AoS Lets say I wanted to join the party

Greetings AoS'ian Spawnings!
Tidings from 9th age!
I have ventured forth into your realm, to seek knowledge on your way of life!

But to the point.

To me AoS has come and gone.
I was initially a hater.
Then a lover.
Then a hater again.
Then an attempting lover
and then a stranger as 9th gave me catharsis to the whole situation.

In my opinion AoS it is the best that have ever happened to warhammer,
for that sole reason that it force the birth of 9th age, which (to me) is superior to anything 8th ever was.

And now that the community have endured the culmination, now that the dust has settled and my feelings
have gone cold blooded again... I am ready to once again look upon Age Of Sigmar with an open mind..
and that I am for one reason only:
It is no longer forced upon me as a substitute for the game I love, it is something I can CHOOSE to play on the side without giving up Warhammer as I know it best.

On that note I have questions for you:

1. Has the balance problem been solved? are there a way to have an even game which is the
generally accepted way to build lists?

2. The base contra model measuring: how do you do it now?
Are you still measuring from the model as the game suggest
(which creates enormous problems with alternate models or conversions)
or are you measuring from bases?
(which creates the proble of Square contra Oval bases)

3. Have you discovered any kind of game depth that game was initially condemned for not having?
I've had 3 games and every one of them ended the same: cluster-combat in the middle of the table, decided entirely by dice.
Have a meta strategy evolved since then?

4. I know there is a novel describing in detail how the Lizardmen became the Seraphon,
and what happened between the end times and present times. What is the name of it?

5. How have you dealt with the overwhelming (and highly unfair) strength of Summoning?

I hope that you can help me find the general structure of what AoS has become, as it must surely have
evolved since its birth


Thanks in advance.

 

Sup? Name's Bainbow, I speak for da Age of Sigmar. Very nice to see a 9th player approach with an open mind, that's all we would ask. We don't want to force people to play AoS instead of the many alternatives, just to accept that it exists and that some among us rather enjoy it. Mutual acceptance is our end goal. So, let's get to answering your questions.

1) Yes and no. In one sense, the balance problem has been solved in that an equilibrium between armies and units has been found. There are several different systems for balancing the game, ranging from basic Wounds limits to systems such as the Azyr Comp which uses calculations to assign points to every unit, monster, and hero. However there is still a lot of debate surrounding the pros and cons of each of these systems, which one is best and the like. For example, I'm a very strong supporter of the Wounds Limit system where you just being, say, 125 Wounds of whatever you want, simple as, and I tend to really argue against systems like Azyr which use calculations to assign points because I find that they create the kind of imbalance you saw in 8th and in 40k, where some units become too expensive points-wise to be any good while some are shockingly underpriced for what they can do, resulting in tiered armies while the Wounds system allows for a more level playing field as the last few months has taught me that every army is equally OP. I can go into more detail on why I think this in another post, if you want.

2) Honestly this is never really addressed. It's not an issue really as if you make your units able to reach further, it becomes a double-edged sword because it allows your enemy to also reach you from further away too. The only time I've heard it addressed was in the context of speeding up the game by cutting out the need to count the models in range, where a 1" range lets you attack with two rows, a 2" range with three, and a 3" range with four. But that's about it and it really depends on the players' preferences.

3) Absolutely. The big one is strategy, the game was always slammed for being a "pay to win" game where strategy has no value because you can just win by fielding 20 dragons. This is still a common criticism. But the thing is that it's just not true, in order for any high level play you downright need a balanced army because there are so many synergies and combos you can pull that you need a balanced army to be able to pull off as many kinds of these combos as you can (such as line-breaking, countering magic, assassinating heroes, cutting off summoners, keeping your squishy units safe, bringing down enemy monsters, etc) while also preventing your enemy from doing so. It's to the point where a really high level game plays a lot more like speed chess than 8th Edition, with both players pulling wicked combos, set-ups, and strategies out of nowhere to counter each other in rapid succession until somebody slips up. This was really summed up in this YouTube comment I found where some guy declared exactly that strategy is pointless when your enemy has 20 dragons, so I wrote up a quick 41 line description of how a balanced army would flatten 20 dragons in great detail without even trying that hard, and even used Malekith who I believe to be the strongest dragon model in the game in terms of raw power. The guy didn't respond back.
Tactics really do dominate the game, I'm one of two AoS powerhouses at my GW because we both make heavy use of tactics over stats, it's what sets us ahead. We even do have somebody who just brings a tonne of super models like Archaon and Skarbrand, but he's not beaten either of us once, or even come close outside of certain objective games where there's an element of RNG chance that can sway the game (such as the Quest For Gold, which you can read about in my Battle Reports #ShamelessPlug.)

