AOS IGYG Mechanics

[kaaras]

So, talking with some friends when we were playing AoS a while back, one of the things they felt was lacking in AoS was the amount of time spent inactive in a game, as a passenger rolling a few saves but not really interacting too much, until the combat phase really, and depending how that went even that interaction was minimal. As such, we started discussing ways that both players would be active through all phases, with the opportunity to try to counter what was happening as it happened, well, as close as practically possible. For example; an opponent moves up his archers to be in range of your linchpin model (ok tactical blunder on your part, but now an opportunity...). At this point, you could choose to move said model out of range, into cover, or take some other action to try to keep them alive. Sounds reasonable. However, to keep the game flowing, that model now cannot move in your turn. Now, this may be fine and you gain an advantage or at least keep your game plan intact, or do you sacrifice that phase for that model to keep it alive? If it can tank some wounds, ace, then it is free to move next turn. 

Another example: I now move my chaos knights up to threaten those pesky archers (my linchpin ran and hid, so he is no use to me now). As my opponent moved in their turn, they don't have the option to counter my move with that unit. ******. However, if another unit near the archers stayed static during their turn, they could try to position them to take the charge of my nasty knights or even better, move them close enough to allow them the chance to pile in in the combat phase... 

I think there are other examples (the unbinding thing is one where there is a slightly increased level of interaction) but I wonder if the rules could be tweaked to allow a much more interactive version and more room for action, counter action and counter counter action.

Or I am insane...

[Turragor]

37 minutes ago, kaaras said:

So, talking with some friends when we were playing AoS a while back, one of the things they felt was lacking in AoS was the amount of time spent inactive in a game, as a passenger rolling a few saves but not really interacting too much, until the combat phase really, and depending how that went even that interaction was minimal. As such, we started discussing ways that both players would be active through all phases, with the opportunity to try to counter what was happening as it happened, well, as close as practically possible. For example; an opponent moves up his archers to be in range of your linchpin model (ok tactical blunder on your part, but now an opportunity...). At this point, you could choose to move said model out of range, into cover, or take some other action to try to keep them alive. Sounds reasonable. However, to keep the game flowing, that model now cannot move in your turn. Now, this may be fine and you gain an advantage or at least keep your game plan intact, or do you sacrifice that phase for that model to keep it alive? If it can tank some wounds, ace, then it is free to move next turn. 

Another example: I now move my chaos knights up to threaten those pesky archers (my linchpin ran and hid, so he is no use to me now). As my opponent moved in their turn, they don't have the option to counter my move with that unit. ******. However, if another unit near the archers stayed static during their turn, they could try to position them to take the charge of my nasty knights or even better, move them close enough to allow them the chance to pile in in the combat phase... 

I think there are other examples (the unbinding thing is one where there is a slightly increased level of interaction) but I wonder if the rules could be tweaked to allow a much more interactive version and more room for action, counter action and counter counter action.

Or I am insane...

It'd be more dynamic and would boil down to 'activations' like Shadespire (and other similar games). Spend an activation point, complete an action.

Quite the rework required, probably a complete rebuild from ground up (including points I imagine).

It's something quite interesting to try to create and balance with a friend group for an alternative to open play.

Things to think about include things like:

• Can a unit/model be activated twice? Can the 2nd activation be the same action again? Hail of arrows or spells before a marching army reaches the front line (similar thing to what we have now).
• Do you get 4, 6 or 8 activation points? One for each unit might have people running small units but of course, each of their activations is weaker (or is it? See next point).
• It'd mean units of a very large size are favoured. Except weaker units versus elite: IE if I activate 30 vulkite berserkers is that better than 2 Fulminators?
• Is it a points activation then? I activate 400 points, then you. Does that mean some models in a unit can activate but other models in the same unit can't? Seems hard to balance.

[Killax]

I dislike IGYG systems for armies with the AoS/40k/WarmaHordes model quantity because it thakes up more time and games because of it can last hours.

The system works well for skirmish level games but even there it isnt mandatory. Shadespire, Malifaux are great with it, Necromunda could have done without it. In my experience the moment it consistantly goes over 10 unit/models to move the IGYG system doesnt add fun to the game, it just becomes so tactical that every unit spread is a hassle.

What could be a fun thake on this system for AoS would be a roll of per phase who starts it, as opposed to the double turn.

[Turragor]

28 minutes ago, Killax said:

What could be a fun thake on this system for AoS would be a roll of per phase who starts it, as opposed to the double turn.

The double phase. Much less impactful. Quite interesting perhaps.

