Fantasy vs AoS

[n810]

Agreed, they have greatly underrated Ogres.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

8th edition most definitely had many death star units apart from WoC units.

8th edition for the most part was fairly well balanced, but there are definitely discrepancies between armies.

You contradict yourself - a game can't be balanced if there are death star units.

When did I say that Warriors of Chaos weren't powerhouses? However it is not the core unit of Warriors that makes them so powerful... oh and their initiative is 5 .

That makes them even worse! Sword masters will only be able to strike at the same time against them! And basic Warriors are OP - you don't know what it's like to have your lovely unit of Dwarf Miners massacred in a single close combat turn. Things like that shouldn't happen in friendly games.

Actually, speaking of power levels, I created a couple of polls over at EEFL looking at which armies belonged to the upper, middle and lower tiers of power. Each poll prompted voters to vote for the 4 best representations of each tier. I complied the results in the following graph:

View attachment 37049

I largely agree with the results (my top 4 most powerful armies are in fact High Elves, Dark Elves, WoC and Skaven). I think Lizardmen should be a little bit lower on the list and Wood Elves and Ogre Kingdoms should be a bit higher. I'd also put Tomb Kings above Beastmen and on par with Bretonnia.

I agree in that Ogres should be higher,mas some of my worst defeats are against Ogres. You lack faith in the Warriors of the Old Ones though...

 

[n810]

I have beaten all the other top tier armies, but Not once was I able to beat Ogres.
Despite having fought them at least half of my battles.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

You contradict yourself - a game can't be balanced if there are death star units.

I completely disagree!! The existence of death stars does not mean that a game can not achieve balance. 8th edition has some counters to death stars in the form of templates (i.e. salamanders) and especially uber spells. Purple Sun, Dwellers Bellow, Fiery Convocation and Final Transmutation are all hard counters to large death star units. The larger the unit, the better these spells work.

Additionally, you can use chaff to redirect death stars and neutralize their presence on the battlefield. Then you simply use your superior forces to mop up the rest of the enemy army. You won't achieve a massacre, but you should pull off a victory. Additionally, death stars can be countered by death stars; a fight fire with fire approach.

In short, there are many available options to counter death stars:

• uber spells
• templates
• other death stars
• redirection and neutralization
• and I should add my personal favourite: the WoC Hortennse Lord! (there are a few other armies that can also pull off some sort of variant of this build, even if the WoC version is the best)

If you think death stars have no counters, you are simply not being creative enough IMHO. Are they powerful?... yes. Can they win you games?... yes. Are they unbeatable?... NO!

And basic Warriors are OP

Warriors are a great unit, but they are far from unbeatable and at the end of the day you are still dealing with a M4 infantry unit. Trust me, the WoC army book as far more potent choices. But as core goes, they are great.

You lack faith in the Warriors of the Old Ones though...

I feel that Lizardmen are a solid middle tier army. We are a good representation of what the ideal power level should be across all armies. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

I have beaten all the other top tier armies, but Not once was I able to beat Ogres.
Despite having fought them at least half of my battles.

OUCH... curious, were you only facing them with Lizardmen or did you also have other armies at your disposal? What part/unit/aspect of the Ogre army gave you the most trouble and made them an insurmountable foe?

 

[n810]

Only Lizardmen.

usualy he ran:

Gutstar with pimped out heros, (around 12 models for horde bonus)
charges from like miles away, does extra damage on charge,
causes fear, has 3 wounds per model, possibly immune to poison.
also has spell caster in the unit that further buffs the unit with cheep spells.

also there where usually 2 units of regular ogres for flanking,
a unit of lead belchers that never missed or misfired. :/
a scraplauncher
3 rinoxes

later he got the saber tooth cat units and the mammoth things.

also maybe 1 unit of gnoblars for fun.

basically everything in the army does what ours does ... but better. (except gnoblars)

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Gutstar with pimped out heros, (around 12 models for horde bonus)
charges from like miles away, does extra damage on charge,
causes fear, has 3 wounds per model, possibly immune to poison.
also has spell caster in the unit that further buffs the unit with cheep spells.

