanking is some respects in picking how much of the enemy can engage as well as more surface area to get your combatants stuck in. 

That is not to say AoS doesn't present issues in recreating a more rank and file experience.  The morale system and  unit coherency are weak as forms of unit integrity (as in a unit being disorganized, shaken, or routed).  The leader/hero wholly within somewhat place a patch here, but the mechanics are very weak.  The free form nature of unit placement can also be a time consumer as well.  As well as a host of other issues.

That said, so long as the mechanics of AoS still encourage, or at very least not impair, a player taking a more rank and file approach with the appropriate army, I think prefer it to forces more concrete unit formation orientations.

[rosa]

I too think that unit sizes are becoming an issue. In 40k you really see big blobs not so often and most Armies are still somewhat "elite" in terms of Modelcount.

Regarding AOS? Come on...

Almost every army uses 20+ blobs of units. Heck, even for stormcast unit sizes of 30 are discussed in list building. That is ludicrous for such a system. I personally really have a problem with that.

Why not fix unit sizes? Sizes are fix for units:

Trash/low tier: 20

Normal troop: 10

Elite: 5

Super elite: 3

[Overread]

I think there's two reasons big infantry blobs work in AoS right now

 

1) You've not got as much ranged firepower, at least not in comparison to 40K. So whilst there is merit that a large unit can soak more damage, its equally true that if ranged power is key, then having fewer targets makes it much easier for the opponent to focus fire on them. Whilst having multiple smaller units means that an opponent using a lot of high power ranged might well waste shots by firing into units and getting over-kill that they can't use. 

2) We don't have the same elite unit slots. Heck even for the 4 slots we have there are a lot of forces that don't have any "Artillery" type units. Meanwhile things like Cavalry and shock troops are all lumped in with regular grunts in "Troops". With limited niches and with many armies not even having models for all kinds of niche; its much easier and practical to run big infantry blobs

 

Of course the other aspect is that part of the reason you play a 2K game is to put 2K worth of models down; so no matter how you slice that 30 man infantry groups are going to happen. Even 40K doesn't escape that - look at a Swarming Tyranid, ork or Guard army and you'll have those large infantry blobs appear very regularly. 

 

It's not the 90s any more; we as a gaming community are not happy calling 7 gaunts a "swarm". Heck we aren't even calling a carnifex the biggest thing out there. 

[Greybeard86]

55 minutes ago, Saturmorn Carvilli said:

Depends on what one means when they say skirmish game.

In the common parlance of what skirmish is defined by modern miniatures war games, I don't think AoS ever was.  Well except for SoB now.  Since skirmish is synonymous with low model count where most individual models operate as independent  units.

However, if one is talking about the older definition of what a miniatures skirmish game is: a game where models are individually based and do not have to maintain a  set cohesive formation.  Then AoS is still very much that and unlikely to move away from that.

Absolutely, I was loose in the definition. But IMHO this is justified because usually "skirmish" rules (model by model) are used in "skirmish" sized games. That's why they are too cumbersone for large model counts, or simply unfun.

So, if AoS uses "skirmish" rules, applying them to "regiment sized" units results in awkward gameplay situations, IMHO.

 

55 minutes ago, Saturmorn Carvilli said:

Rank and file games often like to pretend that soldiers didn't form uneven formations and were very good at keeping a very uniform shape.  Many rank and file games like to turn combat into  a sort of geometry and ray (the mathematical definition of ray) puzzle where even if a single man crosses so terrain hazard the entire formation has to suffer.

Age of Sigmar, on the other hand, allows for more free form unit formations.  A player isn't bound to some arbitrary shape predefined by the game.  They are free to experiment with various shapes (though some shapes are more optimal than others) as well as mold their units to the situation  more readily.

Trade offs: free form making rear and side attacks difficult to interpret; measures from bases leading to gamey moves (8th edition 40k was freaking awful in that regard). And others more experienced players could bring up.

As for formation options, I feel that there is some room even in rank and file games (allowing for wider frontage vs depth and what not, though with some restrictions).

Nice discussion!

[Greybeard86]

2 hours ago, Overread said:

Of course the other aspect is that part of the reason you play a 2K game is to put 2K worth of models down; so no matter how you slice that 30 man infantry groups are going to happen. Even 40K doesn't escape that - look at a Swarming Tyranid, ork or Guard army and you'll have those large infantry blobs appear very regularly. 