Worth a test play (I mean, not by me, I've so little game time in life!)

[Killax]

3 minutes ago, Turragor said:

The double phase. Much less impactful. Quite interesting perhaps.

Worth a test play (I mean, not by me, I've so little game time in life!)

Yeah it's nothing too drastic or required but does create an additional tactical depth that might be wished for the moment shooting attacks are more limited. In addition it also brings placement, movement and board positioning even more forward as the absolute most important game aspect. This is what I feel AoS should be about if it wants to continue to set itself apart from 40k. 
Having said that, an aspect I would like to see is charging units having some kind of bonus over non-charging units. At the same time this could implement overwatch-style bonusses to units with Ranged attacks.

In any case though, a full IGYG for units in AoS wouldn't be my prefered choice. The inactive time is actually longer in IGYG games but it's less noticable because the time is split up amongst units. Personally though I do not see waiting time as a disadvantage because it allows the inactive player to consider his strategy for the next phase/turn.  In addition there is an additional advantage obtained when your units out-drop your opponent. As much as I dislike the one drop aspect of Battalions I also dislike an aspect that gives you an advantage because you have more units/numbers. 

[BobbyB]

41 minutes ago, Killax said:

I dislike IGYG systems for armies with the AoS/40k/WarmaHordes model quantity because it thakes up more time and games because of it can last hours.

The system works well for skirmish level games but even there it isnt mandatory. Shadespire, Malifaux are great with it, Necromunda could have done without it. In my experience the moment it consistantly goes over 10 unit/models to move the IGYG system doesnt add fun to the game, it just becomes so tactical that every unit spread is a hassle.

What could be a fun thake on this system for AoS would be a roll of per phase who starts it, as opposed to the double turn.

I actually played a game of AoS against myself on the day it came out and thought this was how the rules played, it was quite good!

[Killax]

8 minutes ago, BobbyB said:

I actually played a game of AoS against myself on the day it came out and thought this was how the rules played, it was quite good!

As a IGYG or as a roll off per phase?

I tested the latter once and didn't dislike it, I'll say as much. Largely because the flow of battle is less predictable and while aspects of the double turn remain it isn't as game swinging. I liked this aspect quite a lot because it then doesn't really matter which army you play.

In the example of a IGYG system applied to AoS' current rules I'd say shooting units (cheap ones, like Skinks especially) would obtain a massive advantage as they can be activated first, have the threat range and thus can bait out an opponent really well. 

One of the reasons why Shadespire ideally doesn't have too many ranged attacks and Malifaux/Necromunda actually requires a ton of terrain comes also from this fact that in typical IGYG systems those with the longest threat ranges are the best. I play Guild in Malifaux and every time we would go light on buildings key models would be removed before my opponent could even begin to start his engine if he decided to blank on ranged units. Offcourse part of this also comes from points but activating a unit which can't be reached by the opponent simply put comes at no disadvantage, or in other words has the massive advantage of activating first without issues. 

I can immagne the IGYG rule being a fantastic boost to Horde armies offcourse. Especially Skryre would love it, bringing numbers and ranged units.

[RuneBrush]

Guess it's each to their own.  I think I'm in the same boat as @Killax in that I'm not sure it's really necessary.  On the surface it does sound really good, but I think it would lengthen the overall game time.  I spend any points of inactivity thinking about what to do next, being forced to "think on my feet" wouldn't enhance my game experience, more make me feel that I'm under pressure - I'd certainly "uhm and aah" about things a lot more.  I also reckon any inactive periods would feel twice as long - there are quite a few armies that aren't very active in one phase (magic, shooting being prime examples).

I'd say that from the games I've played the biggest points where I'm twiddling my thumbs is the movement phase.  Normally if my opponent has lots of models (or worse models on movement trays/sticks that hinder more than help) the movement phase could take twenty minutes.  But I feel that's down to the the experience of the gamer and what you're playing on - it's a lot easier to move units on a gaming mat instead of a textured board.

[Killax]

Yeah the moment phase even comes down to if players are using movement trays or not. Something I still need to invest in because most of the time the hassle starts by having the models in a unit shape I want. This is even further stressed when it would focus on a IGYG system where placement simply said is absolutely essential.

In the case of Shadespire the games also thake quite an ammount of time. The prime reason why more models are not ****** an advantage there is because model activations are capped at 4. I wouldn't want to cap activations in Age of Sigmar because it restricts army construction in that way. For example if you had the option to construct Warbands in Shadespire I would be quite certain everybody would try and focus to 4 models for the 4 activations. 