That is a potent unit, but in all that time, didn't you ever manage to sweep a Purple Sun through it? On some decent rolls, that could win you the game right there.

also there where usually 2 units of regular ogres for flanking,
a unit of lead belchers that never missed or misfired. :/
a scraplauncher
3 rinoxes

later he got the saber tooth cat units and the mammoth things.

also maybe 1 unit of gnoblars for fun.

At least he wasn't fielding an Ironblaster or two!

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

@ignacio

 

[n810]

That is a potent unit, but in all that time, didn't you ever manage to sweep a Purple Sun through it? On some decent rolls, that could win you the game right there.

And on a bad roll it's suicide, either way you are killing off a few temple guard.

At least he wasn't fielding an Ironblaster or two!

Oh yea I forgot he had one of those too.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

And on a bad roll it's suicide, either way you are killing off a few temple guard.

True, but it is an acceptable risk against such a unit. Odds are in your favour, and a moderate to good roll likely wins you the game.

Oh yea I forgot he had one of those too.

They always do! It's a solid choice.

 

[ignacio]

I have beaten all the other top tier armies, but Not once was I able to beat Ogres.
Despite having fought them at least half of my battles.

I play most of the times against Ogres and it is really hard to beat them. The fucking canion is a pain in the ass plus their units with thousan attacks. For me the only chance of winning in a 2500 points battle is including as much units with multiple wounds as possible (hero with piranha sword, hero on carnosaur, 2 stegadons) and a bunch os skinks.

 

[Killer Angel]

I was missing this thread! what a shame...

To (hopefully) avoid arguments I've kept my response as clean (unless otherwise noted) as possible and put it into this lovely table:

View attachment 36996

The table is lovely and I agree with most of it. There's just one thing that imo is not on spot.

The movement in AoS is simple, but it's NOT forgiving.
I saw balanced matches that ended abruptly because of a bad placement, that didn't negate the room for teleport.

8th movement is unforgiving because it's almost impossible to recover from a mistake in the following turns.
AoS movement is unforgiving because it's so quick that with a mistake you are going to be beaten badly right now.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

The table is lovely and I agree with most of it. There's just one thing that imo is not on spot.

The movement in AoS is simple, but it's NOT forgiving.
I saw balanced matches that ended abruptly because of a bad placement, that didn't negate the room for teleport.

8th movement is unforgiving because it's almost impossible to recover from a mistake in the following turns.
AoS movement is unforgiving because it's so quick that with a mistake you are going to be beaten badly right now.

Perhaps not forgiving in an absolute sense, but comparatively it is far more forgiving than 8th edition. I liken AoS movement to that of 40k which I played years ago. Of course a major mistake could hurt you quickly, but the small subtle nuances of movement, facing, positioning and angles were simply not to the level of Fantasy.


Glad you liked the table!

 

[Yodhrin]

The table is good, and I think it's a reasonably fair summation both of why AoS is doing reasonably well and why WHF went down the tubes in the first place; active support, community engagement, and ease of entry for new blood go a long, long way in a hobby where Network Effect has such an impact on a system's popularity.

For me though, it begins and ends with this: WHF was a setting I always enjoyed going back to, AoS is a setting I don't care about, and which seems purposefully designed to prevent people caring about any given part of it; a collection of fundamentally disposable components that can be swapped in and out at-will by the Studio in pursuit of maximising company revenue. It's not so much a setting as it is a business plan - make a fantasy IP that's as expandable and unrestricted as 40K. Here's the thing though, if I want to play in a broad, fantastical setting with elements of mythology and endless room to worldbuild, I can just, you know, play 40K.

It's also, from what I can glean from reading it and watching it played, a very "gamey" game, with lots of nonsensical conga-line movement shenanigans and people trying to wring odd little victories out of weirdly-worded RAW. I mean WHF had its flaws, no doubt, but it was at the core a logical abstraction of block infantry combat. That's secondary though, I'll happily play guff rules if they let me engage with a setting I care about, I just can't find a reason to yet.

