Narrative games for dummies! (Help wanted)

[Greasygeek]

I got into AOS about a year ago. Like many others I used to play Warhammer Fantasy more than a decade ago but left the hobby for good untill now. 

The simple rules and beautiful miniatures got me hooked again and I really like the narrative battleplans too. Needless to say I do not prefer when games get too competitive however so far my group and I have played only point games despite tweaking things to suit our gaming style.

After trying a few of the Realm Gate Wars battleplans as point matches I am really starting to think about going fully narrative. However maybe it's and old WHFB headwound but I really can't wrap my brain around narrative gaming. Surely narrative games might be less balanced than one might expect from a Matched game but still there should be some sort of way to balance things out right?!

I guess my first question is:

- How does one decide what units to bring to a narrative game? 

The story line from the Realm Gate Wars books contain a short story pitching rival armies in a fixed setting but from what I read it makes no sense not to bring your entire model selection to most of those battleplans? On the paper that sounds like no fun at all but I have a feeling that I might be missing out on something.

So if anyone will help me (and my group) comprehending narrative gaming we will be very thankful.

 

Thanks in advance

and keep rolling those 6's (except for Bravery).

[Greasygeek]

1 hour ago, Auticus said:

1) the story is more important than winning.  You can easily use matched points for narrative gaming though, which is pretty much how everyone I read about does things minus a couple people that stand out and don't use points.

Thanks! But Eh.. If people use points for narrative games too, then what about summoning spells and abilities? If they remain unchanged from Matched games then summoning still sucks and it kinda killa the theme a bit when horrors do not split or models turn into stuff due to weird and awesome abilities. Does it not?

[Nin Win]

That's part of scenario design.  If both players (or the designer of the battle plan or event organizer) want a game with better summoning than don't worry about it.  

I'll post more about scenario design and picking forces when I'm at a keyboard.  Though my experience is in historical wargaming rather than AoS, to which I am relatively new.

[TheAntsAreBack]

I've had the same queeries as to what actually constitutes "narrative play". I think that we perhaps look too much to draw a clear distinction between narrative and the other play modes.  I consider myself and my mates fairly typical gamers in that we play points as a matter of course, but we are looking for fun scenarios and decent atmosphere and stories from the game too. My ideal games would be campaign-based and with cool scenarios but will invariably be points-based too. So does that make then narrative? In fact does it matter what they are called? We all used to play points in previous editions as well as campaigns and scenarios as well as Pitched Battle without worrying about what the game mode is.  It seems to me that the "narrative" section of  the General's Handbook is the most interesting and fun section in that it has a couple of extra scenarios and some campaign ideas but the fact that it dosn't mention points perhaps leads people to imagine that it's a whole distinct manner of play, which I don't think it is. 

To my mind there are really two types of game - games with points/composition and games where anything goes. Most people play the former and within that there are all the usual fun ways of playing out pitched battles or full campaigns/crazy scenarios.

[wayniac]

The thing I find with narrative play is it requires a specific mindset:

1) The rules are guidelines only, if something doesn't fit the story or theme of the game, change it but be up front about this (I find most people, even some powergamers who granted are unlikely to be playing narrative anyways, won't have an issue with house rules if they know about them, it's only when it's a surprise that people get upset)

2) You can mix and match rules; so maybe you use points only (because #BattlelineRuinsEverything especially in Narrative Play) but you have a reserve bank to summon if it makes sense; a powergamer will scoff and screech about this being "unfair" but a narrative gamer will probably have no issue if it suits the story so long as it's not abused (e.g. if you allow free reign summoning, don't use it to chain summon Pink Horrors or Mournghouls)

3) Bringing a "good" list is not necessarily the goal, the goal is to bring a fun list or one that fits the story.  This is often the one that anyone who plays to win (whether WAAC or otherwise) struggle with and often why narrative play is lambasted as "being bad at the game" or "playing sucky lists" because the goal is not necessarily to bring a powerful list but a thematic one.

