Great post on why AoS is great

[KHHaunts]

Maybe ive just been really lucky but i really havent had any bad experience with the use of points.

I played plenty of games without points and the simple fact is that even when people arent being "That person" and exploiting the lack of limitations on your armies you cant help but do it unconciously. Maybe you have a unit that you really want to field or maybe you simply would like to win the game. Also the lack of points made some units unplayable through a sense of guilt. I love my Nagash model but i never felt like i could play it with no points and new limitations to its crazy summoning abilites and hated the consensus that anyone who brings him to the bored is "That person".

I play a few competitive games but really all im looking for is an exciting challenge. The best game i have ever played is one that came right down to the wire literally a small unit of depleted skeles on my side against a wounded hero on his side. I lost. I couldnt have had more fun.

I love the addition of points as a guide and have NEVER outside of a tournement enforced the list building rules that come with pitched battles and im not a big fan on the faction limiting allgiance abilities. I just want to be able to say to meet a someone havent played and say "2000 points?" after which we both throw that amount down on the bored without the tedious and time consuming alternate setup thing. then just roll off for priority.

Every game ive done this way has been far better than any other way ive played. Because i can come to a 1000 point game and field Nagash with 100 points to spare if i want to.

Im not saying the points are as balanced without the list building rules but they have always made the game more fun by taking the pressure of putting down a less op army off the player and instead on the system.

Thats how i feel anyway and am happy to say that noone i have played seems to feel any different.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I agree that in a competitive game - i.e., both players really want to win - the games that come down to the final dice roll are far and away more fun than those where someone was steamrolling, even if it was me. I've had funny games where visibly it looks like I'm getting rekt, but my opponent is actually losing hard. (Best example was a recent 1.5K tournament. My Death versus a double Stardrake with those buff-Lantern Stormcast dudes. Y'know the one. 2+ re-rollable, heal on a 6.)

The entire game I threw everything I had at his Stardrakes and they healed any damage I managed to inflict, but he had so little else that I dominated because it was Border War. I pinned him down with Skeletons, flung a few units behind his Stardrakes to try and kill the buff-Lantern guys, whatever they're called. His minimum squads of Liberators went down quick, so in the end I just swamped him, held him down and won 27-7 on points. It was satisfying to beat a list like that, but more of a grind to play.

The next game I went up against a player who just pulled my army apart in a very clever way that taught me a lot about how to use them properly. The game after that was the most fun to begin with, though. My Death versus an FEC force. Gifts From the Heavens. It was a game of strategic breakouts, daring Hero assassinations and counter-attacking. In the end with our Generals and most Heroes dead it sadly devolved into the grindiest, dullest dice rolling competition as we both had a mob of ineffective Battleline units wearing each other down oh-so slowly. Up to that point it was great, though.

[KHHaunts]

 

9 minutes ago, CoffeeGrunt said:

I agree that in a competitive game - i.e., both players really want to win - the games that come down to the final dice roll are far and away more fun than those where someone was steamrolling, even if it was me. I've had funny games where visibly it looks like I'm getting rekt, but my opponent is actually losing hard. (Best example was a recent 1.5K tournament. My Death versus a double Stardrake with those buff-Lantern Stormcast dudes. Y'know the one. 2+ re-rollable, heal on a 6.)

The entire game I threw everything I had at his Stardrakes and they healed any damage I managed to inflict, but he had so little else that I dominated because it was Border War. I pinned him down with Skeletons, flung a few units behind his Stardrakes to try and kill the buff-Lantern guys, whatever they're called. His minimum squads of Liberators went down quick, so in the end I just swamped him, held him down and won 27-7 on points. It was satisfying to beat a list like that, but more of a grind to play.

The next game I went up against a player who just pulled my army apart in a very clever way that taught me a lot about how to use them properly. The game after that was the most fun to begin with, though. My Death versus an FEC force. Gifts From the Heavens. It was a game of strategic breakouts, daring Hero assassinations and counter-attacking. In the end with our Generals and most Heroes dead it sadly devolved into the grindiest, dullest dice rolling competition as we both had a mob of ineffective Battleline units wearing each other down oh-so slowly. Up to that point it was great, though.

