" Armies of Arcana 5th Edition Comparison" Topic

I used to play the 1998 second printing of the rules. There were many things I initially liked about them, but after playing them a few times I, and others in my group, noticed a major flaw in the archery rules.
Specifically, in our case, goblin or orc armies going up against High Elf Longbowmen. Units would be shot to pieces before ever having a chance to close and all the Elf player had to do was roll average.
There was a series of email exchanges between one of the members of our group and Thane Morgan, who just wouldn't or couldn't see there was a problem. We abandoned the rules shortly thereafter.
Was this ever addressed in later editions or the current 5th edition?

No. This is the same as before.

The idea is, that technically you are able to build armies in a way to be effective against shooty hordes. (Flyers, missile-immune units etc.)

AoA suffers from the same thing as WHFB: You have certain match-ups that do not work. The point system would probably work if used under tournament conditions, where you would have to try to be effective against all comers. If you can adjust your army, strange things happen, that severely damage the balance of the game.

We loved the older edition at first as well. We found that 2 wound point fighters (ie, Orcs) would wipe the floor with most others with only 1 since the cost in points no way reflected their greatly increased fighting power. The 'magic' left a bad taste as well. Fire was great, but the rest far less so. Have these been fixed in the (I gather) new edition? I loved the AoA concept and all here so much wanted to make it work.

Bill are you talking about the latest edition Thane released? There were several things that were changed from the red cover edition to Thane's (and the newest) release.

Thanks,

John

John, my AoA had a female fighter on the front cover. Lots of colour plates of minis. Well layed out. Loved it. But two guys had Orcs, and were pretty much unstopable. The value for a 2 hit figure was not in line with cost, though if the above post is true, archery may be the way to go. Given time, I'm sure that and the uneven magic schools could be fixed with house rules. I thought the original post concerned a newer edition with perhaps all this fixed.
My mistake.

Bill, that's the newest vesrion from the UK. Thane's were all black and white books.

hwarang,
Thanks for the information.

I can see by the different posts, that other issues remain as well including points cost versus abilities.

Not sure how much things have changed since 2nd ed since I only started with 4th. From the sounds of it the things you don't like are still there. I'm one of the people involved with developing AoA now that Thane's not actively doing it anymore.

Right now I'm going through the CCF and doing a statistical analysis checking out the points costs compared to the theoretical combat results. It's slow, dull work at times but I feel it's necessary if we want to improve the balance in game. I've done some looking into the costs of missile attacks but have barely scratched the surface. Multiple wounds is on the list of things yet to do. I'm writing up a report of what I'm finding and any suggestions I come up with that I'll be posting over at the AoA forum and sending to the other stakeholders to check out. I want to go through the magic system with some other people as well and see if we can improve it.

I wouldn't mind seeing a list of various things you didn't like about the rules. I may not agree with everyone's complaints about the game but I do seriously check them out for myself. It's always good to hear different opinions. Hard to say if any of my work will make it's way into any future editions but if not I'll still use it for myself and present it as an alternative for others to try.

The things you don't like, continue to exist in present (5th) edition.

The answer to a "shooty" army may be to field an undead army: pretty much ALL their troops are "missile immune", and your "shooty elven player" will learn a hard lesson if you field this army and he-she fields his-hers usual row after row of archers.

But that's not the point.

The ideal game is one where everyone has a fair chance of winning, provided the tactics are correct, and luck does not turn his back badly on your dice rolls.

The ARMIES OF ARCANA point system is a BIG STEP in the right direction, but has some major flaws that make certain armies much better than others.

Several wounds, morale, movement, regeneration, element sensitive/immune and shooting (including missile immune) just to name a few things that come to my mind, need to be recalculated to proprely reflect their tabletop efectiveness.

BUT, even with all of that, I still think this is A MUCH BETTER system that the "other famous fantasy massed battles game, made by the evil empire".

I'm waiting to see the MANTIC GAMES rules, those may (or may not) provide another better way to play massed battles.

Hope that helps.

Best wishes.

The answer to a "shooty" army may be to field an undead army: pretty much ALL their troops are "missile immune", and your "shooty elven player" will learn a hard lesson if you field this army and he-she fields his-hers usual row after row of archers.

