Ulthuan

For those of you not familiar with HobbyKiller's blog I highly recommend taking a look at it. This latest article demonstrates some tactics that can be used both to maximize the efficiency of your tank units, and to protect your more vulnerable damage dealing units from taking too many casualties. All credit goes to the author, I'm just reposting it for those who may not have seen it.

https://hobbykiller.wordpress.com/2015/ ... ng-tanked/

I think it's really cute that sort of thing passes as "tactics" now.

Shannar, Sealord wrote:I think it's really cute that sort of thing passes as "tactics" now.

And 8th was any better?

If anything, simplified rules allow for more creative tactics instead of less.

In fact, this article prompted me to go back and review the charge rule in AoS. What I found was that I was letting my old 8th Edition notions around how to charge "limiting" my tactical thinking in this phase.

So far I'm finding the AoS rules to be far more complex then I thought would be possible being only 4 pages long.

Honestly yes. This sort of free form anything goes makes each decision less important and it can be patched over by something silly. The importance of the movement phase has been replaced by gymnastics with unit shapes.

Shannar, Sealord wrote:I think it's really cute that sort of thing passes as "tactics" now.

Read my mind

To be fair, the tactics of 8th edition went out the window with deathstars, unkillable lords, and spells that won the game on turn two. Why care if you get outmaneuvered when your unit mathematically can't die?

While the units no longer move in solid blocks, positioning is very important in combat as illustrated by the article. Due to the 3 inch rule, and the fact that units must pile in towards the nearest enemy model, setting up optimal combats will make or break battles. The importance of movement is still there, it's just done in the combat phase now, on a model by model basis, rather than unit by unit in the movement phase.

8th also had a simplified movement phase that I didn't care for, so that much is true. They just finished taking it in the wrong direction is all. If people enjoy the game that's great. I played with it a little. It's not 100% bad, but there are to many superior games of the same sort out there.

It just kills me that stuff like that is given the label of "tactics". It was already a stretch most of the time it got used in WFB, this just takes it a bridge to far.

I'm going to concur with Shannar.

With AoS it really is how can I move my models within this amorphous blob of a unit to most disadvantage the opponent. At least with 8th, or fixed units size/formation, units couldn't change shape on the fly. AoS tends to be more about charging space instead of a fixed unit which doesn't really make much sense to me.

Any system where a unit charges another, but a portion of the unit isn't in combat with its intended target just seems asinine. Same with an unintended target being pinned and having a portion of the pinned unit's models standing around twiddling their thumbs seems wrong.

On the one hand, I would not be so quick as to dismiss that what this article shows is tactics - it most definitely is "tactics", as it is a strategic approach to playing a game within it's rules in order to create an advantageous position.

There is definately thinking involved, and perhaps even more so than with the 8th edition ruleset.

In AoS, tactics as shown in the article, they remind me more of oldstyle, non-war boardgames, which revolve around the notion that it's not so much about making yourself win, but not letting your opponent win, by blocking his movement/expansion space. Think about games like I-go foremostly, or Carcassonne, or even Settlers of Catan

Now, it feels very "wrong" because it's very non-wargame-y. That, I agree with. Leading me to believe that AoS is not necesarily a bad game with no tactics or thought behind it, but however it is not a very fun wargame and a poor replacement of WFB.

Shannar, Sealord wrote:I think it's really cute that sort of thing passes as "tactics" now.

Tactics aren't measured on a metric of good and bad, or of complexity vs simplicity, but rather by effectiveness. A mad rush to the center of a battlefield is no less tactical than the use of reconnaissance, flanking forces and supply lines, as long as it is effective. Most real world use of tactics in combat, whether single person or armed forces, is the combination of very simple acts at the appropriate time in the appropriate place. There is very little complexity to the operations of most of histories best armies and best single combatants, from Musashi to G.S.P., from the Mongol army to the German Wehrmacht; just the appropriate simple action at the appropriate time. That's tactics.

What you're really talking about is the stakes behind the tactics. If you make the inappropriate move at the inappropriate time, what are the stakes of that? There, I agree that from what I've played of AoS it seems that the stakes behind the tactics are reduced but that's not a slight on the tactics.