I also kind of resent GW appropriating the WHF model range for AoS. I understand *why* they did it, and the fact at least some of the WHF range remains available to buy is positive, but I have the feeling I'd be able to find a "way in" to AoS much more easily if I wasn't forcibly reminded of the shoddy End Times cashgrab and of the setting it destroyed every time I look at or think about the main human faction. The sooner AoS' model range and factional aesthetics are completely divorced from WHF's the better.

 

[Killer Angel]

Perhaps not forgiving in an absolute sense, but comparatively it is far more forgiving than 8th edition. I liken AoS movement to that of 40k which I played years ago. Of course a major mistake could hurt you quickly, but the small subtle nuances of movement, facing, positioning and angles were simply not to the level of Fantasy.

That's true, but for the sake of flame... err, discussion, I'd say that falls into the "simpleness".

The "small subtle nuances of movement..." of 8th are a sort of mith.
In 8th you can play at a high tactical level, and then facing and positioning are a key to survival and winning, especially if you are playing with a low tier army that must exploit correct redirectioning with chaffs and so on (Tomb Kings are an example).
In a similar way you can play tactical in AoS, when you must take into account area of abilities denial, while exploiting covers and ranges of your own buffs, while keeping an eye to the objectives scattered across the map. Different ranges that overlap and you must think on the better way to deploy your units to gain the maximum effect.

And in 8th you can play almost without caring too much about correct facing / positining. There's not so much subtlety in creating an Irongut Death Star, flanked by mournfangs, and just move forward til you crush the opponent's line... it's the opponent that is forced to play tactical, not the DS' player.

Glad you liked the table!

it was well done.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

That's true, but for the sake of flame... err, discussion, I'd say that falls into the "simpleness".

The "small subtle nuances of movement..." of 8th are a sort of mith.
In 8th you can play at a high tactical level, and then facing and positioning are a key to survival and winning, especially if you are playing with a low tier army that must exploit correct redirectioning with chaffs and so on (Tomb Kings are an example).
In a similar way you can play tactical in AoS, when you must take into account area of abilities denial, while exploiting covers and ranges of your own buffs, while keeping an eye to the objectives scattered across the map. Different ranges that overlap and you must think on the better way to deploy your units to gain the maximum effect.

I agree here - many people say that AoS has nothing tactical, but I disagree with them - there are some tactical ways about playing AoS, they are just very different to those in Fantasy - not just in terms of ability denial but in how you position your models - as I say I am considering doing a small Fyreslayers army, and I have been looking at their units and special rules, and have thought of a really good strategy - take a Magmadroth and put it in the middle of your deployment area, put some Hearthguard Berzerkers around the Magmadroth and include some other characters in there too. This is my 'Sledgehammer'. Then take two units of Vulkite Berzerkers and place them in a diagonal line on either side of the Sledgehammer. These are my 'Flankers'. Finally take a Ruinesmiter and some Hearthguard - these are my reserves. The Sledgehammer and Flankers form an arrowhead (Sledgehammer units in the front, Vulkites either side) that moves forward and attempts to crush the foe in melee by throwing the Sledgehammer in head first and keeping the flankers in their diagonal lines. The Flankers prevent the enemy from swarming all around the Sledgehammer by keeping the flanks covered - the enemy can't flank the Sledgehammer without having to shoot or charge the Vulkites first - leaving the Slegehammer to carve their way through the enemy piece by piece - Hearthguard Bezerkers have a 4+ Ward Save as long as there are Fyreslayers characters nearby too, so the Sledgehammer is also very resilient as long as it doesn't get surrounded. Then if there are any targets that are difficult even for the Sledgehammer to crack, the Runesmiter can deep strike the shooty Hearthguard anywhere more than 9" of the target and the Hearthguard can shoot it in the back to knock a few more wounds off it to help the Sledgehammer units to finish it off. Many say the Fyreslayers are one of the less competitive armies. I disagree.