[AlphaKennyThing]

I really like narrarive games, but always use points as a ballpark figure of what to take. The scenario itself is used to determine how much of what is taken.

The best narrative games are mini-campaigns of two to three games. May not sound like much, but it's enough to tell a story. For example, I was involved in a custom scenario which was a tower in the middle of the board, some Order townhouses and the like on the defender's side, and then just woodland on the other. The scenario was that my Chaos army had stumbled across the borders of an Order territory, and they'd decided to attack... cuz Khorne. 

My Duardin/Aelf opponent's objectives were to defend the villages and if they could, the tower. My objective was to pillage as much as possible. He won a major victory if he controlled both villages and the tower, and a minor if he controlled 2/3. I won a major victory if I could take all 3 (or both villages), and a minor if I controlled 2/3. Points could be taken by having more models (if battleline/other) or more points worth (if behemoth/hero) than the opponent.

We decided the theme would be border guards vs roving warband, so followed the matched play 2k army set up but with 1800pts. Summoning was fully usable, and models weren't included in the points, but we said they couldn't score unless they were the only unit on a point.

Turned out to be an awesome battle, especially a Dwarven gunline outside the village firing volleys into advancing Chaos Warriors, whilst Marauder horsemen picked off the disciplined ranks of Spireguard with javelins, losing horses each turn to bows as they defended the tower.

In the end, I won a minor victory due to some amazing rolls with my Glaive Knights that took the village, and I held the tower by turn 5.

The next game, we decided, would be the Chaos incursion getting to a major city in the Order territory. We set up fortifications, with a prominant gate on one side of the board, and then open plains and minor forest leading up to it. If I could get at least two models on top of the gate, my army counted as having opened them, and I'd win a major victory. My army was exactly the same, but we agreed that heroes on my team could forego any abilities in the hero phase to command a nearby unit with shields to form a shield wall, allowing for re-rolling of saves against shooting attacks, but no running. My Duardin, and this time Stormcast, opponent was allowed as much artillery as he liked.

So began my slow advance down the board, and despite some very cinematic battles near the walls, I got absolutely destroyed. A bit too ambitious on the part of Chaos.

The final game was an escape scenario, where the angry Duardin hunted down the remants of the Chaos army and had to destroy as many points as possible in the battle. My objective was to get as many points as possible to the other side of the board and to safety. We unfortunately had to cut this game short.

I know this was a somewhat lengthy post, but I hope it gives some insight into what you can do with narrative games. AoS is fantastic for how versatile a game it is, it took us about five minutes to decide on army composition and house rules, and the battles really weren't about winning or losing, it was about telling a story and seeing what our units could do. It makes a fantastically refreshing change from just spamming your best list on the same 6 Matched Play scenarios.

That said, every narrative (I say in the loosest of terms) game I've gone into that has been a 'pick scenario and play it out' one-off game has basically descended into a Matched Play game without either myself nor my opponent intending it to, so I'd argue that giving your battle a bit of a storyline is essential to putting both of you in the right mindset to play a narrative game.

[Menkeroth]

Or you could just use it as unit raise in FB, as kind of reinforcements but not brand new units.

[Nin Win]

On 5/27/2017 at 1:53 PM, Greasygeek said:

After trying a few of the Realm Gate Wars battleplans as point matches I am really starting to think about going fully narrative. However maybe it's and old WHFB headwound but I really can't wrap my brain around narrative gaming. Surely narrative games might be less balanced than one might expect from a Matched game but still there should be some sort of way to balance things out right?!

If you're enjoying the Realm Gate Wars battleplans, then maybe games that range from you having an advantage to those where you have a disadantage is okay?  Maybe balance isn't as necessary for fun as people often think?

Quote

I guess my first question is:

- How does one decide what units to bring to a narrative game? 

