BoLS Lounge : Wargames, Warhammer & Miniatures Forum
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 33
  1. #1
    Librarian
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Orem, UT
    Posts
    829

    Default Match Play: Hopes and Dreams

    So, the General's Compendium will be coming out this summer, and I'm sure that we're all equally excited about all three new styles of play. Right?

    Ok, so we're all looking at Matched Play as a big game changer. But we actually don't know what it will look like.

    GW broke a lot of rules when they made AoS, so it does stand to reason that they might do it again.

    What I'm hoping for:

    -Point system with small numbers, so that list building is fast and slots are interchangeable. Units costs like 4 points, or 12 points. Not a unit that costs 346 points and another that costs 341.

    -Balanced Summoning (maybe buy summoned units at a discount).

    -No force organization chart. I'm not terribly fond of how many grunts you have to bring in order to have the cooler minis, and I think that AoS's static hit and wound rolls will keep big monsters from completely dominating (provided that their point costs are balanced.



    Basically, I want to keep the cooler parts of the open format- I think the coolest thing AoS brought to the table is the idea that you could play a band of Marauding Giants or a group of Greater Daemons. I think this could still be balanced just fine, so I hope they keep that.


    So what is everyone else hoping the rules look like?
    Last edited by odinsgrandson; 04-29-2016 at 08:58 AM.

    www.GardenNinja.com

  2. #2

    Default

    They've already mentioned somewhere (I can't remember, either one of the SCGT guys or the AOS facebook) that the point format is the old 2000 point format. This annoys me because I agree with you - I dn' tlike that format. I feel that the precision 2000 point format is not good for scenario play because units that are point costed for a certain scenario may not be good or may be even better at another, which leads to people not wanting to play other scenarios because "they aren't fair". Yes - we could just ignore points and play like AOS has been played since last year but that is not going to be an option where I dwell.

    However, unlike you - I don't like forces that have no grunts in them at all. When I look at the SCGT lists that people have posted, that is the direct opposite of what I find enjoyable. So this of course also bothers me.

    In the end AOS seems like it will probably not be for me - and thats ok. I'm going to be looking at Dragon Rampant and Saga more.
    Last edited by Auticus; 04-29-2016 at 09:25 AM.

  3. #3
    Librarian
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Orem, UT
    Posts
    829

    Default

    I want the game to make me WANT to play grunts, but not FORCE me to play grunts.

    I feel like the average army ought to have a lot of grunts in it, and they should be the core. But GW's methods are usually to require grunts on the board, but not necessarily make them appealing.

    It is a shame that they're going with the 2000 point model. I honestly feel it adds nothing but extra math- I have never found that the points are actually as precise as they need to be to justify .005% increments.

    Hopefully they're just using the number 2000 for familiarity, and have increments of 10, or even 5.

    www.GardenNinja.com

  4. #4
    Brother-Captain
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Her Majesty's United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,344

    Default

    Yep i think the biggest positive of AoS is the ability to take pretty much what you'd like. Any points system needs to allow that to continue but just allow people to choose equivalent forces. A grunt horde should be a viable option but so should a monster mash or Magnificent Seven approach.
    Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit
    Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by odinsgrandson View Post
    I feel like the average army ought to have a lot of grunts in it, and they should be the core. But GW's methods are usually to require grunts on the board, but not necessarily make them appealing.
    I think that's what the point of a lot of the rules involved with those units is. "Grunt" units tend to have rules that add multipliers of force based on the number of models in the unit, i.e. Skeleton Warriors gain +1 attack each if you have 20 models in the unit, or +2 attacks each if you have 30 models or more... so having forty models is good to give you a buffer while keeping three attacks each. But Grave Guard don't have rules like that, because they're an elite unit.

    On Saturday, during an AoS "Apoc" style game, the person I was facing off against most expressed feelings that his Dwarfs weren't as good as my Undead, but he'd chosen to bring along elite units for the most part (Longbeards rather than basic Warriors). When it came to a more basic unit like Thunderers, they were more effective. He thought it was because Dwarf shooting is better than combat, but it's really more an issue that having larger units of basic troops can sometimes be more effective than a moderately sized unit of elite troops. (Heck, if not for him throwing six pieces of artillery at my Skeleton Warriors, they would have torn down a couple of Sigmarine cavalry in just a couple rounds of combat... and that was with their stupid hammers preventing me from getting most of the unit moved up into combat.)

  6. #6

    Default

    Some are like this yes. Ultimately if I felt grunt infantry could stand to elite infantry due to numbers I'd have no problem with it. Some like skeleton warriors do have that ability with great numbers and I think thats fine. As a chaos player I want to field reavers, but reavers depend on heroes to do anything and heroes are pretty fragile to shooting because they can be picked out anywhere.

    I haven't seen reavers do much of anything yet. Thats one type of troop that in the new novels is depicted as very common but on the table I'm the only chaos player I know that even tries to field them and when I do I run them in units of 20-30 and they usually get wiped fairly early on without doing much, discouraging me from wanting to invest more time in them.

  7. #7
    Librarian
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Orem, UT
    Posts
    829

    Default

    Well, I guess I need to add one more thing to my notes.

    Sudden Death needs to be removed, or seriously reworked. I'm actually fine with having different win conditions, but the big trouble with taking huge units in the current rules is that you give your opponent a massively unfair advantage.


    It couldn't be that hard to price massive units competitively against the huge monsters they've made. And if they do that, they don't need to require you to take two worthless units for every useful unit in your army.

    www.GardenNinja.com

  8. #8

    Default

    The vast majority of scenarios do not use sudden death. The only time sudden death is a thing is when using the default scenario... which IMO is horrible.

  9. #9
    Brother-Captain
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Her Majesty's United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,344

    Default

    Yeah it's clearly a little bit for a few beginners who are just playing around with the initial scenario to get used to things.
    Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit
    Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.

  10. #10

    Default

    I simply hope it helps people give the game the try it deserves.

    Sadly, it was dog piled by the Hate Mob who claimed it had no tactics etc, which is nonsense.

    Dig beneath the surface, and you find a game that's actually pretty hard to truly dominate in (now that may not be to everyone's taste, and fair enough). Once you cast off the old notions and wisdom from Warhammer (Dragons are a sure bet against Goblins etc, that sort of stuff) and get head round 'anything is a threat to everything' you're better placed to enjoy it for what it is.

    Not gonna be everyone's cup of tea of course, but I find it a cracking game.

    For anyone wanting an idea of what sort of tactical play exist, [url=http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?60768-Throwing-some-Shapes-in-the-Church-of-War]I've laid out some of the very basic stuff here[/url].

    All about the shape of your line, and having a more flexible battle plan AoS may not have the 'one wrong move, and you're buggered' Warhammer does, but it most definitely does have 'one right move and it's yours'
    Fed up for Scalpers? https://www.facebook.com/groups/1710575492567307/?ref=bookmarks

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •