AoS 4th Edition is nearly here...

@Canas I think you accidentally attributed many of the quotes to me instead of @Kilvakar.

I do see what you're saying about the HoH. I guess my point is that you don't HAVE to use them the one time. I've use them to teleport far behind units to score a tactic, or kept them behind a unit to shoot, and not have them die... at least right away. But one of my friends often reminds me that the game is not unlike chess. Many of these units are meant to be sacrificed; just at the right time. Still, I can appreciate your opinion of the game being a bit too focused on scoring objectives. I feel like that's mostly a pendulum swing. Several years ago, it seemed like people wanted more to do than just punch the other army in the face. Now we claim objectives.

Surprisingly, the Raptodon Chargers are still good despite the lack of synergy with the Raptodon Hunters. I do agree that their synergy is kind of weak. I mean, the mechanical benefit is fine, but, with both units being the same points, it can be hard to include the ranged Raptos.

 

kroak on a balewind destroying the board while a backup slann was summoning whole units a turn was such a peak magic experience everything since then has felt kinda lame. i just have a harder time enjoying this imo weaker, more straightforward ruleset.

 

That might be entirely possible sorry.

O, a balance of objective-style gameplay & pure combat is definitly needed.
But generally speaking I prefer it if the objectives make some kind of logical sense in a semi-realistic way.
For example, HoH teleporting down to steal an objective for half a turn, only to be immeadiatly killed, is kind of silly, cuz realistically speaking, what did exactly the HoH actually achieve here?

Same holds for combat-centered scenarios though. For example, a couple years back GW posted an article where they showed some scenario with a bunch of idoneth who by utilizing pile-in ranges and some special abilities somehow wiped out 3 or 4 units without the opponent ever getting to react due to how combat works. Don't get me wrong; very clever strategy, great use of mechanics from the idoneth player. But the strategy was heavily dependent on game-logic to work, and consequently, a bit stupid.

See, this always brings me to a very simple question;
If we're essentially just playing a chess-variant; then why are we bothering with painting fancy models? Or complicated fluffy mechanics like faction rules? The game very clearly tries to represent things in a fluffy, semi-realistic way, to the point you're almost roleplaying at times, so it really shouldn't play like an abstract game like chess which has faceless pieces.

Meh, the mechanical benefit is a bit halfbaked.
The hunters don't really have the range, or firepower, to want to stay out of combat. But the synergy requires them to do so.
Like much of 4th it feels like a first draft, which needs some more iterations.

So sure; they are "good" in the sense that they're worth the points. But imho, the fact that they don't actually utilize their own rules still means they're kind of a "bad" unit. Or at least improperly designed

 

Second time that's happened, lol!

I think it's hard for them to balance the pure "gamey" mechanic of "score points by having more guys on this circle" with the more combat-focused mechanics of "kill the enemy soldiers and try not to get killed yourself." Because it requires that you focus your positioning around the little circles on the board, when most people more or less instinctively want to position more based on "what would be the most advantageous position to fight the enemy?"

To me it seems like there's a conflict between the game rules requiring objective-based play and most people's desire to play more like a war-game where their armies move and fight in a semi-realistic way. This wouldn't be as much of an issue if the rules were clearly set up to just be "move your guys to this point and claim it, that's how you win." But like you said, the rules are presented in a somewhat "fluffy" way that implies that you want to be fighting the enemy, when in fact a lot of the time you're better off not fighting the enemy in favor of just moving to a specific point on the board. There's always a bit of dissonance when you can actually completely wipe your enemy off the board but still lose because they sat on key points or accomplished specific gimmicks through battle tactics more than you did.

Honestly the pile-in shenanigans are something I've always been annoyed with. I know it's something that people can really use tactically in some situations, but the annoying "I slide my guys around your guys so now they're out of range of your other guys/in range my my guy's buff/in combat range with your other guys so now they can't move" plays always do feel more like game logic than actual combat.

I think that really ties into the other points, in the end a lot of the time the game feels like less of an army combat simulator and more like game pieces that you move and sacrifice like chess pieces on a board. Especially rules like objective control and pile-in kind of take you out of the fantasy of two armies clashing and make you think of it more like game pieces where their position matters more than their fighting ability most of the time.

The short range on the hunters is really their downfall. When you have to be in charge range to be able to shoot, you're realistically only going to get one turn of shooting before you get wiped. Short-range shooting units need to have something else in their favor to make them good. Either A: a good melee profile so that the shooting attack functions more to soften up the enemy before getting into melee. B: a shooting attack that is powerful enough to deal significant damage to the enemy before they get into melee with the shooting unit. Or C: Another effect that makes the short range of their shooting attack worthwhile, like shutting down charges or debuffing the enemy unit in some other way.

 

Quoting too many things at the same time

It is a very difficult thing to get right; and you'll always get some weird scenarios where the mask slips and it becomes obvious it's just a silly game. But it could definitly be better than what we have now.

For example; the rules could be changed so that you don't score any points immeadiatly, but instead have to hold the objective for at least a full turn. That'd encourage players to actually hold objectives, as opposed to trading objectives back and forth with deepstrike nonsense like the HoH to steal objectives for half a turn, only to immeadiatly lose it again.