No, large groups are rare in 40k. It truly is mostly skirmish based, and 30-40 man blobs are niche faction specific occurances.

2 hours ago, Overread said:

 

It's not the 90s any more; we as a gaming community are not happy calling 7 gaunts a "swarm". Heck we aren't even calling a carnifex the biggest thing out there. 

One could argue it is more about getting the right aesthetic than about the actual number of models. If you are going to push a 40 man blob around, then model based rules seem counterintuitive to me.

[Popisdead]

5 hours ago, Greybeard86 said:

When WHFB was nuked and replaced by AoS, one of the premises is that AoS would follow WH40k in being a "skirmish" game. Units moving from "regiment" were individual models didn't matter that much, to rules based on a model by model basis (touching bases, distance to base).

However, since I have come back I cannot help but think that AoS has gone back to the "large unit" sizes of WHFB, while keeping the "skirmish" rules. In competitive play, it is very common to see "blocks" of 20-40 models in units (mortek guard, witch aelves, hearthguard, handgunners, you name it).

At this point, can we call it a skirmish anymore? Are the "skirmish" base to base rules functional when you are moving around big blocks of infantry? What is the "gain" in having skirmish rules in massed infantry games? In 40k, blobs are still uncommon, and the game more naturally flows around model based rules, but clearly that is not the case at all in AoS.

So, again, what is the point?

I don't think anyone called it a Skirmish game except the player-base who stayed in the past style of view (i.e. 9th ed or KoW).  As such "Skirmish" was more a derivative of WFB having a unit with the skirmish rule.   

I don't know anyone who calls 40k Skirmish except maybe the 6-15 mm players who feel the armies aren't large enough to call an actual army.

AoS in it's core was just a change of mechanics not game size.   it should have really just been called 9th edition and there would have been less drama.  I.E. how 40k did pretty much the same but on the backs of AoS already doing that.  First through the door gets  a bloody nose.  But as we know,.. 50% of gaming is complaining (online).  

[Fairbanks]

It never was. This was a combination of some of the early rumors the setting was  going to be skirmish, that the 1.0 rules weren’t really balanced unless you took smaller forces (about what 1000 point is today), and the grognards raging over the death of rank and flank.

The model count never dipped below Warmahordes level, which I would say has good in-between of skirmish or mass-battle.

[Kramer]

No, but does it matter? 
personally I like the bigger units combined with the flexibility of not having to rank up. 
I like a lot of terrain On the table and that was a pain in WHFB.in aos it enhances the game. 
So while I realise it’s personal it still changes the game regardless of the unit sizes. 

[Saturmorn Carvilli]

3 hours ago, Greybeard86 said:

Trade offs: free form making rear and side attacks difficult to interpret; measures from bases leading to gamey moves (8th edition 40k was freaking awful in that regard). And others more experienced players could bring up.

As for formation options, I feel that there is some room even in rank and file games (allowing for wider frontage vs depth and what not, though with some restrictions).

I am not sure what you mean by measuring from bases led to gamey rules.  Save maybe tanks Tokyo Drifting across the battlefield to provide more cover.  Or maybe tri-pointing which was less a case of measuring and more a case of penalty free escaping from combat.  Which often when most casualties occur in battle.  Or in GW games should at very least force Bravery/Leadership of the retreating unit and any unit that sees it (because they don't know if it was a tactical withdrawal or a route).

 

I think there are a number of players that expect to be additionally rewarded for maneuvering a flank or rear attack beyond increasing the number of attackers since a larger circle is going to create more area than a smaller circle.  Often times when the formation is predetermined his has to be abstracted into bonus damage.  However, in AoS the more fluid shaping of units already accomplish this by being the bigger circle and thus being able to fit more attackers in.

Age of Sigmar also is often more generous in entrapping an encircled unit further preventing escape as individual models can be stretched quite than to prevent escape far more readily than typical predefined rank and file game units.  I suppose 'Pile In' does take a relatively simple game and creates a lot of positioning complication.    I don't know if it can be avoided without becoming even more gamey though.

I know some players do like to bring up the idea a unit's offensive power is all focused forward when in line.  My understanding is this is only partly true.  Even in the fog of war I find it unlikely the enemy is going to catch a flank or rear completely by surprise.  The target unit may have not be able to counter as well via removing some effectiveness of its arms and armor, or more likely, getting squeezed by being pressed on all sides.  If anything that should provide a penalty to flanked unit not a bonus to the flanking one.  Excepting in the case of enfiladed units, and even then I only know it was effective with guns and similar mostly flat trajectory weapons with a long maximum range.