There are many ideas that could work but I do know that a turn would thake much longer in AoS with a IGYG system as it does now. Simply because being able to move forward like a wall means there are less flaws in your stratagey. In my experience with IGYG systems there is more often a downside to moving towards your opponent, because the activated unit presents itself as a sacrifical target...

Note that I'm not saying the system in itself is bad, I just don't think it's as easily adopted to army games. I also played The Other Side from Malifaux which experiments with IGYG in army forms but in order to make it work there units come with their own movement trays which act as their base so ultimately your still moving the same ammount of pieces as Malifaux but it's upscaled.
At the same time the tactical dimension of area denial like it excists in AoS does not really excist there. Again I feel this is what makes AoS currently quite unique. I'm also very happy 40K incorporated that concept too.

[BobbyB]

13 minutes ago, Killax said:

As a IGYG or as a roll off per phase?

I tested the latter once and didn't dislike it, I'll say as much. Largely because the flow of battle is less predictable and while aspects of the double turn remain it isn't as game swinging. I liked this aspect quite a lot because it then doesn't really matter which army you play.

In the example of a IGYG system applied to AoS' current rules I'd say shooting units (cheap ones, like Skinks especially) would obtain a massive advantage as they can be activated first, have the threat range and thus can bait out an opponent really well. 

One of the reasons why Shadespire ideally doesn't have too many ranged attacks and Malifaux/Necromunda actually requires a ton of terrain comes also from this fact that in typical IGYG systems those with the longest threat ranges are the best. I play Guild in Malifaux and every time we would go light on buildings key models would be removed before my opponent could even begin to start his engine if he decided to blank on ranged units. Offcourse part of this also comes from points but activating a unit which can't be reached by the opponent simply put comes at no disadvantage, or in other words has the massive advantage of activating first without issues. 

I can immagne the IGYG rule being a fantastic boost to Horde armies offcourse. Especially Skryre would love it, bringing numbers and ranged units.

sorry quote didn't work, I meant rolling off per phase

[Killax]

Just now, BobbyB said:

sorry quote didn't work, I meant rolling off per phase

Neat! Yeah I'm eager to test it out once again too. It's a bit more chaotical but at the same time I like it because it makes the game less predictable and focusses even more on the outcome of multiple dice rolls instead of one very important dice roll.

The cool thing remains that AoS is so simple yet effective in it's core rules that it's easy to experiment with them. @kaaras as such I'd say give the IGYG game a chance, but keep track of time versus a regular game  

[Arkanaut Admiral]

I feel like the IGYO system is a little dated, and there's a inherent inbalance in it too with the alpha strike.  It's a little depressing sometimes, watching your opponent get first turn or seizing the initiative and them then promptly destroying your force whilst you can only look on. 

I was working on something for 40k that could perhaps be adapted for AoS.  Something like this:

3 Phases.  Action, Combat and Morale.  Those are just placeholder names though.

In the action phase, the player who's turn it is picks one unit to perform an action.  This action would be moving, running or shooting, or both!  Then the other player does the same, and so on and so forth until everyone has acted.  Then in the combat phase, the player who's turn it is picks one unit within 3" of an enemy unit to pile in and attack with, then the other player...you get the idea.  Then in the morale phase, players take it in turns to take battleshock tests on their units.  Then...I don't know.  Still roll for the initiative?  Or just 40k style IGYG?

To speed things up, Hero abilities can be done when the hero is activated in addition to whatever else they do.  So a wizard could cast a spell, then move or run etc. after, then they're done.  I haven't actually tested this out though and it's really rough so please forgive any serious issues you may spot.  

[Ollie Grimwood]

I’d have a look at the rules for Space Marine  (either edition) it has a different turn sequence that works well for large scale battles, I find indivdual unit activation to be a bit longwinded for  big battles. 

[Arkanaut Admiral]

1 hour ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

I’d have a look at the rules for Space Marine  (either edition) it has a different turn sequence that works well for large scale battles, I find indivdual unit activation to be a bit longwinded for  big battles. 

Got a link for the rules?

[Ollie Grimwood]

10 minutes ago, Arkanaut Admiral said:

Got a link for the rules?

http://www.netepic.org/uploads/3/4/2/0/3420807/netepicgoldcorerules.pdf

this is an updated version but is pretty much the same.   I’m not suggesting using it as is but it does have concepts that could work 

[Arkanaut Admiral]

34 minutes ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

http://www.netepic.org/uploads/3/4/2/0/3420807/netepicgoldcorerules.pdf

this is an updated version but is pretty much the same.   I’m not suggesting using it as is but it does have concepts that could work 

Thanks for the link!

