Age of Sigmar has dispensed with unit cost points. So an army list is "I want x, y, and z". There doesn't seem to be a lot of room to tinker with list building. But there are still some tactical dimensions to what you select. Without the points cost I'm not sure what the pros of taking 20 Saurus Warriors instead of 60 Saurus warriors or 200.
It depends, if the community comes up with a way to balance the game, then there will be list building for AoS as well. At the moment I do agree, that the forum is not that useful. Though AoS has to get balanced some way or another or it will die a swift death.
Look's like the best and easiest way COULD be to agree with the other player like this: "x Battallions, x Extra warscroll, x Max wounds per unit, x Max wounds". Maybe there will be some way to suggest weird interaction between battallions and other warscrolls (?). I mean it's always interesting see what others people play and how they can let some lists work!
With having to be 12" from enemy territory and each unit having to be 1" apart then the scenery on the field there kind of is a limit. So maybe having a list that you know will fit on the playing field might be a good idea
There is no need for this, imho, untill we have good balancing rules. The army list forum fanatics were there in my perspective because they enjoyed getting the most out of the pre fun of the game, that being list building, and that has been scrapped now, so see no use for it untill there are sortoff accepted rules from it from either GW or the community.
The people who are trying it are making lists. This would be a place to post those lists after the fact. To conduct a debrief and a post-mortem. AOS has, for the moment, turned things barseackwards. Instead of analyzing a list and trying to predict how it will do beforehand, the new game is to study a list with reference to how it actually did after-the-fact.
Hadn't thought of it that way. Even if AoS had points and everything everyone hoped 9th edition would hold we would still be doing after the fact lists because we'd have to learn a new meta.
Seems like tactics would be the more important of the two, there seem to be a lot of combos, and unexplored unit formations.
It was more of a joke-like stab at AoS' reduction in tactics (as compared to 8th) then a real suggestion. Pay no attention to Pollbringer... he can be silly when he is not constructing polls (and likes to refer to himself in the third person apparently). You are of course correct, a tactics section is more important than and army list section under AoS.
Yes definitely. List building is very important. I just finished playing a game where I trounced myself with my own Tomb Kings. I took a Saurus Host and a Skink Patrol versus a Tomb Legion. A unit of 20 Tomb Guard were able to wipe out a unit of 20 Temple Guard easily in 1 round of combat. The reason that worked was because of synergy between Cursed Blades, My Will be Done, and Righteous Smiting. Maybe don't think of it as list building in the sense of here's how I spend my points, but instead in terms of "here's a group of units I'm taking together to get this combo and here's how they'll operate on the field." For instance the Old Blood isn't terribly impressive since his Command Ability is only 3" extra movement. But I'd say that no battleshock and +1 jaws attack is pretty good. If you took Saurus Host but had a different general I think it'd be more potent.
Not needed at all since the game itself does not have army lists (or even armies for that matter). I think that even just having an army list forum is a barrier to understanding the game and to helping us move forward. So many things have changed, and not havig army lists is a major one of those changes. Again, we need to stop clinging to how things "used to be" and play what is.
I think that although 'list-building' is technically dead, people are going to come up with rough ideas of synergistic units that will eventually be adopted as standbys... Or, in other words, lists. Whether listing those unit combinations is more appropriate in an Army List section or a Tactics section is up to the mods, I guess... but maybe we should let this subforum hang around for a while? I'm almost to the point now where I'm ready to begin writing up the Lizardmen tactics (or, rather, compile the stuff that I already know) that have been working for me. If anyone else out there is playing regularly, I'd love to collaborate with ya when the time comes.
It could be called something different if you like. That would be OK. There might not be pre-set lists anymore but there are OOB. (Orders Of Battle if you don't know the term.) An OOB can be a pre-set list or it can simply be a list of the units that wound up fighting. A perfect example of the difference is the naval battle of December the 7th, 1941. The Japanese OOB was a pre-determined list of units assigned to the mission; the American OOB was a list of the units that happened to be available. You make a correct point that things are now different: lists are now formed on the fly. Some of us might want to study lists involved. (And do so after the fact.) Unless there are some that would rather not. There should be room for people who want to review these new rules and study how best to break them, enhance them, or balance them. Considering lists of forces used (or to be used) is going to be necessary going forward... ...and there ought to be a place on the forums to do that.
There is room for people who don't want to give up the old. It's the "Lizardmen" section, not AoS. See here: http://www.lustria-online.com/forums/lizardmen-army-lists.8/ One might as well discuss how to cast Purple Sun in AoS. Or how to claim a rank bonus. Or how many models should be able to shoot from the third rank of a unit that did not move. Or what the rules for Power Stones are. Or...any number of other concepts and rules that have been left behind. The game is not designed with the old concept of army lists in mind, really at all, any more than it is designed with those others things. What I fear is that by clinging to old ways, we will impare our ability, as a community (especially for new players in it), to move fully into this new game and learn all we can about Seraphon (not Lizardmen) in it.
You said it, dads. Maybe AoS lists do belong in a tactics section then... or something similar to - but not quite the same as - a list section.
The new concept of "any model in your collection" suggests that a mostly LM force could field a chaos hell cannon. Is that notion anything to do with why you think a list section is no longer important? I am contemplating ways of making Lizard flavored models of things once considered to be from other armies. (But maybe I will find some words that say you must stick to one armybook (or whatever we're calling it now.) There are reasons to compile and compare lists, mostly after the fact. However this forum needs room for folks who want to do some sort of self-adopted composition system (and lists appropriate thereto). It also would be beneficial to create lists of models-to-always-pack even if you don't wind up setting them out on the table. This sub-forum should stay. The thing that is going to impair me is that I am not now, nor do I ever intend to become a member of: The Worshipful and Devoted Company of Citadel Fanboys. GW makes good models, perhaps not at a good value; now free, if not excellent rules (Ral Partha used to do that back in the day: Rules According to Ral it was called) but they have not earned my devotion at all. I might review and grade their efforts.
Who said anything about having to be a fanboy? For that matter, do we really have any of those around here? I'm answering the poll question. Is there a need for an army list forum for a game system that doesn't use army lists? No. By all means, have the forum if people want it. My opinion doesn't set the course. It's just really strange to have a forum covering a thing that doesn't really exist in the game. What's next? A subforum called "Soup Recipes Using Age of Sigmar Ingredients" ...