Flanks.

[Olincay]

With the fluid movement of Aos it may be difficult, but do people think there should be a bonus or benifit to hitting enemy units from the side or rear? 

In game I naturally find myself trying to postion charges to the sides or the back of units without any benifit other than maximizing the amount of attacks I can make. 

Thematically and realisticly you would think there would be a benifit from doing so, so can this be implemented? If so how? 

Perhaps the unit suffering from rear/side charge could suffer a bravery penalty? 

I think it could add alittle more depth into the game and give alittle bit of rank and flank tickle to the people who still like that format. 

Perhaps this is a horrible idea, but just curious to gauge other peoples opinions. 

[CoffeeGrunt]

Would be hard to define a rear or flank in AoS. I find it's easier to imagine it as a Lord of the Rings-style swirling melee than two blocks of infantry grinding against each other. It's definitely going for cinematic over strategic.

I find flanks are handy purely because I'll be able to get all my attacks in while taking few in return, so that's normally where the Terrorgheist hits. 

[Olincay]

I can understand that, I've had this conversation with a club mate and basically came to the same conclusion that it's too hard to define the flank of a unit. Perhaps I have to turn the part of my brain off that thinks it should matter. 

Id still be keen to get it implemented somehow. 

[DarkBlack]

The actual geometry gives advantages. If you flank a unit then it can't pile in effectively and can't attack with all it's models.

I once dealt with a block of 30 bloodreavers by putting a spawn in one flank and attacking the other ( a unit of forsaken and a chariot); half of the models never attacked (because of having to pile in opposite directions while keeping coherency).

[sal4m4nd3r]

2 hours ago, DarkBlack said:

The actual geometry gives advantages. If you flank a unit then it can't pile in effectively and can't attack with all it's models.

I once dealt with a block of 30 bloodreavers by putting a spawn in one flank and attacking the other ( a unit of forsaken and a chariot); half of the models never attacked (because of having to pile in opposite directions while keeping coherency).

That is a very interesting strategy that I never considered. 

[Aeonotakist]

6 hours ago, sal4m4nd3r said:

That is a very interesting strategy that I never considered. 

Attack 2 sides of a horde unit is very common tactics for SE since they can deep strike to achieve this effort.

 

 A huge unit of 30 models pile up in line will be 'locked' by 5*2 Librators for eternity. Only way to get rid of it is to remove casualties from one side and leave close combat from that side. So all models can pile in and try to focus the other in their next turn. However, Librators' attack usually is not strong enough to create enough casualties...

 

Without using this tactics, SE can never stand a chance against most horde army.

[KHHaunts]

check out the "Age of Warhammer" in the downloads section.

Its fan made supplement that allows you to do a number of things from WHFB that work nicely alongside the current rules such as ranked movement, miscasts and warmachine misfires.

I would make a couple of tweaks to it to balance out the advantages and disadvantages of choosing to field ranked models but on the whole i really like it as it takes up little more than a page of A4.

i think GW could add something like this as an option without causing any upset to the game.

check it out!:

even if you dont agree with the rules themselves an supplement around this sort of size and complexity would be great!

[DarkWingDuck]

Borrowing from that other GW Game ... no not that one ... the other one: Epic 40K.

It has rules for crossfire. If you can draw a line from one of your units to another one of your units, and that line crosses an opponents unit, either through one of their models or through the gap between two of their models. Then you can take a crossfire bonus (-1 saving throws, and casualties due +1 blast marker iirc).

You could probably do something similar in AoS. Maybe a -1 Rend to your melee attacks.

[Olincay]

8 hours ago, KHHaunts said:

check out the "Age of Warhammer" in the downloads section.

Its fan made supplement that allows you to do a number of things from WHFB that work nicely alongside the current rules such as ranked movement, miscasts and warmachine misfires.

 

Cheers buddy, ill give this a good read. 

[Kosmion]

On 2016-10-24 at 3:07 PM, Olincay said:

With the fluid movement of Aos it may be difficult, but do people think there should be a bonus or benifit to hitting enemy units from the side or rear? 

In game I naturally find myself trying to postion charges to the sides or the back of units without any benifit other than maximizing the amount of attacks I can make. 

Thematically and realisticly you would think there would be a benifit from doing so, so can this be implemented? If so how? 

Perhaps the unit suffering from rear/side charge could suffer a bravery penalty? 

I think it could add alittle more depth into the game and give alittle bit of rank and flank tickle to the people who still like that format. 

Perhaps this is a horrible idea, but just curious to gauge other peoples opinions. 

This was one of my biggest concerns when i started with aos, i thought it made no sense to remove such an obvious rule from wfb8th. But yes, i also concluded that it was too hard to determine whether or not units are flanked. One solution could be: the flanked unit must be in contact with atleast say 75% of the enemy model/s. So if a line of 4 soldiers are attacked, atleast 3 of them need to be in contact in order to determine a proper flankcharge. Or something along those lines

[DarkBlack]

Flanking bonuses are only needed in rank and flank type games, because the actual placement of soldiers is abstract and needs to be simulated.