Yeah, it always feels a bit arbitrary.
I think it might be due to the fact that AoS has relativly large units but flexible formations.
ToW/WHF has large units, but strict formations, so you don't get any sliding or daisy chain nonsense.
Stuff like kill team, or LOTR, has flexibility, but it's also just individual models, so you don't get silly things like "your unit is stuck in combat because 1 guy is tagged" or "your unit cannot be buffed because 1 guy is out of range"

AoS is in some weird middle ground between these two approaches to formations.

I think the general nerfs to ranged to 4th hurt a lot of utility-type ranged units; like skirmishers.
Before 4th; raptadon hunters would've probably gotten 16" range. Allowing them to actually skirt around enemies. It'd still be a bit tedious, but at least it'd actually make them into skirmishers.
But with the changes in 4th they're stuck with 12".

 

My main point is just that, not unlike real war/battle, many wargames try to recreate the choice that some pieces/pawns/bishops/units/soldiers/dragons/whatever need to be risked to achieve a move, defend another unit, claim a point, or win a combat. All armies have their "pawns" that might need to be sacrificed to achieve some tactic in the game. Sometimes even a more important model/unit.

However, I think I see where you're coming from. With a fantasy or sci-fi wargame, verisimilitude is a factor to consider. I think you want the choice to feel more thematic or maybe achieve more than earning you a certain score of points.

To that, I guess GW has designed AoS rules to help fit more into a tournament or scoring game. So, it's easier for people to play with tangible points and can say at the end, "Okay, based on the points, I won."

 

Yeah, in earlier versions of AoS, Lizardmen/Seraphon played more into the "magic dominance" role that Kroak & Slann seem to have.

 

Not just thematic; but I want the choice to be vaguely sensible.
Let's take the HoH teleporting in to steal an objective for half a turn before getting slaughtered.
If this were a real battle; what exactly did that achieve? You just sacrificed a unit to hold an objective for a fairly meaningless amount of time.
Even if we pretend the objective is some kind of strategically important point of the battlefield; what exactly was the point in holding it for half a turn?
What did this achieve? What did you sacrifice your pawn for? Would this actually be a sensible choice in a real battle?

In contrast; sacrificing your saurus warriors which have been holding an objective for 3 turns before finally being destroyed is much more sensible.

Pretty much. It sadly happens in a lot of games. It's a shame really.

 

I guess "meaningless" can be subjective in a wargame. It might make sense at the time in the gameplay of the battle? I hate to try another chess analogy after our earlier comments, but some pawns only take a square for one move and then are immediately taken by an opposing piece. But by taking that piece it opens up a new window of attack for your knight/bishop/etc.

Just trying to come up with a couple reasons off the top of my head... Maybe taking that objective earns you enough points to pull ahead or win the game? Maybe taking that objective forces your opponent to divert a unit/monster/hero to attack the HoH when that unit could have gone a different direction or attacked a different (and possibly more important) unit? I know those might be a standard response, but they make sense.

It I infer correctly, it think it would be more interesting to you if taking an objective had a more thematic or narrative skin to it? Like, this objective is one of the opponents ammo supplies. Or, if the objective/tactic provided some kind of tangible "in-game" benefit? Like, taking the flanks gave you a bonus to charge rolls?

 

I really like this idea. It's obvious that objective-based gameplay isn't going to go away, but making objectives make more sense thematically would go a long way to making that type of gameplay more fun.

I especially like the idea of holding specific objectives granting an in-game benefit. This has happened a couple of times in the past with certain battle plans I believe, but implementing it on a larger scale would be awesome. There's a near-infinite number of flavorful things you could tack onto objectives. The ammo supply thing you mentioned could maybe give you a bonus to shooting in some way, or debuff enemy shooting. Certain objectives on the flank could give charge bonuses to units in that zone of the board, key defensive objectives could give a bonus to save or a ward save. Some battleplans could only have one or two objectives where the whole point of the battle is to take and hold that one point, with only the army holding the objective at the end of the game winning.

 

Those are game-objectives, but don't necessarily translate into the greater narrative of the battle supposedly taking place.

This helps; it gives a concrete objective, rather than a random point on the map. Especially if taking control of the objective requires specific, thematic and logical actions. For example, conquering the tower requires you to enter via the gate. Or only wizards can carry the artifact.
Requiring those specific actions increases immersion, and often also presents interesting strategic challenges.

This is also an option. It would still require some fluff (For example; the objective is an ammo-cache, so you get magic arrows; +1 to wound for ranged attacks for units controlling the objective)

But it doesn't need to be an explicit (de)buff. Simply tying the objective to terrain in a sensible manner will already provide concrete bonusses to holding the objective. E.g. if the objective is a bridge; controlling the bridge also translates into holding a defensible choke-point.

Though that appears to be a more general issue with AoS; even the white dwarf reports where they try to make something fluffy rarely have a lot of terrain-based objectives.

Honestly; it's kind of surprising that king-of-the-hill variants aren't used more often in AoS.

Pretty much.

 

This would be the perfect scenario in my opinion. Actual terrain pieces that factored into the mission rather than just a circle on the board. That's something I always liked watching in the Fantasy games I got to observe, it's always seemed just a bit lackluster to have the circle-based objectives since I started actually playing AoS (never got to play Fantasy, just acquired some models )