The story line from the Realm Gate Wars books contain a short story pitching rival armies in a fixed setting but from what I read it makes no sense not to bring your entire model selection to most of those battleplans? On the paper that sounds like no fun at all but I have a feeling that I might be missing out on something.

The goal is only to win after the models have been set up.  Not when setting up the game.  So this idea of "it makes not sense not to bring your entire model selection" probably needs to go.  The goal of scenario design is not to rig it in advance, but to make a game that is fun for both players.  Both players need to think of themselves as game designers in this stage.  Would you like a game pre-rigged by someone else?  While sometimes desperate last stands are fun, if you turn a scenario that is not about that situation into one, then you're probably not doing your job as game designers in that case.

The most important thing is to not pick the forces in isolation unless you are using some sort of points system as guidance.  It's also okay for you to start off with your opponent picking your forces and then you suggest stuff for them to take.  Lots of the battle plans for Narrative games have little features to compensate for when one force is too strong, like the first narrative one in the GHB where the monster heals 1 for each unit the opponent brings onto the battlefield.  Ask yourself what the situation is and then pick stuff you think would make sense for that situation and talk about it as you start setting up terrain and stuff.  If you need to figure this out before setting up the table (Which miniatures do we bring to the club?) then I'd discuss it in advance.

So here's a table from One-hour Wargames by Neil Thomas.  I'm not suggesting anyone necessarily devise tables like this for Age of Sigmar, but it is an example of just how differently you can approach selecting forces for scenario games.  One-hour Wargames is a book that gives very simple rules for many periods of history from bronze age warfare to WW2 in the same book and then has 30 scenarios that work for all the rules he just presented.

When he needs unequal forces, he has a separate table for armies with 4 units.  In his rules all the units are pretty similar in power level, but the end result is that the scenarios in the book work with a random army as long as that army list is guided towards a theme.  For example, all results have at least half the army being infantry in his rules.  What you are really rolling for here is what special stuff you get.

Probably the easiest starting point is to think about the situation in story terms.  If you were to describe it to yourself, what armies are present?  What units would definitely not be present?  How large of a battle is it?  If you picture the ideal table for the scenario in your head, how many miniatures do you see?

It's okay to use points as a guide.  Somewhere along the way we got confused about points and stopped seeing them as what they were originally designed for:  to be a tool to help set up games as a guide.  We started thinking of them as a resource we get to spend to get the most power possible.  Using points as a guide for setting up a scenario is a far better use of them.  You'll also be able to make judgement calls to compensate for the areas points fail (the most obvious example with being that you usually don't pay extra for models that work well together.  A hero that makes a certain unit type stronger costs the same whether you take that unit or not).

Summary:

1. Approach scenario design with an eye towards enjoyment for all participants, not for setting up a win for yourself in advance.
2. Involve both players to at least some degree in army selection
3. It's okay to let some dice decide if you can't.
4. Think about the situation in "story" terms.  Describe it to yourself and think about who or what should be there.
5. Use points as a guide if you need to and make sure to compensate for their failings when they crop up

 

[TheAntsAreBack]

I think people are thinking too hard into this to be honest. Remember back in previous editions of WFB when we played games with different levels of storyline and scenario woven in? That's still what we do now surely? Some games are strright out points-based pitched battles or GHB scenarios and these days GW call them matched play. Some games are other scenarios, perhaps with odd-points balances or different composition rules or part of a linked campaign system and these are the narrative games. Surely this is how it's always been, it's just called something a little different now?

[Greasygeek]

Guys thanks for all the advise it is really helpful. I think I might have a much better picture of Narrative gaming now than I had before. I kinda always been stepping in that direction I believe since I much prefer building armies thats fun to build play and paint oppose to powerbuilding. In our group we had a map campaign going on that I now realize was closer to narrative gaiming than I first thought. The campaign got kinda stuck but we got to create quite a bit of history for the land they were fighting for and maybe its time to call the guys in for a monthly narrative game continuing the story despite the campaign being dead.

