Types of units in AoS (part 1)

In this first part of the post I'm going to focus on the most common types of units that exist in AoS. The purpose of this post is to serve as a reference for later linking to how to create a list that works well on the tabletop. I want to emphasize that I'm not an expert and that in this guide you will find only my experiences and opinions, which don't have to be representative or useful for other players.

Let's start by defining the roles of the different units that we can find:

Shield Units (also called Wounds Bags)

Shield units must have lots of wounds to absorb damage or have a good save. In AoS a 6+ save is considered a bad save, 5+ is considered a normal save, 4+ is considered a good save, and 3+ or better is considered an excellent save profile. In terms of a wound bag unit, it needs to have at least 30 or more wounds. 

It is essential that every list includes several shield units, and it is great if that unit is also your battleline, because even if they don't do a lot of damage, they are usually cheap. They can be the first line of defense for your army and one of their main tasks is to stand inside an objective waiting for enemy units to attack them. If your enemy is attacking them instead of attacking your heroes or your sword units (see below), your shield unit has fullfilled its function.

Let's see an example of one of the best shield units that I know:

The Chainrasp Horde is a Battleline unit, you can play them in units of 40 models, can be resurrected and they always have a minimum of 5+ save characteristic. Perfect!

Sword Units

Sword units are normally units that can deal a lot of damage even though they don't save much and are expensive. It is essential to carry at least one on your list, but I don't recommend abusing them since they usually die during the course of battle. 

A good sword unit should destroy shield units, and if you have the opportunity, kill the opponent's sword units or their characters. However, my experience tells me that most of the time shield units survive the attacks of a sword unit (even if it is with few miniatures). For this reason, I recommend playing the sword units in defensive mode rather than driving them crazy in the vanguard of your army. It seems a very good idea to run forward as fast as possible to engage them in combat and deal damage, but what I recommend to do is never carry a sword unit alone across the tabletop, but always have it behind a shield unit by placing the sword unit in second line. There are two reasons for this; the first that in this way your sword unit will recieve less damage during your opponent turns (the ranges in AoS are usually limited, while a sword can always move and then try a charge for free) and the second, that you will protect the objective that your shield unit is holding, having the opportunity to do a counter charge.

Example of a desirable situation: your shield unit is protecting an objective and the opponent charges your shield unit with a sword unit. The shield unit will do its job and will try to hold out, and if you have the next turn, you will charge from the second line with your sword unit that has been waiting its moment and will pulverize its sword, hopefully having managed to hold the objective the previous turn and secure it during this turn.

I'm not going to put any example of a sword unit because you know them well, they are the public's favorites!

Hammer Units:

Hammer units are those that have decent stats in both attack and defense, and therefore gain combats in an attrition mode. They are usually expensive, but they are perfect for killing swords. They are surely the best type of unit since they are versatile and their performance improves as the game progresses, but since they are expensive, shields can better fulfill, for example, the task of staying behind while guarding an objective. Their most obvious weaknesses are that they can get stuck in a combat with a shield being unable to kill the target from the opponent and that they are weak against behemoths. Among its pros it can be noted that they are usually independent units and that you can allow yourself to activate them during the combat phase in second place, giving priority to your sword.

One of my favorite hammer unit are the phoenix guard:

Behemoths and Monsters:

Monsters are specialists in inflicting multiple wounds. They are good at killing characters, shield units, hammer units or other monsters. Their problem is that they normally die quickly, they are expensive and except in a scenario they are not very useful in taking objectives. I do not recommend them unless they are a very important part of your strategy or you want to play lots of them, and yet you have to count on that they are very random units. My experience tells me that they are expendable and that in most cases it is better to invest the points in other units.

Fast Units:

When I made my first AoS lists I thought: "how bad are cavalry and flying units, they barely hit and do not save much". Error. Fast units are essential to take objectives, help in a timely moment in a combat, cover flanks and make screens to your characters or the sword units. You should always try to carry at least one.

For example Terradon Riders have an extremely high movement characteristic and they can fly. They can be a good allied unit if your army doesn't have access to this kind of units.

Characters:

From my point of view, the characters seems the most important part of AoS, but they are also the most deceptive. They are very good because they give a lot of bonuses and allow you to sharp your list with combos; but they have several problems: they are expensive, targetable, difficult to play because you have to protect them all the time (they can be left behind easily). 

Another thing that I've been realizing as I play games is that since normally the objectives are usually quite separate, many times you end up dividing your army, so in reality, by not playing in a bubble, the bonuses that the character gives in area lose efficiency. On the other hand, I always recommend bringing at least one magician, not so much because their ability to disperse enemy spells, but because of the mystical shield (one of my favorite spells). 

In summary: the characters are cool, but don't spend lots of points in them and assume that many times they will die quickly. Most of the time it's not worth basing your entire roster on a combo with a specific character because if your rival knows your plan, its easy for them to avoid it.

Expensive characters:

Characters that cost 400 points or more have unique skills that may be impressive, but you have to take care, because AoS is a game based on taking objectives, and your character cannot be in two places at the same time, so you will lose mobility, and you will have few units in your roster. 

I consider these to be the most basic types of AoS units because all units can be identified in some of these categories. In the second part I will analyze more specialized types of units!

The double turn is your friend

 Age of Sigmar shares many similarities in its gameplay with other Warhammer games, but there is one mechanic that makes it unique and differentiates it from its grimdark brother. Yes, today we are going to talk about the controversial “double turn”.