In my experience, not. Point is, you dont play tournaments and your opponent knows what he will be up against. Especially undead do not work in such games. If your opponent knows you will be playing undead, he will NOT bring any shooters. The undead are then doomed, as they are just waaay too expensive (because missile immune is powerful, expensive AND useless against armies that field no shooters). If any player fields a large quantity of shooters (does not even need to be excessive) against undead, he will then lose, as shooters also are too expensive to not work the way they are supposed to.

The point system might work much better if both players have multiple armies to choose from and do not communicate about what armies will be used in the game, thus creating a tournament like setting.

BUT: AoA armies are freakin huge. About double or triple what Warhammer armies are. I dont know many people who have multiple armies that big.

The ideal game is one where everyone has a fair chance of winning, provided the tactics are correct, and luck does not turn his back badly on your dice rolls.

Totally agree, but AoA needs good communication to work that way.

Dont get me wrong: It probabyl is better *than* Warhammer.

Missile immune has long been one of my pet peeves in AoA, especially when applied to the entire undead army. You've summed up my thoughts on it already, Hwarang. It's one thing that will likely change in the future as the concensus is that it doesn't work as is.

I don't see that AoA armies need to be freakin huge. It handles big games pretty well but it still works without having 2-3 times more minis on the table. At 4,000 points, which is a decent size, my units went from 16-20 minis for Warhammer to 21-25 for AoA. Given that you can use the plastic historical minis or other non GW minis to make armies it can work out cheaper than buying a typical Warhammer army.

I agree with Magokiron about AoA being a big step in the right direction. It may have it's flaws but it's the best massed fantasy game I've tried. It's also adaptable which means I can work out the worst of the flaws for my own play.

The point is that you really need big units, at least if your opponent fields those. That means you have to build armies for AoA, as those built for Warhammer often will not work.

Most things are cheaper than GW minis, but you also have to paint it. Plus: Most people that would be potentially interested in AoA come from Warhammer. Them being unable to use their armies is a big problem.

Possibly this is going to change with the new edition of WH, which also seems to call for giant units.

I'm confused by the last post. WHFB folks can readily use their armies with AoA. If you can't field 4000 points or more then play at 2500. Your opponent is limited to the same number of points so I don't see the issue. Want to eventually fight larger battles? Buy more figs.

I have about 6+ 28mm armies for AoA. I need to finish painting some things to field all of them. Just finished up some Terradons and a Stegadon last night.

Thanks,

John

The biggest problem I've seen when switching from Warhammer to AoA is that the army lists don't match exactly between the games. You may have to proxy things if you want to use the official AoA lists. Myself and others have done work on adapting lists to fit people's ideas of how Warhammer armies should work and so they had stats for all their minis. The total army size wasn't such a big deal for us although players will need to adjust things according to the AoA values. 2,000-2,500 points of Warhammer minis will make a playable AoA army. I don't know many Warhammer players that had less than that for the armies they used regularly.

Hi, if you are the gent who designed the WHFB Lizardman army for AoA (the fan created one) then I'm in your debt. I have used that list for my own Lizardman army. Very cool. I'm jumping back into AoA after tinkering with 4th edition. I own Thane's last edition and have been using it since no PDF is available for the new version.

Thanks,

John

I'm confused by the last post. WHFB folks can readily use their armies with AoA. If you can't field 4000 points or more then play at 2500. Your opponent is limited to the same number of points so I don't see the issue. Want to eventually fight larger battles? Buy more figs.

If both players are limited to a WHFB sized army, then yes. Playing with an army meant for WHFB against an army built for AoA does not work that well. Big units really are much more important in AoA then in WHFB, being about 50% larger quite often.
The issue: Its not about the points but about the size of unit that work with each game. Cavalry is the obvious example: Units of 6 heavy cavalry minis work in WHFB, they do not in AoA.

As for buying more minis: That means needing a source for them (getting oldish minis can be expensive and cumbersome), needing the money to do that and the willingness to spend it on those minis, and the willingnes to then paint those (in a styple matching what you already have. Not necxessarily that simple eiter.) It would be nice if AoA had an option to play well with 2k WHFB armies (maybe about 60 to 100 models?)