I was looking at narrative gaming like it was supposed to be a strict set of rules I just did not get the tactical aspect of. Whether to use points or not and how people did it. But drawing a clear line between matched games and narrative ones makes good sense and I believe it will be easier to get the guys in on it exactly because of that. 

[chord]

Many of the battleplans in the realmgate wars have guidance. For example if one player as 1/3rd or more models/units than the other player that one must be the attacker/defender/etc.  This usually falls in line with the story in the battleplan.  Aka you're trapped and need to hold out for reinforcements, etc.

I recommend reading the story leading up to the battleplan (as well as the battleplan) to understand what is the story of the battleplan.  Take units accordingly.

Even for the narrative ones in the GHB this is similar. Look at consumed.  If you're on your way to rescue you hero who is being sacrificed you wouldn't take a super slow moving gunline , you'd take your fast units and rush to their aid (ti goes with the bonuses given in the battleplan).

[stillness]

On 5/30/2017 at 6:35 AM, chord said:

Many of the battleplans in the realmgate wars have guidance. For example if one player as 1/3rd or more models/units than the other player that one must be the attacker/defender/etc.  This usually falls in line with the story in the battleplan.  Aka you're trapped and need to hold out for reinforcements, etc.

As someone who hasn't done any narrative gaming, but would like to, now that points are out do you just read "1/3 or more models" as "1/3 or more points"? That would seem to be the easy way to do it, no?

[Nin Win]

Sure.  The point is to get to a fun game, so use whatever tools are at your disposal.  

[wayniac]

Often for specific scenarios you can give attacker/defender different points too.  For example, in a particular mission the attacker might have 2500 points and the defender have 2000 points but get something else (either a bonus, special ability or even just a favorable scenario win condition) to balance it out.  People often don't understand that you don't need to have equal points to balance a scenario; you can add other things to help push an imbalance closer together.

[Ulf]

On 5/27/2017 at 2:53 PM, Greasygeek said:

maybe it's and old WHFB headwound but I really can't wrap my brain around narrative gaming. Surely narrative games might be less balanced than one might expect from a Matched game but still there should be some sort of way to balance things out right?!

I guess my first question is:

- How does one decide what units to bring to a narrative game? 

This is just one man's opinion, but I think that we as gamers ought to consider whether "balance" is something that's actually necessary in order for a game to be fun. 

A lot of times, I don't think balance between forces is a good thing, or that it adds much to the enjoyment of the game. Yes, it makes the game as fair as it can be, considering that luck and dice still factor in to it. And while there's nothing wrong with that, should that be a prerequisite to the game itself? I say no, not necessarily.

In my mind, these games (tabletop wargames in general) are all about the cool events that happen on the tabletop, the stories and rivalries that develop between armies & generals, and the chance to build and paint amazing models. The hobby is about spending time with like-minded creative individuals, and having this common interest that connects us as people.

And balance, as a game concept, is completely irrelevant to that.

To answer your question about deciding what units to bring to a narrative game, I'd say that first & foremost you ought to think about what story this game, this battle, is going to tell. Balance and points aside, for a moment. Is this the last stand of a determined group of Duardin heroes against a numberless horde of undead? Is it a mighty clash of Orruk hordes?  Will the game be about a cadre of Bloodbound adventurers trying to break through the Seraphon lines to take some mighty trophy?

Then, once you have an idea (along with your opponent), bring the models that speak to that idea. Forget about balance, and think about theme and story.

Most awesome moments in books, movies, and TV never ever involve scrupulously calculated balance between forces. And that imbalance is what makes those moments exciting. Let's take Lord of the Rings as an example; The Fellowship was a bunch of underdog heroes, facing CRAZY odds. If balance and points-parity had been a consideration in that story, the forces of Sauron would also have put together a single band of a few bad guys to face them; one wizard, three goblins, a human ranger, a human fighter, their own dwarf, their own elf, etc etc...  

...and that would have been just awful. Those two evenly-matched forces would have met, and fought, and then the results of a few d6 rolls would have decided things, in the ultimate anti-climax. It's much more exciting if one side has the ragtag band of heroes, and the other side has the faceless and diverse horde of monsters that outnumber the heroes by a thousand to one.

That's an absurd example, obviously, but you get my meaning.

When I play narrative, which I do pretty much every week (I'm running a narrative league), I discuss the scenario with my opponent, we decide on what the story/event/cool moment for the game is going to be, and then we each put a force together, separately, that represents the troops that our generals would each send to accomplish whatever it is that we've set out to do. I don't use points at all.

And yeah, sometimes that's a serious uphill struggle. But we play with the Sudden Death table, and that simple mechanic actually helps out a lot.

I have yet to play a balanced game, in terms of Matched Play standards, and I have yet to have a bad game of Age of Sigmar, win or lose. 

[Menkeroth]

24 minutes ago, Ulf said:

Most awesome moments in books, movies, and TV never ever involve scrupulously calculated balance between forces. And that imbalance is what makes those moments exciting. Let's take Lord of the Rings as an example; The Fellowship was a bunch of underdog heroes, facing CRAZY odds. If balance and points-parity had been a consideration in that story, the forces of Sauron would also have put together a single band of a few bad guys to face them; one wizard, three goblins, a human ranger, a human fighter, their own dwarf, their own elf, etc etc...  

...and that would have been just awful. Those two evenly-matched forces would have met, and fought, and then the results of a few d6 rolls would have decided things, in the ultimate anti-climax. It's much more exciting if one side has the ragtag band of heroes, and the other side has the faceless and diverse horde of monsters that outnumber the heroes by a thousand to one.

This. You can count on me as well in this matter. 

P.S. Helm's Deep is another great example of this - a mighty all-infantry army besieges a fortress with way fewer defenders to protect its walls, and they must hold long enough for their own infantry reinforcements to come and save the day, all the while fending off lots of merciless and brutal uruk-hai. They have to thank Aragorn and Eomer for sternly leading them to victory despite all odds. And while it's LotR, it's the essence of the AoS as well.

[Nacnudllah]

For me the key to narrative play is that you and your opponent are playing together instead of against one another.

I think that it's important to play to see what happens (a common goal of story-based role-playing games).

What units to bring?  Units that will make interesting things happen!  Units like the Mutalith Beast or Lord of Chaos, or a battalion like the Ghoul Patrol or Royal Family.  

Cleanse your mind of concerns about balance, and instead focus on being entertained by the aesthetics and events of the battle.  

Pick out some Time of War rules to use, then discuss why your armies are fighting in that location and how that relates to the Battleplan you chose.

When your opponent says "wouldn't it be cool if...?", aim to make it happen.

Also, if you're interested, I've made a pretty fun battleplan that focuses on the "game as conversation" and asymmetrical victory conditions aspects of narrative play (link).

Ultimately, narrative play is what you and your opponent(s) make of it.

[MacDuff]

The Stuff of Legends PDF in the link above is incredibly inspirational. I want to run out and get stuff to make some idols, paint little rocks as Ur-Gold, etc., etc. I highly recommend you snag a copy of it - it brings the tabletop alive and narratives will naturally follow!

[HobbyHammer]

Path to Glory is really gonna help you build a narrative army without using points. As someone who doesn't use points (unless playing opponent who wants to), I find as long as the battleplan is well designed (a lot of the GW campaign book ones are), you will not need points to get the point of the story across. 

Pure Narrative gaming means you really need to step away from a winner and loser, concerntrate on building a story. If one army is beginning to really pull away but the story feels like it needs more, bring reinforcements on from table edges or summon some units through Realmgates. Once your both happy with where Story has developed to, bring in a Sudden Death Victory condition or complete the battleplan. 