4) There's not a novel about it really. As you probably know, the rules and Warscrolls are all free now. As such, the army books, or Battletomes as they're now called, are reserved primarily for artwork and lore. It's actually the main selling point, learning more about the lore, and the GW know this. The Everchosen Battletome is a perfect example, there are barely any rules in there to use even compared the the standard Battletomes, let alone next to the old Army Books. But it's a treasure trove of brilliant lore and artwork, all portrayed in a very self-aware way that makes all the artwork and pages look like some kind of Necronomicon-esque grimoire written by a madman touched by Chaos. It's really cool for any lore fan.
And its there where we get our information on the Seraphon, in our Battletome. Honestly there's a lot of information and little information at the same time, it's quite clever. We're told a lot of broad information such as the Seraphon's goals, how they operate, why they can summon, and what makes them Daemons. But then we're never given any specifics such as where exactly they reside beyond "High Azyr," if they have any culture, etc. They're very reminiscent of the vanilla Lizardmen that I fell in love with, very enigmatic and mysterious but with enough information to give a very clear picture of what they're like, even if we don't know truly what they are.

5) Again, this is a very debated topic. There are certainly plenty of systems in place to handicap summoning in the name of balance, but there are many debates over how far the handicap should extend before they cripple summoning armies into uselessness. There's even a recent surge of people arguing that summoning should be unrestricted, arguing that summoning was never truly broken but rather people were approaching it in the wrong way due to the aforementioned misconception of tactics being pointless, and now that we're outgrowing that misconception, summoning is no longer overpowered. Which honestly does has some truth to it, I know when I play my non-summoning armies I allow my summoning enemies unrestricted summonings and I still win very easily through sheer tactics because I just take out the summoner first (which is actually quite easy if you are more tactically capable than your opponent.) The issue that's arisen isn't how to balance summoning, but ironically now how to make summoning strong enough to be viable.
Personally I'm in the camp of restricting more elite summons (basically anything that summons five models or less with the unboosted version of the spell, such as Temple Guard, Grave Guard, or Monsters and Heroes,) but allowing free unrestricted summoning of the weaker units that rely on high summoning and horde tactics in order to be truly competitively viable (such as Saurus Warriors, Zombies, and Skeletons, basically anything that summons 10 models with the unboosted spell and 20 with the boost.)

 

I think I am missing something regarding summoning.

Lets say we play 125 wounds.

I have a slann that summons stuff.
I succeed in summoning a unit of saurus.

What keeps me from fielding 500 saurus?

 

Forgive me my short answer, I will thank you when we are done!

 

The Summoning spells in the Seraphon Battletome place a exact number on how many models you summon. In the case of a Bastiladon it is one for example. For your Saurus suggestion it is 10 if you roll a 6 or 20 if you roll 11.

 

Two questions:

Can you name me a couple of synergies that would outdo the combat abimities of a carnosaur for the same wounds?

And

How many wounds does kroak cost?

 

Me murdering the Slann.
Alternatively there is one balancing system that I like which says "you can't summon what didn't start on the field." So if you start with 60 Saurus and they all die, you can summon 60 Saurus, and if they die you summon more and so forth. And if only 30 die, you can only summon 30. That I like, it reminds me of the Vampire magic in 8th where you revitalised units until the summoner was murdered.

 

Sorry for the double post, but that's a really good way of doing it.

The Stegadon is a good example. It's 2 Wounds cheaper, allowing you to give a tiny but potentially game-altering boost to your infantry, and it's both an anti-horde and line-breaker. I've gone into more detail in my Specialist Roles tactica which you can find in the tactica index, but briefly the Line Breaker is meant to get past defensive lines while the anti-horde is what it sounds like, kills low armour hordes like Zombies or Bloodreavers. The Carnosaur is powerful to be sure, but against a defensive line of, I dunno, my Temple Guard or Liberators who have a 2+ Save with immunity to Rend -1 for the former and rerolls of 1's to Save and a heal on a 6 for the latter, it's not going to be able to get through with its measly Rend -1 attacks, even if it hits hard. Similarly against hordes, it's going to need a lot of magic/hero support to be able to beat down a strong horde because it just lacks the raw number of attacks or defense necessary to break a horde down. A Stegadon meanwhile, at full Wounds, has a Rend -3, which is easily capable of breaking down a shield wall through sheer power of that Rend, allowing it to lead the charge like a living battering ram. And for hordes, its Sunfire Throwers hit every model in range, giving it the power to really break a horde, especially if given magic/hero support, which it can put to a far better use than the Carnosaur can.

I can come up with more, but I think that should be good enough for now.