 

I have the same thing with this guy who plays blood bound. i have played him with my wood elf army and every game i either narrowly win or (Far more likely) as soon as he reaches my army its game over.That sort of game wasent what i called fun but certainly elightning. the fact is theguys a better player than me. some games are just like that and no amount of balancing will address the fact that if your opponent i better at using his/her army than you then thats you and not the system.

Realised that during the "AOS has no strategy to it" phase of its release. People do like to blame the system as faulty rather than their ability to master it.

[MacDuff]

I guess I'm just not a competitive game player. It could have started when I beat my dad at chess when I was 12. Maybe I really won and it was some rite of passage, and maybe he let me win. But sadly he never asked me to play again and I've never felt good about that win. I grew up with board games, starting with Tactics II and pre-hex Gettysburg before I discovered D&D - and miniatures - with my stepson. I learned to let young players always win their first game (and Lord, how he cried that time I killed his Balrog), but I gravitated to the type of cooperative gaming that RPGs offered - which is why I like Silver Tower so much now.

But my greatest gaming loves are building and painting all kinds of armies, from all eras and realities, and building the terrain for their little worlds. What I've learned over the years is that I find solo games a great way to bring those worlds to life. It's a bit like chess actually, you make a move with the army you're rooting for, then you move over to the other side of the table and view the situation as your enemy would see it, making the best possible move he could make given the evolving tactical situation. If you play fair from both sides and let dice randomizing aid or thwart plans, what I've found is that you end up trying to tell the most interesting story you can (as I thought of it before 'narrative gaming' was coined). I don't actually care which side wins at that point because if my guys are losing I can GM an epic last stand, fighting retreat, or desperate counterattack - the stuff of epic stories.

i know this type of gaming is heresy to some, but I've also found this approach works well when I introduce new young (or old) players. I have plenty of armies to pick from, and sometimes we'll take allied forces and throw a hoard against us, taking turns moving the bad guys. It's a form of cooperative gaming that again shapes interesting stories. I guess I could go the competitive route (I've certainly made hundreds of 40k lists that never saw the tabletop, often because my collecting bug rendered them obsolete before they hit the table top), but I've competed enough in high school, college, and career, and to me the fun is in bringing the little worlds and my tiny men to life. (To be fair, my biggest army is a full company of Battle Sisters with every Marine vehicle and aircraft - because they are defending a virus-bombed planet, their world is complete with a scale replica of Helms Deep as their citadel, retrofitted with laz batteries and all the GW fortifications, and 16 Sister Imperial Knights!)

Hobbies are an alternate reality, so make of yours what you will.

[KHHaunts]

Did anyone notice the bit about siege play.

Maybe a read it wrong but the bit about having to clear a rampart by magic/missile attack I sent right is it. 

Just because your models can't be placed on the wall do sent mean they have to stay by the foot ( I know this is a rule in 40k but not in aos as far as I can see) you just move ur models up where they are on their imaginary ladders and engage the enemy unit as.normal.

Just wanted to check that.

[chord]

6 hours ago, KHHaunts said:

Did anyone notice the bit about siege play.

Maybe a read it wrong but the bit about having to clear a rampart by magic/missile attack I sent right is it. 

Just because your models can't be placed on the wall do sent mean they have to stay by the foot ( I know this is a rule in 40k but not in aos as far as I can see) you just move ur models up where they are on their imaginary ladders and engage the enemy unit as.normal.

Just wanted to check that.

You can't move within three inches of another unit. So if an enemy unit is on the wall and the open spot you would try to move to is within 3" of that spot then you can't move there.  

You could house rule ladders, etc. But currently that is not part of the rule base, so you would just need to clear a part of the wall to reach.  Even if you added ladders the base rules show you'd have to be 3" away on that ladder (although that could be house ruled)

[TerrorPenguin]

16 hours ago, MacDuff said:

I guess I'm just not a competitive game player. It could have started when I beat my dad at chess when I was 12. Maybe I really won and it was some rite of passage, and maybe he let me win. But sadly he never asked me to play again and I've never felt good about that win. I grew up with board games, starting with Tactics II and pre-hex Gettysburg before I discovered D&D - and miniatures - with my stepson. I learned to let young players always win their first game (and Lord, how he cried that time I killed his Balrog), but I gravitated to the type of cooperative gaming that RPGs offered - which is why I like Silver Tower so much now.