I’m reading through it now for ideas.

[Swooper]

One thing to note for the roll-per-phase version is that during one such turn, each unit is going to move once, shoot once, and fight once. During one turn in a regular game (both players), each unit will move once, shoot once and fight twice, because every unit fights in both players' combat phases. While I like the idea of moving away from the IGYG system, I think this particular version may lead to some imbalances because of this.

[Jamopower]

Splitting the army to contingents of few units that would activate one at a time, with a chance of double activation either by some sort of command system or by chance would be my preference. Being able to counter the opponents actions bit faster than after the whole army has done everything is a mechanism that I like very much. Also the army split in to detachments bring another layer on the army building. Works really well in e.g. Dropzone commander.

 

Also I would do it so that only moving, shooting and charging would be like this and then the combat phase would be as it is.

[Twitch of Izalith]

I think an easier option would be to just play smaller games.. I agree its a bit dull waiting around while someone moves 4 or more 30+ units - and rolls the associated bucketfulls of dice but it's not so bad that I would want to rewrite the entire game!

Unfortunately AoS has a number of incentives to take big units (scenario 20+ trumps, massive regiments discount, bonuses that trigger at 20+) but if you play at 1000 points you will probably only have 1 big unit as you still need multiple units to cover objectives - even on a 4' x 4'

It also brings in a load of new tactical and list building challenges so its worth playing different point sizes in any case. 

[kaaras]

Agree on the smaller games aspect @Twitch of Izalith. I prefer 1000 point games over the tournament standard 2000. One, it is faster, and two it certainly makes list building a bit more challenging, IMO of course. 

Clearly this was an academic discussion; however, I do think that the you do everything (ok, the combat phase is an improvement) then I do everything isn't necessarily that great either and is certainly dated. In war, you don't sit back waiting for your opponent, you move and counter and act and adapt to the tactical situation as it develops. Yes you have a plan, but no plan survives first contact with the enemy. 

Point taken though, with big units it maybe more painful to use alternating activation. Said friend also mentioned LotR for this system, but that is also generally small games as well with limited models (and generally he who rolls most 6s wins, but thats a different argument). Hmm, think it would be interesting to try. Thanks for all the comments.

Edit: Just had a thought - Infinity (ok, skirmish game and very complex...) does this really well in that you have an action and reaction phase, but it is still turn based and uses orders (activation like Shadespire), although maxes out at 3 turns as a 300 point game takes about 3 hours. Hmm, I will ponder some more. I think you could do it that way perhaps. A player nominates a charge, their opponent reacts with a pre-defined action, shoot, form up, whatever... hmm might make it way to complex. Infinity certainly is that if it is nothing else. Good game but very complex.

[Jamopower]

Simple solution would be to have hero phases for each player first in an iniative order, then follow that up with the movement, shooting and charging in unit by unit (or detachment by detachment) faction and then have the combat as it is now in the iniative order. I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work. The points might need some eyeballing and it might be better to start with smaller battles though.

I don't see the advantages so much on the decrease of the down time for each player, but the alternating mechanism brings up different kind of tactical challenges as you have to  plan each move bit more carefully, when the opponent can counter them before the next unit can move. It's bit more like chess or checkers.

Don't know if the end result would be absolutely better, but altering the activation system (the third one would be the alternating iniative for each phase) can give you sort of separate games with the same miniatures without any extra investment, which can be fun.

Still one additional thought. Both systems have their perks and fans so I don't think neither of them is absolutely better, but I do think that in a game that heavily features effective long range shooting (which I don't think applies so much to regular AoS match, but applies very well for 40k) the classic warhammer system just doesn't work and breaks the game. You can get so big advantage on the first shooting phase that the opponent can just not retaliate and thus the game changes into revolving around that first turn shooting, making a lot of units that doesn't have abilities helping in that obsolete.

Thinking a bit further, clear winners in the alternating system are cheap chaff and harrasment units that can block the opponent's moves either by charging them before their activation, or by standing in front and retreating if the opponent charges. In a sense, that would be nice mechanic, with a hint of realism, and it would make many useless units better, but on the other hand it could also lead to quite frustrating games and could break the game as well. Thus some sort of limit to units and activations would be beneficial. Easy solution could be adding an army composition requirement, that the army must be split to detachments with each hero leading 1-4 or 2-5 units, which then would be activated simultaneously. It wouldn't removr the edge of the fast cavalry totally, but it would allow countermoves of several units to possibly block their ways of retreat.