Impressions after 1st game of AoS

[ClassicFlava]

So i got my first game in tonite.  I played my lizardmen vs dark elves.  We set a 7 scroll limit and aimed for around 70 wounds.  Here were the lists

 

Lizards

.Slann Mage Priest

.Kroq Gar

.Saurus Oldblood

.19 Temple Guard

.4 Ripperdactyl Riders

.4 Razordons

.12 Skink Handlers

 

Dark Elves

.Hellebron

.12 witch elves

.12 executioners

.12 black guard

.7 shades

.5 warlocks

.hydra

 

We both deployed our entire armies.  Movement phase is pretty basic without objectives.  shooting as well.  Where AoS shines and is actually WAY better than 8th imo is the combat phase.  Picking a specific unit to attack with instead of a combat is pure genious.  Adds a lot of tactics that i didnt see when looking at the rules.  We both made mistakes with this and it hurt badly.  We forgot to roll each round to see who would go first but other than that we got all the rules right.  I had a great time except for the fact that midway through the game we realized that it really wasnt a fair fight.  It felt like i started the game up like 500pts if we were playing in 8th edition.  Having no balance system sucks and honestly there isnt any formula that will work because most of a units power comes from its special rules which cant be worked into a formula.  Point values would have to be assigned to everything and i dont see that happening.  We ended up calling the game after turn 3 because it was obvious that was going to table him.

 

Positives

.There are tactics believe it or not and i like them

.Synergies between warscrolls is a fun mechanic and would make list building matter if there was a points system

.Games dont take as long

.The way combat works is 1000 times better and is the most tactical phase of the game

.Monsters losing effectiveness as they take wounds is an awesome mechanic

.I think board control is a thing in this game.  Rippers blot toad is the board control mechanic for Lizardmen.  Assuming the other forces have some as well

.Its fun!!!

 

Nagatives

.Shooting in combat is stupid

.Summoning breaks the game

.NO POINTS SYSTEM!!!!!!  If they atleast gave us something to work with it could be tweaked, but giving us nothing makes it next to impossible to balance

 

Notes on Lizardmen

.Razordons are disgusting.  range 12" and move 8" with 2d6 shots each hitting on 3's rerolling 1's if handlers are within 3 ", and anytime a model charges within 3 " my unit gets to shoot them on a 4+.  If within 6 " of the target shots have rend of -1.  Plus they have a 4+ save and 3 wounds each.

.Bravery of 10 across the army is huge.

.A slann fights better than an oldblood in combat

.Ripperdactyls are also amazing.  with the blot toad they have 7 attacks each rerolling failed hits and wounds on my turn from their swooping attack special rule.

.A slann can summon an army incredibly fast

 

Verdict

.If there was a points system in place and a couple tweaks to the rules AoS would be my favorite version of fantasy to date.  It is much better than i thought it would be, but it is not a viable tournament without a points system in place.  Going to give KoW a shot when lizardmen army is released and make my decision on which system i prefer at that point.

 

Hope this gives some hope to the naysayers out there

[Peanut]

Cool writeup. You mention forgetting to roll for the turn order. I found that to be a huge negative in my quick sample game. There is much less movement tactics for the reason that you might watch your opponent go twice before you go.

 

If GW brings a point system I think that'll do a lot for AoS.

[ClassicFlava]

Yeah if a points system comes out from GW then they are onto something

[indytims]

 

Nagatives

.Shooting in combat is stupid

.Summoning breaks the game

.NO POINTS SYSTEM!!!!!!  If they atleast gave us something to work with it could be tweaked, but giving us nothing makes it next to impossible to balance

 

 

 

 

Sounds very familiar. Very similar observations to what I've seen and heard from most folks I've talked to about it so far.

 

Thanks for sharing your write-up! :)

 

-Tim

[AgentP]

I agree on the shooting into combat.  I'm not sold yet on the idea that it needs a point system.  I'll reserve judgment until I see all the battle scenarios.

 

As for summoning, why do you think it breaks the game?  It seems like a big liability at the same time to me.

[generalripphook]

Cool writeup. You mention forgetting to roll for the turn order. I found that to be a huge negative in my quick sample game. There is much less movement tactics for the reason that you might watch your opponent go twice before you go.

 

If GW brings a point system I think that'll do a lot for AoS.