But my greatest gaming loves are building and painting all kinds of armies, from all eras and realities, and building the terrain for their little worlds. What I've learned over the years is that I find solo games a great way to bring those worlds to life. It's a bit like chess actually, you make a move with the army you're rooting for, then you move over to the other side of the table and view the situation as your enemy would see it, making the best possible move he could make given the evolving tactical situation. If you play fair from both sides and let dice randomizing aid or thwart plans, what I've found is that you end up trying to tell the most interesting story you can (as I thought of it before 'narrative gaming' was coined). I don't actually care which side wins at that point because if my guys are losing I can GM an epic last stand, fighting retreat, or desperate counterattack - the stuff of epic stories.

i know this type of gaming is heresy to some, but I've also found this approach works well when I introduce new young (or old) players. I have plenty of armies to pick from, and sometimes we'll take allied forces and throw a hoard against us, taking turns moving the bad guys. It's a form of cooperative gaming that again shapes interesting stories. I guess I could go the competitive route (I've certainly made hundreds of 40k lists that never saw the tabletop, often because my collecting bug rendered them obsolete before they hit the table top), but I've competed enough in high school, college, and career, and to me the fun is in bringing the little worlds and my tiny men to life. (To be fair, my biggest army is a full company of Battle Sisters with every Marine vehicle and aircraft - because they are defending a virus-bombed planet, their world is complete with a scale replica of Helms Deep as their citadel, retrofitted with laz batteries and all the GW fortifications, and 16 Sister Imperial Knights!)

Hobbies are an alternate reality, so make of yours what you will.

Bravo!

Your dad never should've quit after being beaten, but I'm pleased you found a way to enjoy this hobby which isn't necessarily about winning.

I played bloodbowl on the computer tonight, completely convinced that the game was fixed because of how badly I was rolling. But then I reframed it as a story, the underdogs losing another opening game - are they destined for glory after all these years and suddenly winning didn't really matter.

I know there are lots of competitive players in tabletop but I do hope GW maintain their focus on demonstrating more than just competitive play - it's such a rich environment for storytelling and if games like Minecraft can put narrative over winning then I hope tabletop players can bring this too 

[KHHaunts]

On 03/12/2016 at 10:12 PM, chord said:

You can't move within three inches of another unit. So if an enemy unit is on the wall and the open spot you would try to move to is within 3" of that spot then you can't move there.  

You could house rule ladders, etc. But currently that is not part of the rule base, so you would just need to clear a part of the wall to reach.  Even if you added ladders the base rules show you'd have to be 3" away on that ladder (although that could be house ruled)

Yeah what i mean is the rules say that you just move vertically when it comes to moving up scenery it dosent say that you have to make a trip up a piece of scenery in one go. (and i don't believe tos implying that you should since its stated quite explicitly in the 40k rulebook)

So you can just charge up the wall (not saying it makes sense from a fluff point of view but thats the rules)

It just says that you can move vertically to climb or cross scenery. It dosent say that you need to be able to place the model anywhere to conclude the movement. so your models could be halfway up the imaginary ladders but since you dont have ladders you cant put your model half way up a wall so you keep it at the bottom and keep track.

What stops me charging with a charge of 12" up a 6" wall.

Again not saying i like this part of the rules as i like to house rule some siege wall rules. But that is what the core rules are saying.

Thoughts?

[chord]

I see what you mean and agree. The way we've played it is that you climb a wall over multiple turns we just keep track of how far you moved each turn.

so I think it's totally reasonable to do a charge of 12" up the 6" wall if you have enough room in the top of the wall.

[KHHaunts]

16 minutes ago, chord said:

I see what you mean and agree. The way we've played it is that you climb a wall over multiple turns we just keep track of how far you moved each turn.

so I think it's totally reasonable to do a charge of 12" up the 6" wall if you have enough room in the top of the wall.

Yeah but if your model is technically floating x inches off the board while going up a wall you dont need to be on the wall to charge if your model is "floating" within 1/2 inch of the enemy model then the charge can be successful without placing your model on the wall.

Not saying i agree or that this is how i would want it played.

But if someone did want to play it that way i wouldnt really have a solid case against it.

[chord]

Personally I probably would insist on the models being on the wall.  The army defending the castle ? should have the advantage.

I think the All Hates campaign book has some siege rules? I don't own it yet.

[CoffeeGrunt]

If the wall is fully occupied though, then units can never get up there to fight.

[Rogue Explorator]

9 hours ago, KHHaunts said:

Yeah but if your model is technically floating x inches off the board while going up a wall you dont need to be on the wall to charge if your model is "floating" within 1/2 inch of the enemy model then the charge can be successful without placing your model on the wall.

Not saying i agree or that this is how i would want it played.

But if someone did want to play it that way i wouldnt really have a solid case against it.

It is very well hidden in the FAQ (under movement), but this is indeed the AoS Rules as written. It says in the FaQ that models that climb and can't end their movement on top of the terrain they climb are indeed "floating" at the height climbed so far.

I'd say the attacker still wouldn't be considered "on" the terrain piece, so the defenders would still have every advantage the fortication provides. And in narrative play, I don't think there should be much argument that many uits, like chariots and most cavalry, just can't climb (also in the FaQ that people should use common sense to decide if a unit can actually climb).

I think this combines to make sieges more managable for the attacker (particularly the likes of Bloodbound) and giving them a bit more versimilitude, while still handing the defender the advantage.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Yeah, if your army has zero ranged units and artillery, you're kinda stumped for ways of actually taking the walls aside from simply surging through the gate and trying to break through the inevitable envelopment your opponent will drop on you.

[KHHaunts]

Well yeah. Let me again say that i personally agree with everything youguys have said and usually have my own house rules that i talk to my opposition about.

Namely that attacks taking place with units at the top of ladders are treated with the "wall and fence"  rules which is just like cover except the wall only counts as cover if it intersects with the attacker and the victim.

Also i a agree on which units have the unoffical cavalry key word (Namely anything that isent humanoid, cant fly, or isent a monster). I go with this over the having to have units on the wall for the same reason CoffeGrunt said about armies no range (Bloodbound?)

If im truelly going house rules i like to have a few extra seige rules for fun. Perhaps have a game where ladders are carried by a select number of units whic can be dropped and picked up etc.

But the original point i was making is that the rules certainly dont prohibit units "Floating up" and attacking the enemy on the walls from there or even horses running up the walls. Sure you can "common sense" it because it dosent state it explicitly. But then you could say the same about shooting into and out of combat (No one without extraodinary skill can or would shoot into a crush of enemy warriors and their own without incurring lots of friendly casulties) you can easily house rule it but thats not what the "Actual" rules are and therefore someone can easily take them at face value

I wouldnt usually care much about making this point as players do what they do. However i mention it because it does kind of contradict the statement in the article that says that the existing game system has the siege part already incorporated.

[chord]

6 hours ago, CoffeeGrunt said:

Yeah, if your army has zero ranged units and artillery, you're kinda stumped for ways of actually taking the walls aside from simply surging through the gate and trying to break through the inevitable envelopment your opponent will drop on you.

But that seems more realistic, right?  If you don't bring ranged units and artillery, then that would leave you one way to get in  (aside from starving them out, etc).  and that's breaking through the door.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Realistic? Maybe. A fun game for both players when some factions are completely starved of such units? Nah.

[TerrorPenguin]

1 hour ago, chord said:

But that seems more realistic, right?  If you don't bring ranged units and artillery, then that would leave you one way to get in  (aside from starving them out, etc).  and that's breaking through the door.

Ethereal units could pass through it? 

[chord]

26 minutes ago, CoffeeGrunt said:

Realistic? Maybe. A fun game for both players when some factions are completely starved of such units? Nah.

I guess, but I tend to build my armies around the grand alliances not just factions. 

Part of why AoS is so much fun. with the grand alliances there are ways around everything.

[chord]

10 minutes ago, TerrorPenguin said:

Ethereal units could pass through it? 

Umm....Maybe?  Depends on the rules I guess.  I mean you can tunnel up inside the castle,  or stormcast could deep strike within it. 