Also I say Kroak costs 7 Wounds, same as a Slann Starmaster. It's at the number of wounds where he has a perfect 50/50 chance of death before modifiers, and he's equal if not slightly lesser than the Starmaster anyway.

 

As for the question on what comp to use, while my gaming group and I have found great use and fun out of Clash comp ( found here http://heelanhammer.com/clash/ ) The biggest thing that ive found to be a factor is scenarios. cause if you dont have a goal to work towards then game will be nothing but a mosh pit in the center and the tactics of the game wont shine thru. Trying to capture objectives/terrain, trying to kill a specific unit or hero, defending a certain area/objective for x amount of turns or even something as simple as trying to get a certain unit from one edge of the board to the other. All of these and more (what ever you can think of, or try out the scenarios from some of the battletomes or story rules that gw are releasing) are great ways to truly see where the game shines.

Biggest thing that kills of carnosaurs is him getting hit first, whether thats from him being shot or being charged and hit first. Carnosaurs in my experience are the biggest glass cannons ive fielded. Cause the moment he starts taking wounds the less damage he does back. Hell ive even had a single spawn tear one limb for limb from full health.

 

So the game IS dependant on scenarios?
Would explain the games I had.

Bainbow
When you say a valid solution would be to "murder the slann", is it really that easy?

I realize that look out sir is gone for you guys, but can you really just point it out and kill it from a far?
Seems highly un-interesting to me :/

 

Different strategy, but strategy indeed.

Might entice a couple of friends to try it out for s's and giggles.

 

I don't think the game is dependent on scenarios, but it does really mesh well with scenarios. I'd say that scenarios aren't necessary but do add to the game, if that makes sense. Like adding ketchup onto some chips, not needed but very welcome.

As for murdering the Slann, it's straightforward but it's not going to be easy. Every army has some way of assassinating choice enemy heroes to a potentially brutal effect, but when something like a Slann is involved the Slann player is going to be trying to protect their precious megatoad. Difficulty would differ based on the kind of Seraphon army being played, but it's always going to potentially challenging. Often you'll be unable to just up and kill the Slann and will have to either wait for your opponent to slip up and open their Slann up briefly, where you then punish them quickly before the Slann returns to protection, or you need to trick, bait, or otherwise make this opening yourself through tactical know-how in order to get to it. Simple in theory but challenging in practice, it's like chasing down your opponent's king for a Checkmate.

 

Thats just the thing.
In my games of AoS I didnt find anything challenging at all, and I would go a long way before I compare aos to chess.. But that might be some of the unseen strategy that is clouded to me.

Is there any battlereports anywhere, where someone describes his thoughtprocess while making his choices?
Would help a lot in understanding "what the game is actually about". Cause right now I dont see how I could set up Tactical plays above " stand in the way here" and "punch here".

 

Beside list building for synergies of course, but that isnt exactly brainsugery either ^^

Not meant as an offense.

 

None taken.

The strategy in AoS is more reactive than anything else. Both players will have an overall basic tactic in the form of their infantry, such as my basic tactic of set up a defensive line and just weather the enemy, but then you react to the situations. My opponent sees I have a shield wall they can't get past, they throw a Magmadroth at me to melt through my wall with its Roaring Fyrestream. But then I can react to this by having my Bastiladon intercept the Magmadroth to stop it reaching my shield wall while my Engine of the Gods tries to bring the beast down with its lightning bolt attack. But then my opponent can try to counter that by cutting off my Engine or by getting the Magmadroth out of combat while blocking the Bastiladon from chasing it. But then I can counter that with my Basi's ability to shoot, but that itself can be countered through blocking line of sight, and so on and so forth. The strategy is largely focused around setting up your units to counter, block, or destroy specific enemy units much like how chess pieces are moved into positions that allow them to do the same, that's why I use the speed chess analogy. Not because of the level of the strategy but because the way the strategies work are actually quite similar, moving certain pieces to take certain opposing pieces, but with an added element reminiscent of the rock-paper-scissors match-ups you get in Pokemon types. Does that make sense?

But at the same time, low tactical play is also perfectly easy to do, which makes it very approachable to new players. AoS tactica plays very much like one of those "easy to learn, hard to master" things.

 

Makes perfect sense actually.
Far from how our games went, but I can see why.

If it plays out the way you say, I might actually end up enjoying it as an alternate use of my collection.......and 5 carnosaurs.

 

How about allies?
Any general rules to follow, or is the loss of synergy the automatic balancer?

 

Honestly I'd say it's more than an automatic balancer, four times out of five it's downright inferior to just taking units from your faction because synergy is such a major part of the game. Standard procedure for allies tends to be take them only if you want to take them because you think they're cool, not because you think they'll help you win. Like making some converted rotted Dryads and adding them to a Nurgle army for the cool factor.