Rate this formation of units in Age of Sigmar

1 Herald of Khorne
Two activations if he strikes and if he is within a range of a blood letter unit also that bloodletter unit gets re-rolls to hit of 1s.

1 Bloodsecrator
When he useis his abilty all Khorne keyword units gain 1+ attack to all weapons and make everyone immune to battleshock that are keyword Khorne.

1 Bloodstoker
When he targets a friendly Khorne unit they get +3" run/charge and re-roll to wounds of 1s

Unit of 20 Bloodletters or more
Due to having 20+ bloodletters they have +1 to there hit results of there weapons

So that means these bloodletters can reroll hits and wounds of 1s charge a possible 15" and get 2 attacks each wile hitting on 3+ that if rolling a 6 cause's a mortal wound so if about 10 of them got in close combat that means they get 20 attacks your guarantee to get at least some mortal wounds in that attack :D

Shouldn't this be in the army lists section? If I'm honest, there aren't any tactics in AoS. It's more about situation-dependent actions on the player's part...

This is not a army list its a discussion on how to employ synergy...

Okay im gonna stop your right there "there aren't any tactics in AoS" really? so lets look on the internet and see what a tactic is just for humour sake okey

Definition of the word tactic in noun form : an action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end.

okey now the definition of the word synergy

Definition of the word synergy noun form : the interaction or cooperation of two or more organizations, substances, or other agents to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects

So me using a bunch of units as I stated would be by definition synergy of there bonus effects that augment stats or additional abiltys to preform a tactic that would make them more effective in combat to deal with enemy's that they normally would not be able to deal with.

Word of advice for age of sigmar try thinking outside the box and not have everything governed on a silver plate katharon...

Now this part confused me "situation-dependent actions on the player's part" okey playing fantasy 8th edition/40k is basically that wtf are you talking about seems like you just dislike age of sigmar for it being age of sigmar and your striking at posts with negativity to make it look worst then what others think of it you should be ashamed of yourself to act this way in the community your setting yourself as a bad example of poor sportsmanship.

Keeping the Bloodsecrator close enough when its M 4 and has to plant the standard in the Hero phase is your main issue here, he's tricky because he's so slow, he'd likely have to be ahead of the bloodletters in the turn before, because you'd plant, they'd move 5 past him and charge and are potentially out of range of the standards ability then

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Katharon

Shouldn't this be in the army lists section? If I'm honest, there aren't any tactics in AoS. It's more about situation-dependent actions on the player's part...

---

There really are dude.

Flanking and rear charge are gone, but there's new stuff.

Taking it in turn to pick fighting units is quite challenging, and it punishes those who simply rush across the board and into combat. How so? Charging doesn't mean a great deal now. Good example? My opponent on Sunday chose to work out his Halberds against my Bulls first. That allowed me to wail on his Greatswords, wiping them out, with my Ironguts.

Choosing when to trigger your 'once per game' abilities for maximum affect? That's a tactical consideration.

Do I attempt to whittle down his units with my ranged attacks, or look to break his synergy by targeting his surprisingly tough characters?

If I charge a given unit, am I likely to draw his unit in enough his pile in to allow another unit to pass them in my next turn?

Can't count on a stable turn taking either. That's taking a bit of getting used to.

At the trick of sounding rude/dismissive, have you given it a bash beyond the starter set sized game?

@Xaric:

My mistake, I meant "military tactics," not "tactics" in the mundane sense of the word. The rules for AoS really don't let you use anything close to military tactics. You are correct that you can make for a lot of synergy, taking special units or heroes to augment battle scroll special abilities -- but that's not military tactics.

Quote:

---

Now this part confused me "situation-dependent actions on the player's part" okey playing fantasy 8th edition/40k is basically that wtf are you talking about seems like you just dislike age of sigmar for it being age of sigmar and your striking at posts with negativity to make it look worst then what others think of it you should be ashamed of yourself to act this way in the community your setting yourself as a bad example of poor sportsmanship.

---

You might have been a bit angry when writing this part, so it comes out with bad grammar and one hell of a run on sentence, but I'll try to sparse it down for a coherent answer for you.

(1) I'll explain the "situation-dependent actions on the player's part" in my response to Mystery down below. ;)

(2) Warhammer Fantasy Battles 8th Edition had military tactics involved in its gameplay. I'll expand upon this more in my answer to Mystery below. ;)

(3) I am being a Negative Nancy when it comes to AoS, because that's my right. I've played four games of AoS and my opinion of it has not changed. If anything it continues to get worse. The impression that many got of this being a giant, public (undisclosed) beta test seems to be jiving in the right direction imho.

(4) I'm being an honest player. I want Games Workshop to succeed as a company, but that doesn't mean I'm going to cowtow and love everything the release or do. My responsibility as a fair player is to give it a shot and see how it works, and if it sucks then I'm going to say it sucks. In the four battles I've played, I've won three of them. Each time I won, the victory was so overwhelmingly one-sided and ridiculous that I bought a meal and beer for the loser, because that's the kind of guy I am when I win a hollow victory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Mystery

There really are dude.

