Hypothetical on Battalions, Double Turns

[heywoah_twitch]

What if players could not affect who goes first in any way? It's a random dice roll, and number of drops is irrelevant. 

Battalions get to come back down in points (and the weaker ones get to possibly be chosen ever).

The double turn is finally free from manipulation, and reliably playing for it every single match is gone. It's at last the exciting random tides of war it was meant to be rather than the consistent shut-out to set up good odds for. 

Is this a good solution to a few big issues people have with AoS?  Are low drop armies now at a disadvantage?  What minutia am i missing as a new player? 

Thoughts? 

[RuneBrush]

I'd be cool with that but @Auticus is right in saying that overall the battalions needed to go up in points.  At the moment, the main thing the increase in points has seen is people fielding a single battalion rather than multiples which I actually think is a good thing.

[Killax]

I personally believe that the only step AoS can thake to further ascent beyond itself is to really redesign some of the core rules. The way Battalions are designed now and indeed very randomly costed to me gives an indication that, despite this narrative idea being very cool, it's very difficult (close to impossible) to translate into Matched Play. This is because for whatever reason Matched play continues to pile up restrictions that do not match well with quite some narrative design, thus also not Battalions. E.g. some Battalions imply unit X or Y is the "Battleline" for that narrative army/warband while Matched play doesn't allow for it. A solution here could be:
A. Remove Battleline rules altogether.
B. Bring a rule that any army can thake one Battalion per X points, make it free and design Battalions however you like (the competative community will figure out their "best", the narrative community will figure out what they love as a story).

What I don't really know is what big issues people would have with AoS at this point... Despite some unclearity about Factions and Allegiances differences I think the game has improved in a better balance and forming an reason to create bigger armies (due to the Massive Units advantages). 

- If the community and design team thinks they should remove the double turn, by all means, I feel they should remove it. To date I don't feel it adds much.
- I don't think low drop armies are at a disadvantage now, by large because both Massive units and Monsters have seen the most costs decreases. 
- What I do think AoS is missing for newer players is a clear path and set of content to follow. Age of Sigmar has a great concept in Open, Narrative and Matched play. I personally believe that each of this type of play should recieve their own bundles of content and not be mixed into one bag. GW is allready sort of starting this, I hope this indeed will continue. What is really cool is that the first tournaments of Narrative and Matched play are allready split up, I think this should continue. 

[heywoah_twitch]

Sure. My meaning was that they get to actually balance them on points rather than blanket raise them all by 100 because low drops are OP.

 

[yarrickson]

My favoured change is a simple one. Not to allow battalions to be dropped as a single entity. Bugs me that its not even a 'real' rule as its not in the 4 pages and not (that I can find) in GH2017. Its just in some of the battletomes. 

Just like, my opinion, man. 

[Trout]

1 hour ago, heywoah_twitch said:

What if players could not affect who goes first in any way? It's a random dice roll, and number of drops is irrelevant. 

Battalions get to come back down in points (and the weaker ones get to possibly be chosen ever).

The double turn is finally free from manipulation, and reliably playing for it every single match is gone. It's at last the exciting random tides of war it was meant to be rather than the consistent shut-out to set up good odds for. 

Is this a good solution to a few big issues people have with AoS?  Are low drop armies now at a disadvantage?  What minutia am i missing as a new player? 

Thoughts? 

I agree. But I don't really understand what the purpose of allowing you to choose to go first if you finished placing first is. Perhaps I'm missing something?

[yarrickson]

4 minutes ago, Trout said:

I agree. But I don't really understand what the purpose of allowing you to choose to go first if you finished placing first is. Perhaps I'm missing something?

In 4 page non matched play AOS it does make some sense. As it provides an incentive to stop deploying stuff before you've just put your whole collection on the table. Have to bear in mind that's where the ruleset began. 

[Trout]

1 minute ago, yarrickson said:

In 4 page non matched play AOS it does make some sense. As it provides an incentive to stop deploying stuff before you've just put your whole collection on the table. Have to bear in mind that's where the ruleset began. 

I see. So maybe it's a rule that should be done away with for matched play.

[Trout]

Heck, they don't even need to change the rule, they can just ensure all of the Matched Play battleplans include a dice roll to determine initiative in the "setup" section.