And in 8th you can play almost without caring too much about correct facing / positining. There's not so much subtlety in creating an Irongut Death Star, flanked by mournfangs, and just move forward til you crush the opponent's line... it's the opponent that is forced to play tactical, not the DS' player.

I agree here too - I have had WoC players just use a massive block of Warriors with a Lord in it force me to try and act tactically to stop them and I end up getting massacred. One thing wrong with not having maximum unit sizes and maximum numbers of particular units allowed in 8th is that players can take super units and not play tactically, which is just super-competitive nonsense. I could do the same by taking a horde of 40 or 50 Slayers - very difficult to wipe out completely through shooting, always wound on 4s or better, can take great weapons or extra hand weapons each turn, each Slayer that dies can make a Deathblow attack that also always wounds on 4s or better and could have the +2 Strength bonus from great weapons if the unit decided to use great weapons. It could destroy a unit of Chaos Warriors or High Elves just through Deathblows. I know Slayers are Special and CW and Ironguts are Core, but it's still a similar thing and one of the main disadvantages with Fantasy. I'd better edit my list of pros and cons to include this...

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

In a similar way you can play tactical in AoS, when you must take into account area of abilities denial, while exploiting covers and ranges of your own buffs, while keeping an eye to the objectives scattered across the map. Different ranges that overlap and you must think on the better way to deploy your units to gain the maximum effect.

AoS tactics definitely exist, they are simply less difficult to employ than Fantasy tactics. I would never state that AoS is completely devoid of skill or tactics.

And in 8th you can play almost without caring too much about correct facing / positining. There's not so much subtlety in creating an Irongut Death Star, flanked by mournfangs, and just move forward til you crush the opponent's line... it's the opponent that is forced to play tactical, not the DS' player.

Of course you can play 8th Edition without employing any real tactics, just as you can play chess by randomly moving pieces around. Even the most tactical games can be played without employing tactics, it just can't be played very well that way.

In the example you provide, the Ogre player would have to employ counter-tactics in response to the opponents tactics. This of course is assuming that you have two skill generals. 8th edition can easily be played by kids, where they pay little to no attention to the more subtle strategical nuances of the game.

I agree here too - I have had WoC players just use a massive block of Warriors with a Lord in it force me to try and act tactically to stop them and I end up getting massacred. One thing wrong with not having maximum unit sizes and maximum numbers of particular units allowed in 8th is that players can take super units and not play tactically, which is just super-competitive nonsense.

You keep returning to this idea that these uber large units are unstoppable. As I stated before there exist many countermeasures to kill or neutralize death stars:

• uber spells
• templates
• other death stars
• redirection and neutralization
• and I should add my personal favourite: the WoC Hortennse Lord! (there are a few other armies that can also pull off some sort of variant of this build, even if the WoC version is the best)

I could do the same by taking a horde of 40 or 50 Slayers - very difficult to wipe out completely through shooting, always wound on 4s or better, can take great weapons or extra hand weapons each turn, each Slayer that dies can make a Deathblow attack that also always wounds on 4s or better and could have the +2 Strength bonus from great weapons if the unit decided to use great weapons. It could destroy a unit of Chaos Warriors or High Elves just through Deathblows. I know Slayers are Special and CW and Ironguts are Core, but it's still a similar thing and one of the main disadvantages with Fantasy. I'd better edit my list of pros and cons to include this...

First off, you are fielding 50 Slayers in a unit, as an opponent that would make me very happy. That is a whopping 600 points on a movement 3 unit of infantry. I could EASILY counter that with my WoC, Lizardmen or even Tomb Kings.