Just each round see how story of game has developed, have a discussion with opponent and see where you want the narrative to go next. The balance of a narrative game comes from both players being able to read the way the game is going and adjusting to make it better! 

So long as at end of game both players feel they have had a great game it's a win! Outcome of game and storyline can then be pulled into the next game. 

Hope that helps. 

[KnightFire]

On 5/27/2017 at 7:53 PM, Greasygeek said:

 

- How does one decide what units to bring to a narrative game? 

 

Thanks in advance

and keep rolling those 6's (except for Bravery).

So narrative is a wide spectrum of play types, ranging from "select our armies based on a story, and then try hard to win on the table" through "select an army based on a story and make them do what they would do on a table" right the way to "select armies based on a story and force a certain outcome through the gameplay".

But assuming you have an idea of what kind of narrative game you want to play, I would say that its really up to you to decide what models are suitable and how many to use. Obviously things like how much time you have to play your game will have a big impact, as will whether your narrative calls for one side to be more likely to win than the other.

One thing to be aware of though is that you dont have to stick with the units that are on the board at the start, you can add or remove units if the game is getting too one sided. I played a narrative campaign with a friend just after AoS came out, and we balanced the games by adding more models to one side or another as reinforcements if the game got too one sided in the early turns. It worked really well as a mechansim, and I can recommend it as an approach.

[wayniac]

1 hour ago, Auticus said:

This is the biggest hurdle I have ever had to jump over in any campaign I've run.  I find it to be a monumentally difficult thing to do (having people put aside winners and losers).  It is so deeply ingrained into the flesh of gaming today that changing this thought process would be unimaginably difficult.

100% agree.  I also, despite liking narrative, find it very difficult to just ad-hoc things midway into a game without one or both players feeling like their choices are being taken from them (similar to "railroading" in RPGs where you feel the GM is making your character's choices for them).  I don't know many people who would accept, for example, an arbitrary decision to let their opponent get reinforcements because they are handily winning, doubly so if there's a third party (i.e. a GM) making the decision.  Most people I have seen over some 20 years gaming want the narrative to remain in the background, not influence the game itself.  The narrative is the reason why you are fighting, not extra rules that get thrown in during the battle.

[HobbyHammer]

There is so many ways to play narrative, from what your saying, have a narrative running in background, theme of battle, why they are there etc, through replaying historical battles and finally into full Game management. None are wrong, and it will completely depend on who the opponent is (and yourself of course) to what way of narrative you want to play. 

Most important rule.. make sure all players involved have the most fun they can have in the game. 

[Kramer]

On 5/28/2017 at 7:07 AM, Greasygeek said:

Thanks! But Eh.. If people use points for narrative games too, then what about summoning spells and abilities? If they remain unchanged from Matched games then summoning still sucks and it kinda killa the theme a bit when horrors do not split or models turn into stuff due to weird and awesome abilities. Does it not?

Well then you have your first house rule  For this scenario horrors do split and necromancers can summon 150 skeletons. Or whatever you feel what is the most fitting for the game. 

So yeah, we use points as a rough guide and then find the battleplan that fits the story, play the game, think about what would happen next. 
Narrative should only offer the boundaries that you see fit. So maybe only make choices that fit your generals backstory or only use it to set up the next battleplan. Hardest part is finding someone with the same mindset as you. 

[BunkhouseBuster]

My turn to contribute!

I'll give you an analogy to cooking.  When preparing a meal, you can open up a cookbook, pick a recipe, gather the ingredients, and follow the directions step by step to get the results.  You can also, if you have the knowledge, just cook from memory and experience, throwing things together and eyeballing it to get the meal together.  Or you can do take-out and get a nice to-go dinner, or run to the nearest fast food joint, and avoid the effort of cooking at home and doing the dishes.  All 3 methods are perfectly valid ways to have food, but what is the goal of the meal?  Is it just to fill everyones's bellies as quickly as possible?  Or are we gathered around the table for a good time, socializing together and sharing a good meal?  Miniature wargaming is a perfect match to this, because you have to decide what you are wanting to get out of the meal or game.