---

There really aren't dude.

Quote:

---

Flanking and rear charge are gone...

---

Something about which I am going to be eternally sad about.

Quote:

---

but there's new stuff.

Taking it in turn to pick fighting units is quite challenging, and it punishes those who simply rush across the board and into combat. How so? Charging doesn't mean a great deal now. Good example? My opponent on Sunday chose to work out his Halberds against my Bulls first. That allowed me to wail on his Greatswords, wiping them out, with my Ironguts.

Choosing when to trigger your 'once per game' abilities for maximum affect? That's a tactical consideration.

---

*whistles for Xaric's attention*

This is that "situation-dependent actions on the player's part" that I was talking about. You perfectly spelled out my meaning here Mystery. Charging doesn't mean a great deal now. How is that not disturbing to you in a game where models are supposedly wielding swords, spears, and axes? Historically speaking a single great charge can affect the outcome of an entire battle. The Roman Legions of yore were renown for their ability to weather such effects and effectively counter attack. Taking advantage of terrain, position of the enemy, and maneuverability are the vital aspects of which any swords & spears based combat hinges.

Your opponent had two choices, target selection in other words. He looked at the situation he was in and chose an action based on his interpretation of threat analysis. You then did the same, better, and "wiped out his Greatswords."

When to trigger a once per game ability for maximum effect...I'll give that one to you. That would be a military tactic.

Quote:

---

Do I attempt to whittle down his units with my ranged attacks, or look to break his synergy by targeting his surprisingly tough characters?

If I charge a given unit, am I likely to draw his unit in enough his pile in to allow another unit to pass them in my next turn?

Can't count on a stable turn taking either. That's taking a bit of getting used to.

---

Not seeing any military tactics here. Again, situation-dependent actions. He's got two units close, one of which is really big and scary -- I guess I'll shoot that one! There is no We're holding this hill and can push down for added effect to counter-charge this enemy unit while another unit flanks said enemy unit and binds it in a pincer.

Quote:

---

At the trick of sounding rude/dismissive, have you given it a bash beyond the starter set sized game?

---

No worries, I've never considered either you or Xaric to be rude/dismissive. I'm quite well aware that I sound dismissive, but then I'm one of those self-aware #$@^s that knows how smart he is and has lost "friends" who couldn't cope with that fact.

I've actually not played the starter set. Soon as they released the war scrolls, five friends of mine and I got our respective scrolls and the rules printed off and spent the entire weekend hashing it out. I played Empire against Orcs, Vampire Counts, Daemons, and Bretonnians. We played games that would have, in 8th, been as high as 4,000+ points.

Overall conclusions:

(a) Deployment now really doesn't mean anything. You no longer have flanks to worry about and the only thing that does necessitate anything is space between units in terms of ranged attacks and magic deniability.

(b) Shooting is now at the 40K level. [My Bretonnian friend, in one turn, wiped out four Greater Daemons with shooting with trebuchets and peasant bowmen (jeezus those large unit benefits...)]

(c) Magic is now stupid. As long as I keep myself out of 18" from the enemy (most times on the board edge) then I can cast away as much as I like. Daemons and VC both were summoning so much crap onto the board that it was just ridiculous. A summoned daemon prince summoning another daemon prince got a bit retarded after the first time it happened. The Soviet Red Army of WWII wishes it had the "reserves" both the Daemons and VC had coming in.

(d) The mechanics set up to create "fair" games so that the player with less units gets the Sudden Death Victory conditions are lame. Assassinate? I pick the model you try to assassinate and put him at the farthest point away possible, moving him as necessary. Blunt? Same response and since its only 5 or more models, I can always bring one such unit to hide. Endure? Again, same as the assassinate response. Seize Ground? Best choice out of all of them, but shooting is, like I said, so strong now that it's not unnatural to see multiple entire units and MCs getting removed from the board in a single turn; you'd hardly have any models left, let alone one within 3" of a terrain piece in enemy territory.

(e) Battleshock is retarded. In any battle that involves "units" it is never only one man or two that flee. I had a 50-man block of spearmen that rolled horrible for their Battleshock tests three turns in a row, and each time only about three would run away into the ether -- the rest just jolly in their demise.

(f) Measuring from models instead of bases is also retarded. When you have a ton of models all jumbled together, trying to get as close as they can to be in effective close combat range, it looks stupid (not theatrical). Not to mention one friend (the VC player) straight up threatened to punch any of us that tried climbing base over base with his models, as he'd basically crafted each individual base to look like artwork (he's a ridiculously good painter and modeler).

There are more, but I'm tired and I'm sure that Xaric will have had enough of my negative nancy attitude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Katharon

My mistake, I meant "military tactics," not "tactics" in the mundane sense of the word. The rules for AoS really don't let you use anything close to military tactics. You are correct that you can make for a lot of synergy, taking special units or heroes to augment battle scroll special abilities -- but that's not military tactics.