[TheOtherJosh]

So... the Double turn is actually an awesome tactical "toss-up" that can change a "I've got this Win" into a ... "Well ... that didn't quite work out"

Just because you can't tip the balance in your favor for the first "Double Turn" possibility, doesn't mean that you will get the second ... or keep your opponent from getting it.

Case and Point: 

We were playing a mission where the objective is to get the Warlord off the board. I needed a move of 4" more to get my general out of danger at the end of my opponents turn and the end of the battleround. 

With alternating activation, I would have won as the next turn would have been mine. 

We rolled for priority, tied and re-rolled. He won the priority and was able to position for a charge in and attack, killing the General within sight of safety.

It was an awesome mission and literally came down to that last roll for priority. (Even with using my 6s on Destiny Dice for run rolls...)

[Siegfried VII]

I for one hope that Battalions eventually go away and we get the stratagem/command point system of 40k. It is in my opinion the best new adition to the rules of 40k and makes for much more strategic and interesting games.

[Trout]

4 minutes ago, Siegfried VII said:

I for one hope that Battalions eventually go away and we get the stratagem/command point system of 40k. It is in my opinion the best new adition to the rules of 40k and makes for much more strategic and interesting games.

How do they work?

[Siegfried VII]

1 minute ago, Trout said:

How do they work?

Depending on how you build your army you get some command points. These points can be used once in each phase or even at the beginning of the game and can be used for re-rolls on hit/wound/save rolls and also grant special one use abilities to certain units. It is very fluffy and strategic.

[heywoah_twitch]

Like on-demand Triumph Table? I want it!

[Trout]

1 minute ago, Siegfried VII said:

Depending on how you build your army you get some command points. These points can be used once in each phase or even at the beginning of the game and can be used for re-rolls on hit/wound/save rolls and also grant special one use abilities to certain units. It is very fluffy and strategic.

How is that better than battalions granting abilities? Battalions seem more fluffy to me.

[heywoah_twitch]

1 minute ago, Trout said:

How is that better than battalions granting abilities? Battalions seem more fluffy to me.

Battalions are quite fluffy, but substantially not worth taking for my army. With command points I'd be able to actually use it!

[Siegfried VII]

4 minutes ago, Auticus said:

Funny you said that.  I'm implementing that very thing in Azyr Empires 2nd ed   I love them as well.  Especially when you get faction-specific strategems.

Yep, they are great. The only thing that worries me is the fact that the Space Marine codex had a ton of them which may slow down the game a bit as players search through almost a deck of cards to decide which to use...

[Siegfried VII]

3 minutes ago, Trout said:

How is that better than battalions granting abilities? Battalions seem more fluffy to me.

I believe it is more flexible to use. You can have multiple effects of abilities and you have to manage when to use them and with which units.

Fluffwise some Battalions are more thematic, but in terms of gameplay enjoyment the stratagem system is more fun. In my opinion at least.

[Tidings]

5 hours ago, TheOtherJosh said:

It was an awesome mission and literally came down to that last roll for priority. (Even with using my 6s on Destiny Dice for run rolls...)

My problems with the Double Turn demonstrated here. If the game is determined by a coin toss, what does that say about the strategic depth of it? Sure it's exciting but it's too powerful. To tie this to the battalions, the fact that they can just PLOP (puts whole army down "I GO SECOND" with any list that has a strong alpha strike and win IF they get the double turn is disappointing. It really reduces strategy and depth from what is otherwise an incredible game. I feel like battalions would be fine if the double turn didn't exist. 

[TheOtherJosh]

We're playing a game that is determined by random toss of polyhedral objects.

Everything is based on Chance.

Does one choose to go "all-in" and do the single drop? Those battalions are now much more expensive. And you're having to give up a bunch more than previous.

Random chance changes the baseline I go you go, I go ... to maybe something else.

How do you, as a general moving pieces across the board, react to changing tactical situations?

If I get the first double turn, you could immediately get a double turn in the next battle round...

If I win the initial roll, and we both have one-drop armies ... then it was based off of me choosing to do a one drop Army as well. 

If you choose to not use the "super battalion" or I choose to not use that "super battalion" then that was a tactical choice by us ... as Generals. Maybe I wanted a Jabberslythe (or two...) instead of that super battalion.

