• The forum software have been upgraded to the latest version.

    If you notice anything that looks off, or does not work, please let us know.

    For more information, click here.

AoS Are Objective games the norm with AOS?

Tiderox
Saurus

Tiderox

Active Member
Messages
55
Likes Received
109
Trophy Points
33
Hey everyone!

Getting back into Warhammer after being away for a few years, needless to say AOS Is a big change but I am really enjoying it. It was a hard pill to swallow knowing my beloved Kroq-gar was now just an 'Oldblood on a Carnosaur' , but I am done grieving and have moved on. Anyways I have played a couple games with my buddy who plays beasts, and like we always have we just play the game out up to 6 turns until one of us has lost all their units. Games were usually over by the end of turn 4. Although the last two times we have played, with all the summoning, we both have a few units left by the end. Does anyone play straight up deathmatch anymore or should we be playing objective? If deathmatch is a thing how are Victory Points added up?(do summoned units count etc.)

Thanks in advance!
 
Objectives and battleplans are 90% of the fun in my opinion. I can't win a single match in straight up "deathmatch", but with objectives you can win even if you only have 1 unit left and killed nothing (so to speak). It makes for more interesting decision-making.
 
AoS is very well balanced for a game of its scope. However, most of that balancing occurs via the Battleplans.
 
Audvin said:
Objectives and battleplans are 90% of the fun in my opinion. I can't win a single match in straight up "deathmatch", but with objectives you can win even if you only have 1 unit left and killed nothing (so to speak). It makes for more interesting decision-making.
Click to expand...

Hmm I was wondering what was with all these battleplans, makes sense considering how many there is. I can see the teleporting being very interesting in objective games as well haha. Thanks for the reply!
 
LizardWizard said:
AoS is very well balanced for a game of its scope. However, most of that balancing occurs via the Battleplans.
Click to expand...

Are you saying some armies are overall weaker than others and get balance via the special rules in battleplans? If so that's good to know..
 
Yep. Seraphon, Beast of Chaos, Skaven (in all their varieties), and few others are weaker than most armies in terms of kill power. Those armies are generally stronger at the objective game, however. Then you have armies like Beastclaw Raiders and Gutbusters who are very strong at killing, but rather weak at Battleplans.
 
LizardWizard said:
Yep. Seraphon, Beast of Chaos, Skaven (in all their varieties), and few others are weaker than most armies in terms of kill power. Those armies are generally stronger at the objective game, however. Then you have armies like Beastclaw Raiders and Gutbusters who are very strong at killing, but rather weak at Battleplans.
Click to expand...

Ahhh okay I was gonna say I watched a battle report of seraphon vs beastclaw raiders and it was a massacre, lizard parts everywhere. They were just doing a simple hold two objective game, one objective in each players deployment zone.
 
If that was Steve from MwM game he made a massive misplay by not better screening with skinks. He even talks about it in the vault discussion. It was also first edition.
 
I can respect that, but the game is strictly better with the addition of Battleplans. It is the main thing that AoS has over some of the older fantasy versions. Not that open battlefields of slaughter weren't awesome. Also, named heroes (with a few exceptions) were super over powered in WHFB. Which kinda sucked because it meant you couldn't really play them ever.
 
LizardWizard said:
If that was Steve from MwM game he made a massive misplay by not better screening with skinks. He even talks about it in the vault discussion. It was also first edition.
Click to expand...

I believe it was Mountain Miniature's Gaming, but funny you should mention a failed skink screen because this one had a very similar occurrence. Terrible screen with the skinks, then the beastclaw player got a double turn and it was over. And while were on it, I will say that is my least favourite thing about AOS, is the double turn.
 
LizardWizard said:
I can respect that, but the game is strictly better with the addition of Battleplans. It is the main thing that AoS has over some of the older fantasy versions. Not that open battlefields of slaughter weren't awesome. Also, named heroes (with a few exceptions) were super over powered in WHFB. Which kinda sucked because it meant you couldn't really play them ever.
Click to expand...

True, I remember having to have almost a 2500 point army just to field kroq-gar
 
Tiderox said:
And while were on it, I will say that is my least favourite thing about AOS, is the double turn.
Click to expand...

At the start of AoS I felt the same. Now I probably wouldn't play in touraments if random turn sequence were not a feature. 40k and its lack of balance between going first vs second is the reason I no longer play 40k at events. It takes some time to get use to the type of planning required for the turn roll off, but I have grown to find it very rewarding.
 
LizardWizard said:
At the start of AoS I felt the same. Now I probably wouldn't play in touraments if random turn sequence were not a feature. 40k and its lack of balance between going first vs second is the reason I no longer play 40k at events. It takes some time to get use to the type of planning required for the turn roll off, but I have grown to find it very rewarding.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I will have to try and plan for the double turn like you said. I do however really enjoy the combat and how you alternate choosing who fights. Kinda seemed strange at first but added a level of strategy to the normal back and forth.
 
Tiderox said:
As someone who used to run strictly heavy hitting armies with Kroq-gar as my general, this makes me sad
Click to expand...

Well, we're not weak as we can certainly deliver some good punch (especially with units as rippers stegadon, oldblood on carno), but mobility and flexibility ( boosted by teleports and summoning) are out best tools.
 
Well, we are 'weak' in a classical clash maybe.
Our battlelines are only worth in big hordes, and our monsters and leaders are usually sub-par if compared to analogous units from more recent factions.
But summoning, mobility, teleporting, razordons and alpha striking (Shadowstrike) make Seraphon very competitive.
Not sure if top tier (hello DoK hello Nagash), because I'm not that into the meta and maybe they require some skills for all the buff/synergy on one side and summoning/zoning/screening management on the other
 
Killer Angel said:
Well, we're not weak as we can certainly deliver some good punch (especially with units as rippers stegadon, oldblood on carno), but mobility and flexibility ( boosted by teleports and summoning) are out best tools.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, in the couple games I’ve played I have enjoyed the variety in tactics with all the mobility we have. Just figuring out summoning now, love using the engine with a slann
 
GuaDan said:
Well, we are 'weak' in a classical clash maybe.
Our battlelines are only worth in big hordes, and our monsters and leaders are usually sub-par if compared to analogous units from more recent factions.
But summoning, mobility, teleporting, razordons and alpha striking (Shadowstrike) make Seraphon very competitive.
Not sure if top tier (hello DoK hello Nagash), because I'm not that into the meta and maybe they require some skills for all the buff/synergy on one side and summoning/zoning/screening management on the other
Click to expand...

I haven’t used teleporting yet,
Killer Angel said:
If you're interested, here's a tutorial on summoning ;)
Click to expand...

Thank you! I’ll check it out for sure
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top