It really works well in a system where the turns are at the same time

 

For example:you move, I move, you shoot I shoot. Where the game is I move, shoot and assault it's kinda unbalanced.

[Brother Glacius]

I agree on the shooting into combat.  I'm not sold yet on the idea that it needs a point system.  I'll reserve judgment until I see all the battle scenarios.

 

As for summoning, why do you think it breaks the game?  It seems like a big liability at the same time to me.

Because wiping out your opponent means major victory. I'm a chaos lord. first turn on a 4+ I can summon a unit of 20 chaos knights (or more) 5" from the table edge behind your army. That unit can now move and charge in that same turn.

[AgentP]

No, the rule says otherwise:

 

"Models added to your army during the game do not count towards the number of models in the army, but may be counted among the casualties an army suffers."

 

Thus, they are invisible for major victory purposes, while also making minor victory easier.  They are thus a potentially huge liability.

[indytims]

They are free units of additional models that kill your stuff. They are free attacks and hit points that you throw at your enemy, and if your enemy can not counter with their own summoning ability, it can quickly unbalance the game even further than it already is.

[Brother Glacius]

No, you miss my point. Summoning units will help you kill all of the enemy units. Those 20 knights are going to sweep through most units in the game. And it doesn't stop there. Next turn you could summon 20 chaos warriors, or maybe 20 chosen. The other army will get wiped out under the wave of summoned units. Once you wipe out the other guy's models, you win.

 

The rule you keep quoting only takes effect if one player is not tabled.

 

Also, the rule only takes into account the number of models. What if you summon multiple bloodthirsters? Those are only one model each. Who cares if you lose four of them. The damage they do to the other army will far outweigh the minor shift in your percentages.

[AgentP]

You play a game where you are tabled by summoned units and let me know when that happens.

[Brother Glacius]

AgentP, you do realize that they also have their full army that they brought on the table as well? It just isn't summoned units. You have to win against his full army, and the summoned units. All you have to do is table your opponent to win. Summoned units help you do that. You can completely mitigate the downside to summoned units by focusing on powerful models that don't require many to be effective.

 

I'm not saying summoned units equal instant win, I'm simply saying it can be an easily abused aspect of the system.

[AgentP]

Have you played a game yet?

[Brother Glacius]

Have you played a game yet?

Is this a prerequisite to understanding rules? Are you saying people are incapable of comprehension unless they play a game?

[AgentP]

So I take that as a no, you have not played a game yet.

[pretre]

Is this a prerequisite to understanding rules? Are you saying people are incapable of comprehension unless they play a game?

I don't think anyone is saying that. They are saying that it helps though. It drives home a lot of things that may not be as obvious when you just read the rules.

[Brother Glacius]

I'm just really curious why AgentP would ask that question when there is no evidence that he's played a game. Exactly what point can he make? If he's trying to discredit my opinion based on the assumption that I have not played a game, then what merit do his opinions have if he has also not played a game?

[JMGraham]

Glad you had fun! Did you feel that the maneuver phase was lacking? That, IMO, is where Fantasy shined, and is what drew lots of folks to WHFB,

 

 Where AoS shines and is actually WAY better than 8th imo is the combat phase.  Picking a specific unit to attack with instead of a combat is pure genious.  Adds a lot of tactics that i didnt see when looking at the rules.  

 

Cool. So, this is a replacement for Initiative, then, right? 

 

Have you ever tried Wrath of Kings? It does something similar, save that it's alternating activation (like Malifaux), save that you have the option of how many models to activate at once. You can activate single models at a time, or groups of models if they are all in command range of a leader. Different leaders also give troops they activate different bonuses for the turn. The clincher is, when your opponent activates his/her last troop, you get one more activation, and that's it. So it makes for this delicious balance to want to wait until your opponent can't react to your moves, and not wanting to be caught flat-footed with troops that didn't activate. If you're into that sort of thing, I'd suggest checking it out. It's in the same class as AoS, but still well-balanced, with cool synergies, and a point system.

 

Using Wrath of Kings as an example, I can't imagine playing without scenarios. It's gotta be dead boring as a straight-forward scrum-fest. The roll for first move on every turn also seems crazy for a you-go I-go game. So much swing depending on a single die roll.

 

 

So I take that as a no, you have not played a game yet.

