GW News: BIG N' SMALL WAAAGH! COMIN'

Yes, pre-general's handbook AoS was a giant mess. That doesn't mean it didn't have any good ideas and was completly devoid of potential.
Of course the ideas didn't work, because pre-general's handbook the game was barely coherent at times, and honestly it is mindboggling it was published in that state. But there were some halfway decent ideas buried in that clusterfuck. And sadly a bunch of the better ideas didn't survive to the current edition.

 

Just more evidence that AoS would have been much better received if it was simply an alternate "squad/platoon level" ruleset for WFB. Or a warband ruleset, or whatever. (and if the prank edition never happened, or was released on April 1st so we could all know that it was a joke ahead of time)

Ok, real talk... what exactly do we call the level of combat depicted in AoS? Obviously Fantasy/TOW are Battalion level, but you can't call AoS skirmish, because that's what Mordheim/Warcry are. I've personally called it squad level, just because even at their most numerous, units never really numbered higher than a squad, though an argument can be made that skirmish better fits that, as the total number of models per side would be a single squad at most.

 

Say what you will about Forgeworld quality, but they have excellent customer support. Missing and/or damaged parts? Wrong model, even? They'll send you a whole new kit free of charge.

 

I'd still call it a skirmish game, just not a "warband" game due to the focus on units rather than on individual models.

Battle games, by contrast, don't lend themselves well to each model representing an individual soldier outside of the WFB-style "rank & flank" format. It's frequently why such games are usually either 6-15mm in scale rather than in 28-32mm.

 

That's fair.

Also, the use of the term "warband" was more me giving a slight tongue-in-cheek jab at @Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl's issues with the modern iteration of ME:STB.

Wait... isn't 4th ed AoS doing a variation of that system that is a hybrid with warscrolls...? Or am I off the mark there? (Yeah, I haven't read the 4th edition rulebook yet)

 

If you want search through that dumpster fire of a release and pick out a few shiny dog turds to label as "good ideas", that's on you. I read all four pages of that release and I didn't find anything worthwhile. Then again, you and I are not looking for the same attributes in a wargame.

So we're back to: "agree to disagree".

 

Kind if. MESBG's Warband system and AoS 4e's Regiment system are both built on the premise that heroes can have a warband or regiment of minions formed around them as part of listbuilding. However, there are stark differences:

MESBG imposes no limitations on the types of warriors you can take as part of a hero's warband (apart from what can be taken by the army as a whole), but you cannot take any warriors without a hero to lead them.

Conversely, AoS 4e tends to limit what units you may take in a given regiment based on the hero leading it, but you're not obligated to have every unit in your army be part of a regiment.

 

Like someone's dog shitting in my front yard, it's free, but I don't want it.

 

YES!!!

Shhhh... lest we draw his ire.

 

Big guns. Big hats. Big constructs.



And don't you forget it!

 

It's a mystery why they didn't.
It would've been an easy way to test the waters, it'd give it a clear niche distinct from their other games, and by choosing a solid direction from the start they could've prevented some of the sillier issues GW created over the years.

But instead they started (and continued) with this unclear vision.

Honestly, I don't think even GW knows.

Units feel closest to balanced when it's small squads facing off against eachother; so units of 5-10 models. It's also the only time footheroes can actually fight without immediately getting obliterated. So I'd say it naturally gravitates towards squad based gameplay; as that's when most units can contribute in a somewhat meaningful manner in combat.

But GW doesn't seem to design around squads. They seem to design as if they're still working with battalions like in WHF, as they keep introducing either small super elite units (e.g. 3-man elite cavalry, behemoths, gods) as well as big hordes, both of which fit much more with the battalion power-levels as they easily tear through the basic squads. The end result can be a bit weird at times.

Imho, the biggest difference is that MESBG has a much clearer distinction between its heroes and its "regular" units in terms of power.
In AoS you have skinks and stardrakes as "regular" units. But you also have starpriests & Archaon as heroes. and of course everything in between. Consequently, heroes aren't necesarly stronger than "regular" units.
In MESBG, that distinction is much clearer. A "weak" caster hero, like a easterling warpriest, still has the stats to defend himself against most "regular" opponents fairly reliably. Sure, he doesn't want to be on the frontline because that's a waste, but he's not helpless in the way a starpriest is.

Minor caveat; things like trolls exist, they can rival heroes in combat. But it's not like a troll is just going to slaughter that warpriest in the same way a stardrake would slaughter the starpriest in AoS.

Also, the power levels in general don't fluctuate as much with the exception of a handfull of especially powerfull models that are essentially one-man armies, like balrogs, dragons, or sauron. The difference between a goblin and an elf in MESBG is much smaller than the difference between a skink & a stardrake even if both a "regular" units. Similarly, the difference between a strong combat hero like boromir, and a weak "regular" unit like a goblin, is nowhere as big as the difference between say Archaon and a skink.

Consequently it's much clearer what you can expect from a given regiment in MESBG as a regiment has 1 hero, and that hero is (usually) going to be the most powerful unit in the regiment. Whereas an AoS battalion can be all over the place in terms of power.

 

I'm sorry, I can't quite see you over that display of over compensation, what with how short you are. *Troll face*

@Canas

Ooh, long post. And on my phone so I can't give an good reply, but a short one: sounds like heroes are better in ME:SBG. Then again, my disdain for named heroes in Warhammer is going to be well documented, what with my disgust for the idea that Archaon, the destroyer of an entire setting, equal to Sigmar, can just shivved in the kidney by a clanrat and die.

Though I love the Idea and use of the Anvil of Apotheosis. Let me create my army with it's own characters, gosh darn it.

Or I just misread.

 

Yeah, AoS kinda struggles with the fact that both gods and Timmy the regular human guard are seemingly fighting on equal footing....
It can't quite decide which scale of combat it actually wants to represent. And as a result it regularly gets a bit weird.

MESBG has a much clearer view of the kind of thing it wants to be, and what that means for the kind of stuff you can field. Consequently the relative power levels of units is a bit more coherent within that game.

 

I feel like the guys at GeeDubs need to go read the Black Company series. You can have your ultra-powerful heroes duking it out... in the background, silhouetted by the sunset and looking pristine as they do so, getting all the glory... while the men and women who have been been fighting the actual battle against the other army are filthy, bloodied and bruised, and not getting any more consideration than a 'oh yeah, there was a battle happening around the two duelling demi-gods' by the bards and scholars who retell the battle.

Or to put it simply... leave the demi-gods out of the actual game and strictly to background fluff! The Stormcast Eternals and equivalents should be as powerful as infantry gets on the tabletop.

 

Chaos Dwarfs don't worry about being short, we've got tall slaves!

 

I will give you a point for a nicer hat cutout... Only just noticed the white flecks. Bah, that shall represent my disdain for your silly hat.