The reasoning that AoA is a better set than WHFB doesn't sell me one bit as AoA has some serious flaws that have not, evidently, been addressed in three more editions since I purchased mine. At least one can find many more players for a WHFB game. (Yes, I know it doesn't reward tactics and all I need to do is roll lucky with handfuls of dice!) I suppose I can wait for Mantic Games to release Kings of War and give it a try.

I guess I can't see buying the 5th edition of AoA just to have to revise whole sections to make it playable. Sorry!

Hwarang, I see your point but don't see why you can't use smaller armies in lower points battles to play with your older Warhammer minis. 3,000 point AoA games work good and a rough guide is that AoA points are about double Warhammer's. I agree that if you try using small units against normal AoA sized units in larger games you could have troubles. But in smaller games it's not always worth it to take 1 or 2 huge units.

Cyrus, I'm sorry you feel that way about AoA. I don't agree that some of your points are game breakers but that's just me. We all have to find the game we like. We are working on AoA to try and balance it as much as possible. Maybe the next edition will be more to your liking but it doesn't look like this one would be worth it for you.

AoA is a better game due to the design system, addition of historical armies for players and a complete absence of the dreaded 'Codex escalation' that infects EVERY edition of WHFB. Bottom line is I'll take AoA with its warts over WHFB and its ongoing and well documented issues any day.

I agree with what John Leahy. Plus not having to memorize a hundred or so rather complicated special rules helps.

Zinkala: I cant get deeper into that arguments, as my memories are a bit blurry. If I ever get the chance I will try a few 2000 or 3000 point games that way and think about it again. Chances are that you are right – you have more experience for sure.

I too am rather keen on seeing what Mantic has come up with.

More rules are always a good thing. I'll likely try out Mantics rules as well. I've never seen the point of trying to force someone to play something they don't like. Opinions vary and what's good for some of us may not be your thing.

Zinkala,
I would always be interested in any progress that a future edition might bring especially if you post your progress here on TMP.

AoA is a better game due to the design system, addition of historical armies for players and a complete absence of the dreaded 'Codex escalation' that infects EVERY edition of WHFB. Bottom line is I'll take AoA with its warts over WHFB and its ongoing and well documented issues any day.

Every bit of your statement is true John, but it breaks down when it comes to finding players.

Hi. I guess that depends on each persons situation. My buddies and I (including my oldest son) have long looked for a 28mm Fantasy set. We looked very hard at AD&D Battlesystem 2nd edition. There is much to like. But it has no real points system. The verdict is still out. I toyerd with AoA with 4th edition. The timing wasn't right. Now the guys are interested. So, painting is ongoing and games will commence. We shall see.

Thanks,

John

Every bit of your statement is true John, but it breaks down when it comes to finding players.

With that argument, its no use of doing any discussion.
Go and play WHFB then.

With that argument, its no use of doing any discussion.

Sure there is. An improved edition of AoA would've enabled me to get the old group interested again. They've gone on to WHFB, Mordheim or completely mothballed their armies. There is another group that only plays WHFB and I can't, in good conscience, pitch a set of rules that I find has too many flaws and that would be abused.

Go and play WHFB then.

I can hold out and see if Kings of War will fill the bill!

The problems AoA has are far less than the problems wHFB has. If it is about choosing the better rules set (from a "mature gamers view"): AoA. If it is about choosing the more popular rules: No surprise there.

But I too have hopes up for Mantics game.

The rules didn't work for us that well at 2,000 points although Thane did make up an adaptation for small battles. I have them but never played them. 3,000 points works good if you focus on the troops and don't take really powerful monsters or other expensive models.

I just checked out the Mantic rules. It uses the WHFB mechanics. Since Alessio is with them I'm not surprised. I am disappointed. If I wanted to play WHFB then I would. Mantic missed the boat IMO.

Thanks,

John

If it is about choosing the better rules set (from a "mature gamers view"): AoA. If it is about choosing the more popular rules: No surprise there.

I envy your luxury of choice. For me, it's about playing a game. I'm not one of those who is content to paint miniatures just to look at them.

But then, why do you ask?

But then, why do you ask?

Well, I had hoped that in three more editions some of the bugs had been worked out in AoA, but apparently not. It looks like there is little more to say on the topic.

Ok.. I did not mean to sound too sour anyway, just did not really "get it".

It probably is helpful to think of everything from 4th edition onwards as reprints of the game. Changes are minimal.