New Board Size (44x60) - How will it impact AOS?

[NinthMusketeer]

He, I dunno. Having played AoS on the upcoming size several times already it really did not feel small.

[Popisdead]

On 6/2/2021 at 9:59 AM, Greybeard86 said:

I don't know anyone taking grots, but I know plenty of other units got point reductions. From bullgryns, to the majority of custodes units.

Imperial often gets love. 

 

Have you seen a single unit of grots in 9th ed 40k?  i'll wait...

[Sleboda]

On 6/2/2021 at 9:17 AM, InSaint said:

For those playing both gaming systems, what are your experience with 40k on the smaller board that you think will probably be emulated in AOS?

I dislike it immensely in 40K, and think I'll like it even less in AoS.

I really love Warcry and Kill Team skirmishes. The small boards work nicely there as they are, well, skirmishes. In my army games, though, I want armies to battle, and that means 4' x 8' tables with hundreds of models. The move to 4 x 6 and small clouds of models as "regiments" was tough, but I adapted. Going smaller and with fewer models? Yikes.

[Malakree]

On 6/2/2021 at 5:05 PM, NinthMusketeer said:

I think it will be completely different than for 40k. The reality is that in AoS those 6×2" strips are almost exclusively used for bringing in units that enter from reserve via battlefield edge. They will be coming in closer to the action in theory but also more likely to be restricted by the presence of enemy models.

And that's about it.

That's actually one thing which is good. All my lists include 2 min strength cheap units whose job is to sit in corners and stop deepstrikes. 

The board ends up looming a bit daft with these 2 random units in the middle of no where doing nothing.

[Fairbanks]

On 6/4/2021 at 4:43 AM, Sleboda said:

I dislike it immensely in 40K, and think I'll like it even less in AoS.

I really love Warcry and Kill Team skirmishes. The small boards work nicely there as they are, well, skirmishes. In my army games, though, I want armies to battle, and that means 4' x 8' tables with hundreds of models. The move to 4 x 6 and small clouds of models as "regiments" was tough, but I adapted. Going smaller and with fewer models? Yikes.

That’s interesting. I played few objective games and a lot of “Run at each other and murder.” games and at the old sizes, there was always a good 1/4 to 1/3 of the table that was mostly unused. New 40K has that issue still, but only if nobody takes Deep Strike units.

[Cronotekk]

Games will be faster and more lethal, shooting will be much more powerful because there will be less places to outflank or teleport behind chaff

[Howdyhedberg]

Would two of the 4 boards from blasted hallowheart be enough for a 1000 point game? Or it's supposed to be even smaller?

[Christopher Rowe]

Just played my first 3.0 game on a 44" x 60" battle mat. 2,000 points, about thirty models from my Seraphon (including five Dinos) and about forty, forty-five from his Ossiarch Bonereapers. Used the recommended minimum of eight terrain pieces, all "official" Games Workshop terrain. It made for some tight maneuvering but the game didn't seem particularly fast (of course it was the first game for most of us so we were looking up a lot of rules) and shooting didn't seem overpowered. Unleash Hell only came up once and it wasn't game swinging or anything. He had two skeletal catapult dealies in one corner of the board but I was playing for objectives and more or less just ignored them. 

[SugarWaterPurple]

I am new to Age of Sigmar (only played three games so far), but in my experience, I'm not sure why there is even a point giving a shooting/dispel range on these boards...

[azdimy]

42 minutes ago, SugarWaterPurple said:

I am new to Age of Sigmar (only played three games so far), but in my experience, I'm not sure why there is even a point giving a shooting/dispel range on these boards...

Shooting range does matter for most units only having like a 18" range

[Popisdead]

4 hours ago, SugarWaterPurple said:

I am new to Age of Sigmar (only played three games so far), but in my experience, I'm not sure why there is even a point giving a shooting/dispel range on these boards...

You might not have faced many different armies in different matches?  There is what, 12 mission?  lots of armies (sub factions).

 

I found range actually pretty big for shooting.  "oh,.. this unit only shoots 18", that's only half the board I'm focussed on.

[Blood0Tiger]

From my own personal observations and playtime of various games in 40k and aos, I'll attempt to keep my thoughts organized here.

GW fully understands random people in the community playing with these pre-curser rules they will eventually change after enough complaints can provide them better ways of testing their ideas. Not the first time and not the last time anyone has done this, I wouldn't look too far into this, it just comes down to how they feel ideas would work vs the experimentation and other various testing they use or don't use to create systems. I don't know how I feel about this considering my own viewpoints about communication practices to the community and testers who are neither sponsored or chosen by GW to do anything specific for the community. 

 

2D board sizes can take a bit of work to balance because terrain and objectives can create "enough" 3D planes to provide tactical options but importantly spontaneous ideas to make your army survive or perish in these alternating conditions. As many already know about the GW standard for AOS & 40K and the " official tournament rules" groups will make to fit the bill or their own balancing to mitigate some problematic issues with this because they are too open or closed off to many who  feel its just a band aid fix instead of looking at mission sets and that not every army will exploit the same advantages as another of the same faction but different units for example.  

So with all this in mind, do you feel this should be looked at or left alone? 

wait and let the dust settle like usual?

Leave it up to you to think about.

I'll continue to explore how to develop 3.0 further through my own ideas and experiences with skirmish games and the franchise. I feel board sizes should be treated at the same time as missions and simply having 3 board sizes most will likely not used as intended does not have a long shelf life in my eyes.  But this not about hating on GW or practices, just to get people thinking of their own games a different way. Constructive ideas and collaboration to improve Warhammers designs could be something we've needed to solidify creative interest. 

Edited August 17, 2021 by Blood0Tiger