I'm not sure I agree with that idea. If you use that broad a definition of tactics then tactics is basically anything you do on a battlefield (real or imagined). Making the definition that broad also makes it useless. If everything you do falls under tactics you have no way of differentiating between simply moving forward and hoping for the best and actually doing something tactical.

As for the tactics of some of the worlds best armies being simple, creating something simple is a lot harder then making something complex. If it was easy to use simple tactics then everyone would do it. Coming up with a simple tactic and executing it to perfection is very hard. These tactics only seem easy and logical in hindsight.

There is a reason why, throughout history the most common 'tactic' has been have more guys then your opponent and better weapons and charge at each other. It was used by the Egyptians, in medieval times, during the colonial conquests of the America's and still used by the US in Iraq. Only in a few cases have actual tactics been used, and when they have, the results are usually so overwhelming we still read about them, as with the german Wehrmacht, Napoleon, Alexander the great etc.

To me, the idea given in the blog feels a bit gimmicky. It hasn't much to do with 'real' battlefield tactics. And what is definitely missing is how to actually get to the situation where you can achieve these kind of charges. Which is the tricky bit and the actual tactics part.

Rod

Prince of Spires wrote:I'm not sure I agree with that idea. If you use that broad a definition of tactics then tactics is basically anything you do on a battlefield (real or imagined). Making the definition that broad also makes it useless. If everything you do falls under tactics you have no way of differentiating between simply moving forward and hoping for the best and actually doing something tactical.

The definition of tactics is any planned action whereby you bring a consequence into action, so yeah pretty much anything you do that is planned on the battlefield is tactics.

That's why you have the tactics, operations, strategies pyramid to achieve goals. Tactics are the lowest level method of achieving that; a planned action. As I said, that is why you measure tactics on a metric of effectiveness; something that is perfectly crafted and 'brilliant' that fails is less tactical than a planned bum rush that succeeds. Broadly speaking.

Prince of Spires wrote:As for the tactics of some of the worlds best armies being simple, creating something simple is a lot harder then making something complex. If it was easy to use simple tactics then everyone would do it. Coming up with a simple tactic and executing it to perfection is very hard. These tactics only seem easy and logical in hindsight.

I agree, I wasn't speaking to the difficulty of shaping tactics, merely pointing out the level of simplicity in what is very common and successful historical usage.

Prince of Spires wrote:There is a reason why, throughout history the most common 'tactic' has been have more guys then your opponent and better weapons and charge at each other. It was used by the Egyptians, in medieval times, during the colonial conquests of the America's and still used by the US in Iraq. Only in a few cases have actual tactics been used, and when they have, the results are usually so overwhelming we still read about them, as with the german Wehrmacht, Napoleon, Alexander the great etc.

Having more people at a battle kind of straddles the operations/tactics line because of the level of forethought and the possible follow up moves, but at it's simpler levels, yes having more guys on the field is a great battlefield tactic. I don't think a general in history would turn their noses up at that.

Tactics aren't a holy grail, or some ridiculously high level thing, they are used in some form in pretty much every kind of battle engagement, are for the most part very simple in isolation and shouldn't be seen as anything other than a planned action, effective or not.

The generals people still study; Fabius Maximus, Tsubodai and Genghis Khan, Oda Nobunaga and Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Rommel and McArthur, these guys are more than masters of tactics, they are masters of operations and strategies, how planned successive battles and campaigns achieve the positive outcome of the goal.

But you are right in that originality is a rare thing, even on the battlefield; off the top of my head I can only think of like three generals who really made inventive and original use of tactics regularly.

Shannar, Sealord wrote:I think it's really cute that sort of thing passes as "tactics" now.

My opinion:
I actually think AOS has more tacics than 8th as 8th seemed to me all about getting the best army list as possible rather than actual in game tactics.

I do honestly think AOS is better than 8th.

laurie1 wrote:

Shannar, Sealord wrote:I think it's really cute that sort of thing passes as "tactics" now.

My opinion:
I actually think AOS has more tacics than 8th as 8th seemed to me all about getting the best army list as possible rather than actual in game tactics.

I do honestly think AOS is better than 8th.

I'll say it again, then you weren't playing to have fun. You could just as easily decide AoS is about putting the best units on the table.