Second, you might want to check your math. Your unit of 50 slayers (600 points) DOES NOT beat a unit of 33 Nurgle Warriors with Halberds (594 points) or 35 Tzeentch Warriors with sword and board (595 points). Either of those warriors units will grind your slayer unit down to zero.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

First off, you are fielding 50 Slayers in a unit, as an opponent that would make me very happy. That is a whopping 600 points on a movement 3 unit of infantry. I could EASILY counter that with my WoC, Lizardmen or even Tomb Kings.

WoC would be difficult because they have virtually no shooting weapons. They have magic but remember Dwarfs are anti-magic specialists. I could just field 2 or 3 Runesmiths with 3 runes of spellbreaking each to shut down your magic phase for a good few turns - enough for Slayers to get into combat. Remember that Dwarfs can charge up to 15" now in 8th - your Chaos Warriors only move 4 and charge up to 16" - 1 inch isn't that much difference. Lizardmen are a bit stronger in terms of shooting so are more of a concern. TK can't march and hit on 5s - they can ignore cover when shooting but battlefields don't always have cover. You need to remember to take range penalties into account - long range still gives you a -1 penalty to hit in addition to other modifiers.

Second, you might want to check your math. Your unit of 50 slayers (600 points) DOES NOT beat a unit of 33 Nurgle Warriors with Halberds (594 points) or 35 Tzeentch Warriors with sword and board (595 points). Either of those warriors units will grind your slayer unit down to zero.

You don't know that - you don't know the Dwarf army book as I do. Trust a WoC player to get cocky because their army book is broken. Nurgle Warriors just give the enemy a -1 to Hit penalty, nothing like the extra wound they had before. Let's say we have 50 slayers vs 33 Nurgle Warriors. The Warriors go first because they have a ridiculous Initiative that should be much lower for a unit of such power. Nurgle Warriors hit on 4s, so if there are 11 in the front rank there will be 22 + 1 for champ + 11 for second rank = 33 attacks. That should give an average of say 18 hits. They get strength 5 due to their halberds and will thus wound on 3s, so that'll be around 12 wounds. 12 Slayers die so that'll be 12 deathblow attacks back. Hit on 5s so that'll be around 5 or 6 hits. If they use great weapons this round they'll be wounding on 3s also, so that'll be 4 or 5 wounds, and then Nurgle Warriors will have just a 6+ save as they can't use their shields in melee, so let's say 4 fluff the save and die. Then the Slayers attack back with their great weapons - 19 Strength 5 attacks and another one strength 6 attack from the giant slayer - that'll be around ten hits followed by around 8 wounds, which means around 6 or 7 will die. That gives an average casualty total of around 12 slayers and 10 or 11 chaos warriors - around the same. There are a lot more slayers so it is likely that the Chaos Warriors will be wiped out at around turn 3 with around 20 Slayers left to do something else. Even if the Warriors wipe out the Slayers they will have lost loads of men and will be easily dealt with by another Dwarf unit. Same with Tzeentch Warriors - they'll have more of a save (5+ Armour and 6+ Ward) but there will be no to Hit penalty so the trade off gives around the same results. Besides, I may well have already directed my Organ Gun on your warriors before they got into combat with my Slayers - up to 20 Strength 5 shots isn't to be sniffed at. Certainly you wouldn't get an easy win.

 

[Killer Angel]

Of course you can play 8th Edition without employing any real tactics, just as you can play chess by randomly moving pieces around. Even the most tactical games can be played without employing tactics, it just can't be played very well that way..

Playing chess without tactic will lead you to lose the game.
My point is that in 8th you can play without tactic and still win, simply because some things are simply hard to stop.
As I've said, to move forward with ironguts deathstar (w maw banner) and mournfang is pretty simple.
And countering it with uber template spell doesn't require tactic either.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

Playing chess without tactic will lead you to lose the game.
My point is that in 8th you can play without tactic and still win, simply because some things are simply hard to stop.
As I've said, to move forward with ironguts deathstar (w maw banner) and mournfang is pretty simple.
And countering it with uber template spell doesn't require tactic either.

Or using your own death star to counter theirs. Of course if you have a properly balanced army, these are more difficult to find.