[CoffeeGrunt]

3 hours ago, chord said:

I guess, but I tend to build my armies around the grand alliances not just factions. 

Part of why AoS is so much fun. with the grand alliances there are ways around everything.

Unless you're Death, in which case you have no Ranged options that are effective against high Bravery opponents. Way to make claims like that when you're Order.

Also this whole conversation was about, "hey Matched Play makes people compromise fluff and narrative for competitive function," and here you are telling people that running single faction themed armies is pointless and that they should ignore their fluff.

[KHHaunts]

There is definitely a confusing swirl between what people think is realistic and what the rules actually are.

Does anyone have an opinion on the actual rules with regards to siege.

Im pretty sure the rules say its fine to charge a unit on top a rule even without space

For those that didnt hear me before i dont agree with this as the funnest style of play i just want to know rules wise.

[chord]

2 hours ago, CoffeeGrunt said:

Unless you're Death, in which case you have no Ranged options that are effective against high Bravery opponents. Way to make claims like that when you're Order.

Also this whole conversation was about, "hey Matched Play makes people compromise fluff and narrative for competitive function," and here you are telling people that running single faction themed armies is pointless and that they should ignore their fluff.

Um, no I am not.

Death has no ranged options? I'm not very familiar with Death but I thought tomb kings had ranged options?  Plus Arcane bolt is ranged.  But I don't see why you can't summon a force on the inside of the castle (Assuming it's a castle).  Usually summoning says "within" x inches.   Plus with flying units, they don't have to take vertical movement into account so they can fly right past the wall.

In the fluff there are times when chaos works together (granted not a lot).

It's why AoS is so great, its very flexible to choose and play however you and your friends like.

[CoffeeGrunt]

1) Tomb Kings are not in GA: Death, it shows that you've never read the book,

2) Most Tomb Kings units are no longer sold, so even then, a person couldn't but now models to expand their collection,

3) You can only cast Arcane Bolt once per turn. If you spam Wizards and play Open, then maybe it might work, provided you roll well and your opponent isn't running chaff units that don't care about Mortal Wounds,

4) Summoning only works in open play, and the entire unit had to be further than 9"away. With an 18"range on summoning itself, your summoner would have to be against the wall in order to summon. They'd still have the same problem though: They can't get on top of the wall to kill your units, so a ranged unit on the wall could just cut down the summoned unit,

5) Said Flying models also have to start 3" away from the enemy and end up 3" away on the other side, and still can't attack the wall units. That could be a very long move,

6) A person playing a pure, fluffy list shouldn't have to compromise that because the scenario is stacked against them, it's simply unfair and doesn't make for a fun game now an engaging narrative. A Khorne Bloodbound or Deathrattle force, or heck, a cavalry-oriented Brettonian list would be powerless to do anything,

7) Appealing to realism in a high fantasy game of toy soldiers is silly,

[KHHaunts]

39 minutes ago, CoffeeGrunt said:

1) Tomb Kings are not in GA: Death, it shows that you've never read the book,

2) Most Tomb Kings units are no longer sold, so even then, a person couldn't but now models to expand their collection,

3) You can only cast Arcane Bolt once per turn. If you spam Wizards and play Open, then maybe it might work, provided you roll well and your opponent isn't running chaff units that don't care about Mortal Wounds,

4) Summoning only works in open play, and the entire unit had to be further than 9"away. With an 18"range on summoning itself, your summoner would have to be against the wall in order to summon. They'd still have the same problem though: They can't get on top of the wall to kill your units, so a ranged unit on the wall could just cut down the summoned unit,

5) Said Flying models also have to start 3" away from the enemy and end up 3" away on the other side, and still can't attack the wall units. That could be a very long move,

6) A person playing a pure, fluffy list shouldn't have to compromise that because the scenario is stacked against them, it's simply unfair and doesn't make for a fun game now an engaging narrative. A Khorne Bloodbound or Deathrattle force, or heck, a cavalry-oriented Brettonian list would be powerless to do anything,

7) Appealing to realism in a high fantasy game of toy soldiers is silly,

Good thing the rules don't prevent them from attacking people on the wall then ?