Hi guys,
For anyone curious about the game mechanics. Here is a write-up on the game mechanics from the main Author, Thane Morgan:
***********************
I'll address one thing right off though – there are almost no similarities in the mechanics between AOA and WHFB. Intentionally. They are both games where each figure is its own entity, organized into units that can typically be formed up into blocks. Morale is 2d6 based. Thats about it. The last vestiges of similarity were removed with the last edition many years ago, when the cumbersome WHFB'ish artillery-going-through-ranks mechanic changed to a much faster and intuitive die-roll-for-multiple-hits mechanic.
I was a WHFB player for 5th edition (and to get it out of the way – yeah, I really think WHFB sucks as a strategy game, but I don't hold that against WHFB players.) AoA was specifically designed to not be like WHFB, but still let me play the models in a game of that scope. It turned out I made something that played a lot better by a vast majorityof opinions who had played both games (like 90% favorable over WHFB), so I created Thane's Games as a hobby business while still a chemist in real life.
Most of the people who've fallen into that 10% over the years prefered the WHFB because of the flavor text. That's not anything I can do anything about – it was left intentionally generic because I like the players to come up with their own backgrounds if they want to – its a lot more entertaining to me.
Here is what is different:
Turn sequence – designed to be more simultaneous, with phases each player completes before the next phase begins. Most combat is resolved simultaneously, unless there is a reason for it not to (long weapons, slow weapons, fast weapons, etc). Morale comes at the end of the turn, after everything is resolved, so everything gets a chance to fight or otherwise be useful before running away (I saw way too many WHFB games end from the "morale cascade" effect, where whole sides fell apart without ever even getting to act once.)
Games don't end after X turns. Games end when a player has been beaten by the terms of the scenario – either by loss of army numbers and morale or loss of objectives.
Movement – units are a lot more flexible in AoA. anything can be in Rank and File or skirmish if they want to be, with penalties for movement for RAF and penalties for morale for skirmish. RaF units still move more freely than WHFB, though, as they can march obliquely. There is no double moving. Cavalry is roughly 3X faster than infantry, depending on how heavy it is. Infantry typically move 4" – 7", cavalry typically move 12" – 18".
Combat – typically resolved on two die rolls, instead of three. There is no skill cross-referencing, as each creature comes with its skill which might be reduced by the opponents having an evasion skill. It is a low rolling game instead of high, which means you don't have to invert the skill to come up with what you need to hit – if your skill is 3, you need a 3 or less to hit (unless the opponent is evasive or there is another modifier, which there are preciously few off). One side rolls to hit, the defending side rolls for armor (modified by the attackers strength with simple addition/subtraction). Its all d6 based, there are not a bunch of modifiers and its a lot simpler to resolve that way.
Both sides figure out who is attacking who in a combat and resolve the attacks as if they were simultaneous. There is no charge bonus, and no intiative consideration, because it was silly to think that the two sides moving towards each other weren't acting simultaneously, or that every member of a unit got its attacks off before any memberof the other unit could respond. There are exceptional troops with the first strike ability that do get the ability to hit that way, but they pay for it, and those attacks occur simultaneously with other first strike attacks.
Morale – 2d6 just worked the best. I tried a lot of alternatives early on, but they were all more cumbersome. However, the resolution is still very differnt. Units only take morale tests if something significant happened, not just for being engaged. Loss of a character, being below half strength, losing a quarter models in one turn, being outflanked by a heavier unit (based on wounds remaining in the unit), being skirmished against a heavier RaF unit, etc. Morale is modified by the numbers of models in the engaged units, not ranks, and skirmished units get only half the bonus vs. RaF units.
So 5 guys hitting a 30 man unit in the flank cannot break them unless they cause a lot of casualties (they would need to cause 8 to force a test on a 30 man unit, so better have at least 2 attacks each). A dragon landing nearby but otherwise not attacking won't break units – its assumed that living in a fantasy world, armies are trained to see dragons a lot, and have probably even seen a bunch killed.
In addition, it is quite possible for both units to decide they don't like what just happened to them, and both break.
