Talk:Age of Sigmar/Tactics

From 1d4chan
Jump to: navigation, search

Version 1.1[edit]

Since we have all the grand alliance books and we are starting to have battletomes, I think it's time to create true tactics pages divided into the new forces. Since the basic rules didn't change, i will call this version "Edition 1.1". --Alfredoill (talk) 09:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

AoS will have a point system so, now this will REALLY makes sense! --151.64.22.112 15:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Version 1.2, 1.3 and even 1.4[edit]

Given how Battletomes have been upgraded since the last year, I think we should start to changing names based on the structure of each Battletome.

Every B before the Sylvaneth's should be 1.1, then from Sylvaneth's to Beastclaw Raider's should be 1.2 (added Abilities, Powers and Artifacts), and then DoT and second SE should be 1.3 (now with matched points). Kharadron Overlord's could even be 1.3.5 or 1.4, given that now it includes a small painting and modelling guide.

--CMLR(talk) 14:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Organization[edit]

Since there's not really any limitation on taking models, maybe Age of Sigmar should simply have one long page of tactics that is collapsible in each area, or group each in one of the four categories. Afterall, some of those "armies" have only a single model that comes in a few different versions and going by 8e standards there's only one single army that is thematically very diverse. The rules are also so simple I don't imagine Sigmarines ever having much need for description. Fuck, discussing 8e named characters took up more space in 8e than the entire army now. --Thannak (talk) 06:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking 4 pages, one for each grand alliance, would be better. Either that or organize the pages by the race/faction? i.e. one for dwarfs, one for free-peoples/good humans, etc. That way it's not a single massivley unweildy page. --Brennonjw (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

General´s Handbook, pts and...[edit]

I think most everything needs to be rewritten to reflect the unit's points costs. I don't really get the point of a tactics page for non-pitched battles as tactics can be summed into "get as many monsters and spellcasters as possible and avoid small things". It's not possible to value things in all possible systems so this page's sub-pages should focus on the points costs given for units in the generals handbook since that is the official way to play the game.

The tactics pages should focus on whether or not the units are worth their points cost when compared to other things in your faction, alliance and the game as a whole, not whether or not the article writer thinks they are cool or ...

I would definitely like to see these articles move to a position from pure entertainment with no informational value whatsoever to something that might actually be used.

Instead of grouping things together, I also believe things should be kept seperate so it is clear what you are talking about. Seraphon Skinks for example have an option to either wield meteoric javalins or boltspitters, I want to know which I should take in which scenario. I also want to know what each unit is good against and what it is weak against. Noting what kind of damage a unit is weak against and what kind of role it has would be key and it should probably be put in a box to make it easy to read and find.

Power level Primary Role Secondary Role Weakness
Insane, good, balanced, bad, horrible Dealing rending/mortal/normal wounds, supporting, spellcasting, summoning Dealing rending/mortal/normal wounds, supporting, spellcasting, summoning Rending wounds/mortal wounds/normal wounds or maybe fast units, ranged units...

Any other text should maybe tell how to use the unit and/or how not to use and maybe why it's good or bad compared to other units rather than just stating obvious facts like "this unit does D3 mortal wounds, which is cool. Is it worth its points good or is it not worth its points good. Calcuating how much damage a model does per point spent and at what range would also be nice:

Skinks Boltspitter and moonstoone club Damage is listed per full game turn, meaning one of your turns and one of your enemy's turns.

Damage is listed as per point spent on the model dealing the damage.

Damage at >16" Damage at >16" (Celestial Cohort 20+) Damage at >16" (Celestial Cohort 30+) Damage at >1" Damage at >1" (Celestial Cohort 20+) Damage at >1" (Celestial Cohort 30+) Durability against rend 0-1 Durability against rend 2+ or mortal wounds
0,0139 wounds w/o rend/pt 0,0208 wounds w/o rend/pt 0,0278 wounds w/o rend/pt 0,0694 wounds w/o rend/pt 0,0764 wounds w/o rend/pt 0,0834 wounds w/o rend/pt 0,15 wounds/pt 0,125 wounds/pt

Saurus Warriors Celestite club, powerful jaws and stardrake shield Damage is listed per full game turn, meaning one of your turns and one of your enemy's turns.

Damage is listed as per point spent on the model dealing the damage.

Damage at >1" Damage at >1" (Ordered Cohort 20-29) Damage at >1" (Ordered Cohort 30+) Durability against rend 0-1 Durability against rend 2+ or mortal wounds
0,10 wounds w/o rend/pt 0,1389 wounds w/o rend/pt 0,2278 wounds w/o rend/pt 0,15 wounds/pt 0,10 wounds/pt

We quickly learn from this that Skinks, while in WHFB was far inferior to Saurus in terms of defensive abilities, are now just as good per pt invested and even better against wounds with rend 2 or higher and mortal wounds.

Is it too mathy and boring? I feel like the current version of the pages are useless, while somewhat entertaining, I don't see any reason to read any more of them after reading one. Angry Pirate (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Khorne and Tzeentch[edit]

Since now there are pages for the Blades of Khorne and the Disciples of Tzeentch, wouldn't be better to remove the Daemons of Khorne, Daemons of Tzeentch and Khorne Bloodbound pages?

No. ^