The meta has changed. And if certain kinds of one drop armies are still causing problems, I expect their points to change for the next GHB.

Does that one drop Army help me for scenarios where I need huge units to capture objectives? Don't know ... maybe spending points on more bodies would help instead.

All I know is that knowing that I could very well have won the game if I hadn't lost the dice roll makes me work all the harder in figuring out what to do tactically to solve the issue. Did I make the best deployment decisions? Perhaps not... should I have waited to do this ... was that unit a good one to charge... should I have multi-charged, or would I have been better off not charging at all and waited for the counter ... was the board edge I went for the best possible alternative? Should I have bubble wrapped the General differently? It wasn't just a die roll that determined the fate of my General. It was everything that culminated up to that moment in time in the game. Being able to have a plan to answer the "I need more space" or "I must have the double turn or must keep my opponent from getting a double turn" it is "What is my plan if I don't get X? Where X is I go first or second.... or I do or don't get a double turn or I do or don't get a specific roll success. What are my plans and backup plans and alternate plans... what is my "oh crud" strategy if my dice rolls are bad?

AoS is filled with both Chance and Strategy.

We can make our own fate. So, if you know you might get "Alpha-struck" what is your Army plan to handle it? If you don't have a plan ... then it didn't matter who goes first... 

I will say that the new changes make it a great time to be in the hobby. (Whether one is a fan of the double turn or not ...)

[Cerlin]

Double turns are game changing and just something I calculate for in my planning. Normally when I lose its because I planned for above average dice or placed badly. The double turn just adds to my previous mistakes.

Im not a huge fan of cheap battalions again because it heavily punishes armies with one or no battalions over the ones that got lots of loving from GW.

[TheOtherJosh]

42 minutes ago, Auticus said:

Its roulette-exciting.  Spinning the roulette wheel *is* exciting, but the general outcome is largely in the hands of where the spinner ends up as opposed to player agency.  

We're having a vote right now on if the next edition campaign I do removes double turn.  So far its 8-3 in favor of removing the double turn.  I'm hoping to pull some players back into the game and this is one of the things that they won't play because of a double turn existing.. so here's hoping.

It isn't "roulette-exciting" it is Poker-exciting.

Roulette is a game for folks that don't want to need a real strategy. Pick a random number or color and you takes your chances... There's no "strategy" no planning. 

If one has no strategy on how to handle the kinds of issues that commonly exist. Then I'm sure that it can feel like roulette.

Poker on the other hand, you have a dealt deck of cards that you as a player have no idea what you're going to get. Or what the others at the table have.

And then you have to come up with a solution from the randomly dealt situation and what you now have in your hand.

Removing the double turn takes a requirement to plan for eventualities, and makes it into a game of not requiring that tactical acumen. 

Are you going to be enforcing a random roll on who goes first as a deciding factor? Like 40k?

[heywoah_twitch]

Hoping this doesn't become another double turn vs alternate turns thread, so back on topic:

I think GW is pretty dug-in on keeping the double turn, but they've also proved concerned about players affecting the chances of getting one (like not allowing the die roll to be altered and upping the cost of battalions). So divorcing the number of army drops from choosing who goes first should I think be an elegant solution.

Maybe I'm too used to MtG, but for me it's crazy that many tournament reports read: "It was 5 rounds, and naturally I chose to go second in all 5 because I'm playing an army that can 1-drop - gotta set up that double turn." If I could choose to go first in all 12 rounds at upcoming grand prix louisville, I guarentee you I'd top 16 out of 2 thousand.

If you can 1-drop your army, even if you couldn't select who goes first, are you at a great enough disadvantage to warrant actually choosing who goes first? What sacrifice are they making up for? Your opponent gets to place his last few units at slightly different locations with the knowledge that your drops are done - that's a minor advantage imo.

[Mattbringssoda]

Sorry still new to the game - I've been over the rules and the generals handbook a couple times- where does it say a battalion can be dropped as one unit?

[AverageBoss]

47 minutes ago, Mattbringssoda said:

Sorry still new to the game - I've been over the rules and the generals handbook a couple times- where does it say a battalion can be dropped as one unit?

Its a rule found in battletomes.