Narrative gaming lay is a mindset on what kind of a game you are wanting to play, what kind of experience you want out of your game.  Matched Play Points work just fine for any type of game, as do the other Matched Play rules for Artifacts, etc.  Narrative Play in the General's Handbook has several different ideas available for players to try out different kinds of games.  Really, either rule set can work for you and your group, depending on what you want out of your game.  Both Matched Play and Narrative Play are like the Pirate's Code: more like guidelines for how to play your games, not necessarily official rules.

In Narrative games, the point is the STORY, whether you write up a scenario ahead of time, figure out the story as the game plays out.  If any of these sound fun to you, then Narrative gaming will work for you.

Something else that is an aspect of Narrative gaming that so many players over look is having cool stories to tell about the heroic exploits of your models on the tabletop.  I still reminisce with my wargaming buddies about games we had where something ridiculous happened.  A weak shooting unit defeated a scary melee unit in melee, a lucky shot that drifted off course, or a single model that kept making its saves for far longer than statistically possible; Narrative gaming is also about these stories that can happen in any game, any system.  I mean, Sgt. Bob later was promoted to Morale Officer Robert in one of my armies, and I look for other chances to come up with cool stories for my models and armies.

Another big concept in Narrative gaming is this:  play WITH your opponent, not AGAINST them.  Get this in your head - the players are here to come up with a story, not see who is the best general.  The objective of the characters, the models, is to achieve victory on the battlefield, but for the players, victory is achieved when everyone is having a good times, regardless of the outcome on the tabletop.  Don't fret about bringing powerful lists and nasty combos, because that isn't the point.  Discuss with your opponents what kind of game you want, and focus on fun.

Whether using Matched Play or Narrative Play, or even Open Play, the point of the game is to have fun and enjoy your time playing.  Narrative Play is about having fun with the story and the possibilities in creating your own stories.  If you have ever played D&D or Pathfinder or other RPGs, then you are already familiar with game systems designed for Narrative gaming.  Story first, player victory last.

[Nin Win]

With a third person acting as a GM, the best means to getting a person who is not used to reinforcements arriving mid game used to them is to have special events happen every turn for a game.  And tell both players they will be a surprise and so you'll let them know.  Tell them proximity to certain terrain pieces, board positions and table edges might trigger these.

Coming up with some will be a challenge, but many of them can just be information.  If you give each player a secret objective, maybe moving near a building means the player gets a report from a spy that was hiding there and gets to know the opponent's secret objective.

Foreshadow reinforcements the first time you use them.  The sound of marching feet to the east is heard at the beginning of the battle round before they arrive.  My favorite is if the side being reinforced is fighting chaos.  Let the players know a storm cloud has just rolled in from nowhere with lots of thunder and lightning.  Strangely centred over the battlefield.  On the next turn, Stormcast from your own collection arrive.  Or perhaps they hear the the thrumming of an engine high above and the next turn some Kharadron mercenaries are dropped off.

It's also okay to foreshadow reinforcements and have them not arrive.  Or "roll" hidden from view from the players and go "the storm is intensifying" even if the Stormcast never arrive.  Or maybe put out a single skaven miniature near a terrain piece and when anything moves or shoots at it it dives down an unseen hole.  Maybe skaven will arrive in force, maybe they won't.  Even the possibility of reinforcements will change the game as the player's will discover for themselves why reserves were voluntarily held by real generals-- to deal with the unexpected.  Only do this if you've previously added reinforcements in a game you are running, it's ineffectual to have a threat of reinforcements if a player doesn't really think it could happen or is even the kind of thing that might happen in a game of AoS.