I also think it is important to consider that on Earth, no historical army had to consider flying or teleporting units when devising strategy, tactics and training. As such, they were largely free to double front their attacking power.  However, in AoS this is certainly not the case.  Flying and teleporting units are common enough that I would argue that units would incorporate counter fighting techniques robbing flanks and rear attacks of many advantages save those already mentioned above.

What I do think flanking would still have an effect on Morale and/or Command and Control.  Even in AoS.  However, the game's Bravery system is a little bare bones save something simple like a unit needed to make a Bravery check when encircled or XX% is encircled with failure robbing the unit the ability to fight back as their leadership rallies them out of disorganization.  Even that seems a little harsh given Bravery mostly falls between 6 and 10. 

 

The long and short of it is.  I think there several players than believe there should be a game rule bonus to flanking and rear attacks beyond the inherent ones performing such maneuver because other games have such rules, and they view such maneuvers more difficult to perform only for the inherent advantages.   I remain unconvinced that AoS needs such a system as of yet.   Or more accurately, I think Command and Control (C2) take far more priority than propping up flanking advantages.  Unfortunately, I don't see C2 going very far as GW and GW players do not like losing perfect control over their armies.

 

***

 

Formation Options: Certainly, I have played Napoleonic rank and file games which commonly have line formation, column, battle column, square, skirmish and a few others.  Even playing AoS make use of these formations because even with individual models, placing units in these formations work.

 

P.S. Sorry for the short essay that also happens to wander a bit from the topic and chock-full of opinion a portion being probably ill-informed.  I came from other wargames into GW ones.  I often find GW has strange ideas concerning wargaming.  Often they have elements that are commonly found in other wargames.  But just as common, they don't seem to quite understand  they those games have them and also seem to include them in their games just because they think wargames have to have them.  Morale and Command and Control being by far the biggest offenders with my opinion those being the most critical elements for any kind of simulation of battle.

[Greyshadow]

@Overread nailed it. Age of Sigmar scales much better to down to lower point games.

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

9 hours ago, Saturmorn Carvilli said:

However, if one is talking about the older definition of what a miniatures skirmish game is: a game where models are individually based and do not have to maintain a  set cohesive formation.  Then AoS is still very much that and unlikely to move away from that.

Even with the inclusion of rules such as the LRL which offer bonuses for forming in particular formations or players making use of movement trays usually setup to place their units more in line formation doesn't change that AoS is still a skirmish game under the older definition.  As a commentary, I like it that way much more.  Rank and file games often like to pretend that soldiers didn't form uneven formations and were very good at keeping a very uniform shape.  Many rank and file games like to turn combat into  a sort of geometry and ray (the mathematical definition of ray) puzzle where even if a single man crosses so terrain hazard the entire formation has to suffer.

YES!!!

I came to AoS as salvation from complete burnout from the illogical puzzle dynamic of historical war gaming.  My breaking point wasn’t the geometry per se but an incident where I spent three hours out of a five hour Gettysburg game getting my cannons in position and properly getting then limbered from the horses only to be told that (despite this replicating their positioning in the actual battle perfectly) that my cannons couldn’t shoot at their target because a small corner (talking a few CM)  of a cornfield “obstructed” their vision and there was nothing I could do about this so the opposing soldiers could march right up without ever taking any grape shot...  

I’d accepted plenty of “silly” geometry rules up till that point “in the name of historical accuracy” as the guy who ran the games always insisted but after that I was done.  Haven’t played  a rank & file historical war game since.

It took a big adjustment to go from that to AoS.  The idea, for example that if one model is in range the entire unit was in range made me cringe the first half dozen times I played.  Or that all a failed charge meant was that you stood still, not got stuck out in no man’s land as happened in some of the historical games I’d played.

But one aspect I liked from the very beginning was the more “natural/realistic” movement.  Units could flow with the terrain.  Once battle was engaged battle lines stretch and deform.  I LOVED this aspect.  

To the extent that it leads to gamey moves I think that has less to do with “Skirmish” rules than being an objectives based game as until we switched from narrative games to match play games in prep for a fun local tournament simply put we never really saw any obvious “weirdness” in the way armies moved, charged, or piled in.  Similarly as soon as we go back to narrative games they disappear again.  And while I’m not a big fan of solving mechanics issues with more mechanics issues the increase in “pick a model” and things like he Allopexes no pile in I think do just enough to discourage overly aggressive “gaminess”.