---

The inevitable result in them changing from a system that mirrored 'historical games' to one that is simply 'a game'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Katharon

(3) I am being a Negative Nancy when it comes to AoS, because that's my right. I've played four games of AoS and my opinion of it has not changed. If anything it continues to get worse. The impression that many got of this being a giant, public (undisclosed) beta test seems to be jiving in the right direction imho.

---

Replayability is an honest concern with this game at the present. Although I think this is meant to be one of many games on a person's shelf vs where WFB could be a person's primary/only game.

Replayability comes from scenarios and differing objectives, at the moment, the games most people are playing with Age of Sigmar, indeed all reports I've seen about it anyway, are straight line up and fight, this is almost never the case with military engagements, even in a historical sense, the idea of two armies just lining up on a field being the primary way a war is fought is a fallacy. Its also pretty boring to play and watch.

Interesting, tactically diverse scenarios are coming this week in the new book, with the promise of more on the way from various sources, White Dwarf more Campaign books etc. and the game expects you to make your own with your opponent.

This is where the challenge for those who like tactical games will come in, pitting yourself against opponents with different goals or with asymmetrical forces, while still being narrative in that the aim is to tell a story.

If you're just standing in a line and moving forwards toward the fighting thats A) not using tactics, military or otherwise B) not particularly interesting.

8th Edition WHFB was dull because people only wanted to play that one mission over and over at a set points cost (2400 in my area) every game people just did the same thing to try and beat the opponent. I'm glad thats on its way out. The game wasn't narrative at all, it was my army lines up and fights your army and difficult to make it anything else.

I've attached two pages of a Citadel Journal article by Jervis Johnson, it's been shared about a few places but I've not seen it here, but here is an article by Jervis (now manager of long term strategy at GW) that points (no pun intended) to the type of game he prefers, reading this (written well over 10 years ago) it looks like that strategy is finally coming to the fore, anyway, read it, digest its wisdom and learn to accept that 8th edition was less of a true and real Warhammer Fantasy Battle game than Age of Sigmar is.

Attachment 15098Attachment 15099

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Path Walker

Replayability comes from scenarios and differing objectives, at the moment, the games most people are playing with Age of Sigmar, indeed all reports I've seen about it anyway, are straight line up and fight, this is almost never the case with military engagements, even in a historical sense, the idea of two armies just lining up on a field being the primary way a war is fought is a fallacy. Its also pretty boring to play and watch.

Interesting, tactically diverse scenarios are coming this week in the new book, with the promise of more on the way from various sources, White Dwarf more Campaign books etc. and the game expects you to make your own with your opponent.

This is where the challenge for those who like tactical games will come in, pitting yourself against opponents with different goals or with asymmetrical forces, while still being narrative in that the aim is to tell a story.

If you're just standing in a line and moving forwards toward the fighting thats A) not using tactics, military or otherwise B) not particularly interesting.

8th Edition WHFB was dull because people only wanted to play that one mission over and over at a set points cost (2400 in my area) every game people just did the same thing to try and beat the opponent. I'm glad thats on its way out. The game wasn't narrative at all, it was my army lines up and fights your army and difficult to make it anything else.

I've attached two pages of a Citadel Journal article by Jervis Johnson, it's been shared about a few places but I've not seen it here, but here is an article by Jervis (now manager of long term strategy at GW) that points (no pun intended) to the type of game he prefers, reading this (written well over 10 years ago) it looks like that strategy is finally coming to the fore, anyway, read it, digest its wisdom and learn to accept that 8th edition was less of a true and real Warhammer Fantasy Battle game than Age of Sigmar is.

Attachment 15098Attachment 15099

---

You're making some awfully big assumptions about how I or anyone else I know played WFB 8th Edition. All of these assumptions, which you then based this nice little wall of text upon, are pretty incorrect when it comes to me and those around my FLGS. So yeah, that particular pulpit isn't going to have any listeners around it. But thanks for posting. That article (at the bottom) is a good one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Katharon

You're making some awfully big assumptions about how I or anyone else I know played WFB 8th Edition. All of these assumptions, which you then based this nice little wall of text upon, are pretty incorrect when it comes to me and those around my FLGS. So yeah, that particular pulpit isn't going to have any listeners around it. But thanks for posting. That article (at the bottom) is a good one.

---

Did you just accuse me of writing a wall of text? Did you see your last post?

I made no assumptions, I talked about my personal experiences that I've observed and experienced with both 8th Edition and Age of Sigmar, and then how they match up with the opinions of Jervis Johnson.

I'm sorry that you feel that moving big units of models is somehow more tactical than moving individual models and thus don't like the new game.

Also, charging actually means a great deal more in Age of Sigmar than it did in 8th, +1 to combat resolution is nothing compared to the bonuses appropriate units (ones that would make a devestating, battle winning charge, like Knights) get for charging.