AoS Unit size?

[Zadocfish]

I mentioned it in my army list, but...

What's up with only being able to field skinks and warriors in groups of 10?

 

[Seraphage]

What do you mean ? You can also put 20, 30, up to 4. Just 10 is the only number to increase the size !

 

[Crowsfoot]

The minimum unit size is 10 as they are classed as dispensible troops, guards are tougher hence they have a minimum unit size of 5.

 

[Zadocfish]

I know. That means that when you buy a box of 24 Skinks... you have 4 that just aren't useable without buying additional Skinks.

 

[scubrat]

You're not making much sense! But yeah, 24 skinks is an odd number, but means that GW can get you to buy another two packs before you benefit from those spare 4. Look at it this way, if you're buying them as battleline fillers then you're probably only going to need 20, if you want them as your main battleline unit then you need 3 boxes, buying 3 boxes gives you 72 skinks which is enough for 60 standard skinks which is all you'll probably need in a 2000pt list and 10 conversions to chameleon skinks and 2 that you could convert into skink heroes.

 

[Zadocfish]

I was going to go for 70 Skinks and 1 Skink hero... but, I've kinda reconsidered getting back in at all. Everyone IRL I talk to about AoS points out the rather extreme flaws with it... and yeah, it's turned me off like crazy. The whole "if your opponent is playing a new-unit army while you're playing a legacy army, you just lose" thing is bad, but the "tactics don't matter if the opponent gets 2 turns in a row because the turn order mechanics were made by a madman" thing is just a complete no-go.

 

[pendrake]

the "tactics don't matter if the opponent gets 2 turns in a row because the turn order mechanics were made by a madman" thing is just a complete no-go.

I missed that in the rules [??] ...explain more?

 

[scubrat]

I was going to go for 70 Skinks and 1 Skink hero... but, I've kinda reconsidered getting back in at all. Everyone IRL I talk to about AoS points out the rather extreme flaws with it... and yeah, it's turned me off like crazy. The whole "if your opponent is playing a new-unit army while you're playing a legacy army, you just lose" thing is bad, but the "tactics don't matter if the opponent gets 2 turns in a row because the turn order mechanics were made by a madman" thing is just a complete no-go.

I mean, I'd try playing it first if you can. Legacy armies have got a lot stronger since the update and the points seem on the whole more balanced, I mean my seraphon army hasn't been beaten since the update and I've played Kharadron Overlords (who I smashed to pieces) and they're the newest AoS army out there. Double turns are a little flawed, but if you play with the mind that your opponent might get a double turn you can play carefully an anticipate for the worst.

 

[Zadocfish]

I missed that in the rules [??] ...explain more?

At the start of every turn, both players roll to see who goes first.

If the person who went second on one turn goes first on the next, they have an advantage that is potentially game-ending, and the other player basically has to just sit there and get wiped unless they play around the stupid rule by handicapping themselves by playing defensively.

 

[Aginor]

At the start of every turn, both players roll to see who goes first.

If the person who went second on one turn goes first on the next, they have an advantage that is potentially game-ending, and the other player basically has to just sit there and get wiped unless they play around the stupid rule by handicapping themselves by playing defensively.

It isn't THAT bad. People who complain about it are usually players of 8th edition, which - judging by everyting I know about it - was just as broken, just in different ways.
I have won games in which my opponent got the double turn, actually I think I even won more games without it than with it since I am a notoriously bad initiative roller it seems.

And yes there are ways of both mitigating the potential disadvantages tactically and to use it for your advantage if you get it at the right time. You can choose to gamble for it but you can also choose not to. Playing with the potential double turn in mind is not easy but worth it.

So I'd really disagree with this:

unless they play around the stupid rule by handicapping themselves by playing defensively

because it isn't playing around the rule, it is playing with the rule.

Now, I know there are armies that are devastating when they get the double turn but it is the fault of the armies. Those are armies like SCE that can deal mortal wounds on a horrendous scale, giving the opponent no means of protecting them against that damage, or massive shooting armies. They profit from it more than others because they are broken, not the double turn.

That being said: It is no problem at all to not play with the double turn and there are quite some people who play without it. Just ask your opponents, I'd probably shrug and say "OK, why not".

 

[Zadocfish]

That actually helps me out a lot, thanks. Though, I don't know if it's a great idea to point out that the mechanic is only broken because some of the armies are utterly broken... that's still bad game design.

 

[Aginor]

That actually helps me out a lot, thanks. Though, I don't know if it's a great idea to point out that the mechanic is only broken because some of the armies are utterly broken... that's still bad game design.

Yeah as far as I heard GW has a different....- let's call it "design philosophy" - than I have. Reportedly there was never a balance in their games, they just buff some armies now and then when they add/change rules so relatively seen all armies are in some kind of sinus-shaped power curve. Almost every army has been really good or really bad in some edition.

That being said: The random factor is high enough that you can beat almost every army with every other army. And the balance has become A LOT better with the last two books. And I am not saying that because our army happened to be a beneficiary, I also looked at other ones.

 

[Zadocfish]

That's fair enough.

 

[Killer Angel]

You're not making much sense! But yeah, 24 skinks is an odd number, but means that GW can get you to buy another two packs before you benefit from those spare 4. Look at it this way, if you're buying them as battleline fillers then you're probably only going to need 20, if you want them as your main battleline unit then you need 3 boxes, buying 3 boxes gives you 72 skinks which is enough for 60 standard skinks which is all you'll probably need in a 2000pt list and 10 conversions to chameleon skinks and 2 that you could convert into skink heroes.

3 of those skinks can also be converted into Handlers.