So are AoS rules perfect? No.  And in the Zoom-based meta I’m currently playing in we really work to avoid big blobs for other reasons.  But I think a virtue of the AoS rules is that they are flexible to accommodate both big blobs and more elite builds in what, from my perspective over last ~18 months, is a very rapidly evolving grand meta.

Edited November 24, 2020 by Beer & Pretzels Gamer

[NinthMusketeer]

It was a skirmish game?

[azdimy]

As someone who played warhammer fantasy battle, AOS still feels very much like a skirmish game to me

[RuneBrush]

My own opinion - no, AoS heavily veered away from being a skirmish game a few years back.  Horde discounts and allegiance abilities being written for around the 2000 point mark was roughly the point where the game moved away from "large scale skirmish" into an army game, compounded by year on year point decreases.

I still think that the game has the potential to fulfil both a skirmish and army role.  Looking at way 40k has implemented crusade gives me a bit of hope (being designed ideally for games between 25 and 50 power - so 500 to 1000 points).  But it will require a change in approach because some things just don't work well at anything other than a 2000 point game (I'm looking at you allegiance abilities and scenery pieces)

[Kramer]

22 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

But it will require a change in approach because some things just don't work well at anything other than a 2000 point game (I'm looking at you allegiance abilities and scenery pieces)

For what it’s worth. The game still works very well at 1,5K. (My preferred size) 

from 1K and lower I would agree that your better off losing the allegiance abilities. But then you also lose all the flavour of a faction. 

[Beliman]

Ignoring our own description to what it is an skirmish game, I would add that the newest rankd&files games (Asoiaf and Conquest comes to my mind) have less models than an Horde army from AoS. 

Btw, one of the things that I like about square formation is the time that you spend in the movement phase (if it's done right). I have more problems moving 40 Arkanauts than a 9 stands of Marksman Clones (big blob of archers in Conquest). I'm really happy that after our last battletome, I can play with 10-20 Arkanauts units and/or 10-15 thunderes than what our big blobs of 1.0 !!!

[Beastmaster]

Apart from a Sons of Behemat or a Beastclaw Monster army, all armies consist mainly of models bought, moving, attacking and being attacked not as individuals, but in units. Quite sure it’s not a skirmish game.

[Overread]

It depends how we are defining "skirmish game" and what elements you look at. 

 

If you look at model count then its most certainly not a skirmish system

If you are comparing unit movement styles then it is skirmish when compared to regimented rank and file games. But that assumes only a two system classification of skirmish or rank and file movement. 

 

The latter is confusing because it means that you have a large army game, which is also a skirmish game. Better would be to add something like "open unit movement" or something to that effect between regimented rank and file and skirmish. However that's getting down to nit picking at terms and won't often be universal in how people talk about the games.  

[Evangelist of Cinders]

I would argue it is and that it has to be, though it definitely inherited elements from WHFB that were inherited by them from historically wargaming. A lot of the morale aspects come to mind but also the use of slight buffs. For much of WHFB history you could thematic scale your army from low to high fantasy both in look mechanics, it was one of the things i found unique and love about it, bringing a dwarf city militia to try to hold of god infused heavy infantry and sometimes win. 

Age of Sigmar is pretty squarely however in the realm of high fantasy and for the rules to reflect the lore. to make that feel work you need to concentrate on a unit or heroes special abilities, special equipment and fighting skills rather then formations, discipline and use of terrain.(more Romance of the Three kingdoms then art of War) while it does have larger unit sizes then many skirmish games  this seems to be more due to scaling options then the games core mechanics(and GW desiring you to buy more minis at GW prices)

I'm simply not going to produce a Varna, Canae or Tours, where my understanding of formations, terrain or psychology leads to my opponent getting decimated by bad formations, over extension of personnel or manipulating their desire to deal decisive blows. These are all things that would take away from the epic fantasy that is AoS and frankly would add game mechanics that punish most armies for behaving like they do in the world GW has created. Sure AoS can scale high but its still a place of named heroes  and powerful forces smashing into each other with power metal playing in the background Even if its 40 grots against a celestant prime.

Edited November 25, 2020 by Evangelist of Cinders