Anyone who has ever played AoS knows what I'm talking about: the double turn is a situation that occurs frequently in AoS games, because since the initiative roll is random (opposite roll between both players) it often happens that a player has the opportunity to play two consecutive turns, so he can play for example two movement phases in a row without his opponent having had the opportunity to move his models.

In this post I'm going to explain why, in my opinion, the double turn is essential for Age of Sigmar to be one of the best game systems that GW has created. I'm a great defender of this mechanic, and I've argued a thousand times with the detractors of the game who always use the double turn as justification of why they don't like Age of Sigmar as much as other wargames. I often end up finding that most haters of this mechanic suffered it once against them and, from that moment on, the frustration that it caused them has made them leave the game or criticize it without having given it a second chance. Let's face it, AoS is not an easy game to play, it holds a tactical challenge.

I think you know when an AoS fan has become an experienced player the moment they stop seeing the double turn situation as an enemy, and begin to see it as an opportunity that takes them towards victory. Playing AoS competitively means having the possibility and the threat of double turn in mind at all times, since an experienced player will radically play a game depending on whether he has the possibility of double turn for or against.

We've all been newbies (I'm not an exception), and I've learned a lot teaching Age of Sigmar to other players who were just starting to play. What is the most typical comment that I come across, especially in tournaments? 

Indeed: "My rival has had a double turn and destroyed me." 

To which I always answer: “And have you learned something from the experience? Could you have played better? "

I'm surprised when many players, instead of answer that perhaps they could have approached the game from a different perspective, answer that it was all a matter of luck. Well, here is the first myth that I want to demystify: it is true that luck influences, after all it is a dice game, but the reality is that in wargames strategy is more important than luck!

I insist that I'm not saying that the dice rolls do not influence the games or that there are no unfavorable pairings, I am saying that in the vast majority of times that a game ends on turn 2 it is because you have bet for the wrong horse. In other words, instead of dominating the game and taking the initiative of the action and getting what you are interested in playing, you have played with fire and it has not turned out well.

During a game there are two main forms of play: if you have the possibility of the double turn you must play in a dominant way, while if you have the double turn against you, you have to play reactively.

Yeah, I know, this seems a sex role play. Let me explain what I'm talking about.

What I mean by dominant is to position your units in an agressive way to have better tabletop control. The objective is to find a balance between not being left behind and not risking completely your units

Why?

Well, because the reactive player, if he can decide the double turn, he can give it to you if he sees that he is able to hold it and then he becomes the dominant one.

In resume, the dominant player tries to get the decisive turns played when he has the double turn in favor, while the reactive player has to try to make few things happen at the tabletop until he becomes dominant, either because he gives away to his opponent the double turn at a time that is not excessively favorable for him, or because the opponent makes the wrong decision (forced by your strategy) to play the double turn at an inappropriate time. Playing as a dominant is difficult because you have to be able to calculate the risks and wait for the opportunity, while the difficulty of playing as a reactive lies in being able to make yourself aware that you are playing the comeback and that you have to try to get your opponent to make bad decisions (for example putting baits on it).

Be that as it may, the player who wins the initiative roll is the one who has the weight of the decision; and as for example the decision of choosing which player to start the game, making the wrong decision can spell the end. Therefore, the chance of winning the initiative roll is not what is truly relevant in this game, if not to play according to the situation and know how to wait for your moment. If you play for all or nothing then be aware that there is a good chance that all goes wrong! Ultimately, what is truly important are the decisions that both players make.

All of this leads me to a situation that I see very often by newbies players:

"My opponent has had a double turn, so I have given up."

No! We all get discouraged when we see how at a stroke we lose many units, but you must continue the game while there is any option left, since if your opponent has just had a double turn it means that now it is you who has the option to have it! 

Those who know me already know it, but I've played lots of games in which after a double turn at the beginning everything gets difficult and it seems the end of the world, but I continued playing and the game has arrived until the 5th turn deciding if I win or lose in few details. If I had surrendered to the first change I would never have played such epic games, and I assure you that those are the best, and no other wargame has given me that kind of heroic comeback.

Another point in favor of the double turn mechanic, and that I think many players value, is that it offers the possibility that two players can play the same game many times and each time the game ends differently, adding a very important replay factor. In the competitive environment, this means that a seemingly worse roster can beat one that looks better if played properly and you decide to take a chance and it turns out well; which is essential so that we can see that the same factions do not always win; and that although there are some lists or battletomes a little more broken than others you always have the possibility of winning even if you start with a slight disadvantage.

Finally, I want to make it clear that it's not a perfect system. I am a great defender of the double turn, but as I see it, it has two bad things: the first is that it generates discontent, because nobody likes the feeling that they can annihilate you, and many people do not resist these bad experiences and leave the game a few games before acclimatizing to the double turn. The second, and surely the worst part of the double turn, is that although it tactically opens up a universe of possibilities, it's very boring when you have to spend an hour watching your opponent play while you are doing nothing.

In summary, learning to play double turn situations is difficult, and it's something that is only achieved with a lot of experience based not only on playing games, but on later analyzing what happened and being critical about how you could have done better. My idea when writing this text is to demystify that the double turn is an aberration that makes AoS a bad competitive game, and at the same time offer my vision as an experienced wargame player to raise awareness that the double turn is not only a fun mechanic, but directly I find it a wonderful tactic in the world of wargames.

Check Age of Sigmar Tactics if you want to learn more about how to optimise for the double turn.