Failing morale sends the units running at the start of the next turn. They can be cut down, but only take one wound per attack a pursuing unit could make, so a couple of guys aren't killing 20 running guys if they catch them. Units can rally the next turn if they don't take any wounds and no active enemies are within 6". Otherwise they keep running towards the board edge. Learning to manage fleeing units is a big part of strategy for the game.
Magic – 8 schools plus a generic one. Each wizard choses one school, and has access to the generics as well. Each wizard gets one point of magic per turn – level 1 spells cost 1 point, levle 3 spells cost 3 points. Spell level indicates the power of the effects. If you want to cast the big spells, you have to wait several turns. Power can be used to counter spells as well, with an opposed die roll + power spent.
This takes out a lot of the randomness that (IMO) plagues WHFB's magic system (in any incarnation). Some WHFB games the magic is overwhelming, some its insignificant, but its always undependable and hard to strategize around, whether by card or dice. AoA magic is part of the strategy – you know the power spells can't hit until turn 3, you know what teh opponent is generally capable of from turn to turn, and you can't just hope he rolls bad trying to cast.
Spell casting is an expensive ability, so wizards need to be kept alive for many turns to get their value back. They are investments in points, and can effectively be strategized against, even if you have no wizards or far few wizards.
Army composition – I left this very open and flexible. 60% of the points must be spent on "regular" troops, 40% can be spent on "elite" troops and heros and monsters. You can do what you want from there. Elite troops are based on being either 50 or more points each on a regular base, or 100 or more on a larger base. This recognizes the value of concentrated power – for instance delivering 3 attacks each on the same frontage other units only get to deliver 1 attack each is obviously a huge advantage. You have tremendous flexibility to change up the way your army fights from battle to battle this way. Each army typically has has 10 -20 or troop options, and 3-6 hero options, and can pick up most any monsters as mercenaries. The themes in ech army for armor, move, strength and skill are very intutive, and after a few games people almost never have to look at their lists any more.
The point system – I know there are some very strong opinions about the values of these. AoA has a very good one. No, its not perfect, but it is very hard to get a significant advantage out of troop selection. The goal was that any equally pointed army could have at least a 40% expectation of wining a game, and that is typically true. There can be bad match ups between types of armies – a light infantry oriented army running into an archer oriented army is probably doomed. But even that can be countered by good use of magic, or having flyers or missile immune elementals. In general, an army with variety can fight any other army sucessfully and consistently, while an imbalanced army can get an advantage over another imbalanced army, but is vulnerable to other types of imbalanced armies.
The way AoA works with troop stats and turn sequence and simultaneous combat allows the point system to work. It was not based on numbers "pulled out of my ass", it was based on statistics in a game that allows statistics to be effectively used as a base. It was tweaked from that base.
There is no way a point system can work in WHFB, that is true – the game mechanics don't allow it. Units can destroy without any risk to themselves. The 3 dice combat resolution coupled with the double combat table (skill vs. skill, strength vs. toughness), plus the funky way armor works now, creates exponential curves in offense and defense between units. It is very easy to get to "nigh invulnerable" against basic troops in WHFB, it is extremely hard to get there in AoA; and those AoA troops are super expensive, AND still vulnerable to being overwhelmed in the morale phase by masses of cheap enemies. I remember playing my treemen in 5th edition WHFB – they were essentially a cheap way to take a basic enemy unit out of the game entirely, as they took a wound maybe 1% of attacks from basic troops.
OK, that is probably enough for now. I hope that explains a lot of what is different and why, and why I think it makes AoA a "better game" than WHFB. I know its not for everyone, and there are players who really do love the min/maxing aspect of WHFB and don't see a problem with games that are often decided before either player moves – it is good that WHFB exists to make those players happy. There is nothing wrong with enjoying that kind of game. I like games where there is a lot of strategy during play, OR games with a lot of min/maxing that don't take long to play so you can min/max again. The time investment for miniature games is too big for me to enjoy watching an army break on the first turn or seeing that the opponent's characters are essentially invulnerable and invincible to what I happened to bring.
builds a pond for his campaign.