 

I'll continue to say that I don't like folks using this argument, on either side. I'd just as soon argue that playing a few games doesn't give you the impression that prolonged play against a variety of games gives you. First few games you've still got the novelty effect, that rush you get from learning a new game and wrapping your head around all of the new possibilities. That's good for initial interest, but long-term staying power is another beast.

 

I hold that everyone's opinions are equally valid, no matter what the basis of said opinion. For those that love AoS, I'm super happy for you! For me, I'm still chasing the (ranked combat fantasy) dragon. 

[indytims]

I've play a few games now, and have watched severel more both live and on video.

 

Summoning is a pretty terrible mechanic as presented. One of the biggest flaws in the game as it stands. At least if you're hoping for some level of balanced play.

 

If relative balance isnt a goal, then it probably works just fine.

[Romes]

Have you played a game yet?

I've played AoS. I've also played and watched games of 8th where summoned units were the reason people got tabled.

 

As long as there is no point system, the balance issues of summoned units are sort of silly, it's about manipulating the triggering or not triggering a sudden death mechanic. You could always have just deployed them all. There are also multiple first turn wins in the game, so out of the box, it's all a bit silly to worry about whether you put a million models on the table of summon them in.

 

The problem with summoned units is that if you did have or try to build a balance system, summoned units really screw it up. Balance systems are based on having a force of approximately strength X, determining the appropriate multiplier for summoning is not very feasible (how much is a herald of Tzeentch worth?), and it changes depending on models not on the board.

 

Ryan,

 

I like your review. I'm looking forward to playing my next game to see if maybe I was wrong in my first impression. I do agree with the above comment that removing the random turns may have significantly affected your enjoyment. That part broke my soul.

[pretre]

Funny scenario:

 

My army: Nagash

Your army: Anything.

 

I deploy Nagash. You deploy your stuff.

First turn: I summon a bunch of units cause Nagash is awesome. You kill one of my summoned models. 

 

I just lost the game since summoned units don't count towards model count but do count to casualties. I just suffered 100% casualties as soon as you killed one model.

[Brother Glacius]

Actually, Nagash can't summon anything on his own. The summon mechanic requires you to field the unit you want to summon. Also, the victory condition is not destroying 100% of enemy models, it is removing all enemy models from the table. As Nagash is still on the table, you didn't win.

[ClassicFlava]

I agree on the shooting into combat.  I'm not sold yet on the idea that it needs a point system.  I'll reserve judgment until I see all the battle scenarios.

 

As for summoning, why do you think it breaks the game?  It seems like a big liability at the same time to me.

Because i can stop deplying after i out down 2 slanns and claim a sudden death victory condition.  Then proceed to summon 6 units every turn which you cant stop because i start more than 18" away from you

 

Also i dont know how nagash works but with the slann i just have to have the warscroll in my army, and your  are not forced to deploy your whole army.  

 

Pretre: It says you have to wipe your opponent off the table or get a sudden death condition to get the major victory so your point is moot.  

[pretre]

Actually, Nagash can't summon anything on his own. The summon mechanic requires you to field the unit you want to summon. Also, the victory condition is not destroying 100% of enemy models, it is removing all enemy models from the table. As Nagash is still on the table, you didn't win.

The summon thing is a bit up in the air. The warscrolls say that all Death Wizards know all the summon spells. It doesn't say the need to be on the table.

 

Actually, there are two major victory conditions:

 

In the Mortal Realms battles are brutal and uncompromising – they are fought to the bitter end, with one side able to claim victory because it has destroyed its foe or there are no enemy models le on the eld of battle. e victor can immediately claim a major victory and the honours and triumphs that are due to them, while the defeated must repair to their lair to lick their wounds and bear the shame of failure

 

If the first one wasn't there, you would be right. The first one is there to help with the summoned models thing of having more models than you started with. Once you have destroyed 100% of your opponents force by model, you win. Alternatively, if there are no models on the table, you win.

[pretre]

Because i can stop deplying after i out down 2 slanns and claim a sudden death victory condition.  Then proceed to summon 6 units every turn which you cant stop because i start more than 18" away from you

 

Also i dont know how nagash works but with the slann i just have to have the warscroll in my army, and your  are not forced to deploy your whole army.  

 

Pretre: It says you have to wipe your opponent off the table or get a sudden death condition to get the major victory so your point is moot.  

See my post above. You have to either destroy your opponent OR remove all models from the table. Two different major victory conditions.