In a game that has each model represent an actual soldier and their position, like AoS, flank advantages don't need to be simulated because those advantages are already represented, in the way I described above.

Flanking is advantageous because geometry restricts the capacity of flanked troops to respond to threats, while being engaged by additional enemies; being flanked is the battlefield scale equivalent of fighting a war on 2 fronts.

35 minutes ago, Kosmion said:

...i thought it made no sense to remove such an obvious rule from wfb8th....

GW removed the mechanics that made such rules obvious too.

[Olincay]

On 25 October 2016 at 10:07 AM, DarkBlack said:

The actual geometry gives advantages. If you flank a unit then it can't pile in effectively and can't attack with all it's models.

I once dealt with a block of 30 bloodreavers by putting a spawn in one flank and attacking the other ( a unit of forsaken and a chariot); half of the models never attacked (because of having to pile in opposite directions while keeping coherency).

That only comes into affect if you're attacking a flank with a low model count unit, This varies on base size of course. 

Perhaps rears and flanks is too difficult and way to open to personal interpretation   

Maybe say if a unit is completly surrounded and can not retreat out of combat it suffers penalty as -2 to bravery or -1 to a save. 

[PJetski]

The concept of facing does not exist in Age of Sigmar so it would be extremely difficult to make rules for flanking.

[Aeonotakist]

5 hours ago, Olincay said:

That only comes into affect if you're attacking a flank with a low model count unit, This varies on base size of course. 

Perhaps rears and flanks is too difficult and way to open to personal interpretation   

Maybe say if a unit is completly surrounded and can not retreat out of combat it suffers penalty as -2 to bravery or -1 to a save. 

 

No, most cases high model units will be effected by flank attack.

 

Because models can only pile in 3', a large unit being flank attacked (I mean the shorter line of their squad) can only pile in very limited number of models.

I magine a 2*15 formation got assauted on the end. most cases only 6 models can fight back after pile-in. But if the attacke was from the front, more than 20 models might be able to attack.

 

I would say the flank in AOS is much better in 8th due to it's so obvious and easy to understand.

[DarkBlack]

6 hours ago, Olincay said:

That only comes into affect if you're attacking a flank with a low model count unit, This varies on base size of course. 

Maybe say if a unit is completly surrounded and can not retreat out of combat it suffers penalty as -2 to bravery or -1 to a save. 

If anything flanking in AoS comes into effect less on small units.

A unit that is surrounded already has a penalties in that it cannot retreat and will suffer in battleshock because it is being attacked by close to the maximum number of models possible. Inspiring presence on units that cannot retreat will enable an epic last stand situation that might not be realistic in our world, but sure is what you'll expect in the Mortal Realms.

[Olincay]

16 minutes ago, Aeonotakist said:

 

No, most cases high model units will be effected by flank attack.

 

Because models can only pile in 3', a large unit being flank attacked (I mean the shorter line of their squad) can only pile in very limited number of models.

I magine a 2*15 formation got assauted on the end. most cases only 6 models can fight back after pile-in. But if the attacke was from the front, more than 20 models might be able to attack.

 

I would say the flank in AOS is much better in 8th due to it's so obvious and easy to understand.

I'm agreeing with you on that,  I was saying the low model unit is the attacking one.



 

[KHHaunts]

The age of warhammer downloads introduces rank and file as a simple Base contact rows of 4 system with all models facing in an agreed direction. From there it imposes some rules on movement and such. It would be quite easy to introduce some simple flanking rules

[Aeonotakist]

4 hours ago, Olincay said:

I'm agreeing with you on that,  I was saying the low model unit is the attacking one.



 

If you are talking about using a 30 models units and surrounded their enemy with 5 models and asking for benefit...

Well either the enemy will die anyway, or they are elite troops with no fear of those pieces of cakes surrounding them.

 

Actually back in 8th, it was even impossilbe to surround anything with one unit.

[Kosmion]

one way to enable flanking and declaring when and where you actually can flank could be using the movement from the previous turn. for example: Unit A moves in one direction in that players turn, that mean that unit is now facing that way, until their next movement phase.it doesn't matter if the models themselves don't face whatever direction the unit is supposedly moving in. the moving unit now have flanks and a rear. if the unit did not move, it cannot be flanked, if the actual models face outwards in all directions, like a circular formation etc. this could also contribute to the "stand and fight" feel of a unit standing its ground and defending something. 

[Paul Conti]

I have actually found some benefit to this. most people still seem to organize their unit formations that are wider than they are deep. this maximizes attacks when youre head to head. if someone does this and you charge the "flank" of that formation you can reduce the possible attacks your opponent has in the first round of combat. 

You can also use similar tactics to draw units in certain directions when they pile in. this can move them off of objectives or make way for other units to pass by or get into combat in a more advantageous position.