Who goes first rework discussion

[Whorable]

I'm sure that this has been talked about before, apologies if there's some stale thread kicking around somewhere about it, haha.

There's been a few rumors (certainly nothing concrete) about a rework of how it is decided who gets to choose to go first in GHB 2018.  The change would essentially be that a roll-off decides this as opposed to drop count.  Now before you guffaw, think about the current meta.  There's the "have" armies.  These armies have the ability to go one or two drop, get all the benefits beyond this (artefacts/extra rules from battalion) and ARE NOT limited very much by having to take odd combos of troops they wouldn't normally take.  You'll notice these armies rising to the top of the tournament scene like curdled cream.    Below them, but still in decent position are the armies that aren't battalion heavy but can either keep their drop count low by their inherent rules or just have enough stopping power to knock the other team off of objectives (Skyfire lists for example).  Then there's the "have not" armies.  These armies have real potential if you were to look at strictly their rules/troop choices but when putting together a list you either have to suffer because you're paying way too much for battalions or you just give in to the assumption that you won't be able to pick and then are generally at a distinct disadvantage especially in the tournament scene.

My thoughts are that this just breeds non-creative garbage and cheese.  You don't see people straying off the path too far from the meta net lists and when you do it's often not climbing to the top (with a few notable exceptions).  For example, I was tinkering with the idea of making an Arcanite list (with other than JUST Skyfires) because I thought the models all look spectacular.  If I want to go one drop with this faction I can do two different things:

Profane cult - minimum 390 points and you have to have 2 units of at least 20 models of your Kairic Acolytes.  Nah.

Cult of Transient Form - minimum of 350 points.  A little better but DAMN, that's a Lord of Change and a unit of Blue Horrors still.

So then you say "Why don't you just build the list you want to build and forget about the drops?"  Sure, I'd absolutely love to piecemeal a list together and optimize my troop choices to what I'd likely face in the current meta IF it didn't mean I lose to Changehost, Murderhost or K.O. at the top of 1 in a good percentage of games.  The games aren't even fun or tactical.

Solution? 

Either battalions benefit for the extra Artifact and the benefit of the battalion itself (rend -1, +Bravery, etc) but do not get to drop as a formation OR make it a ROLL OFF for who gets to choose first turn.  Sure, less people will take battalions but maybe GW can offset this by making them reasonably priced again. 

 

Please feel free to weigh in!

[AlphaKennyThing]

You raise the same points that have been pointed out previously, which is not bad thing, but I shall summarise the general consensus:

If there's going to be a change in GHB18, it will be to have a roll off for turn 1, with a +1 to the roll of whoever deployed first. That said, the game isn't that broken with the things the way they are, it's just a bit of a pain in the ******.

[Whorable]

I wouldn't say they're "broken" I'd just say that it can be a limiting factor- that is to say if you want to have a competitive army at the tournament scene you're either going to have to bite the bullet and have multiple drops (which from what I've seen hasn't done very well) or stick to your cookie cutter list.  Not very creative and/or fun IMO.

I'll put it this way.  Imagine being able to sculpt your army without having to worry about getting shot off on turn 1.  Now there's a 50/50 chance of me taking first turn and that assurance that Tzeentch has of zoning you out isn't a given.  A game against a Murderhost could actually be fun if it wasn't just a fact that they get objective or charge first. 

[RuneBrush]

I think the new handbook could contain anything!  Last years really shook up the armies being played with the introduction of Horde discounts and huge hike in battalion prices.  I'm sure that GW will be looking for something that has as big an impact again so fully expect to see things appear that will completely mix things up.

[AlphaKennyThing]

3 hours ago, Whorable said:

I'll put it this way.  Imagine being able to sculpt your army without having to worry about getting shot off on turn 1.  Now there's a 50/50 chance of me taking first turn and that assurance that Tzeentch has of zoning you out isn't a given.  A game against a Murderhost could actually be fun if it wasn't just a fact that they get objective or charge first. 

I agree whole heartedly mate. The word I'd use is boring. It's just boring playing the same lists, knowing the tactics each time. It'd be cool to mix it up a bit, play something other than copy paste lists with some minor alterations.

I'm a huge fan of Legions of Nagash for this reason - there appears to be multiple viable lists.

[MOMUS]

I'd love for them to change this as it would reintroduce an element of tactics to the deployment phase. 40k does it well with the +1 bonus for finishing deploying first (like 8th wfb) but then with the ability to sieze the initiative.

[Killax]

I hope GH2018 will bring some bigger changes as GH2017 did. By large because I like how Hordes are promoted right now a lot, but effectively it didn't change the meta too much. What did was great Allegiance abilities really, basically a reason to play X over Grand Allegiances. 

Having said that there are basically just three things on my wishlist:
1. I hope the Shooting phase will incorporate a rule that allows small Heroes to be protected from incomming fire by friendly units closeby. What this allows for is that some Shooting units can go down in price or remain the same. So far the constant still is (since GH2016) that character sniping is such a massive boost to an army who can do it. I doubt it will happen however.

2. I hope that the Battalion/Starting rules will change a little bit. Basically  as mentioned above, it's not an issue to the game that one player effectively can always start first but I will say that it doesn't really add fun to the experience. Especially not for those who play army who currently don't have relevant Battalions. The Battalion sub-game AoS has is a bit silly and to be honest while everything could be fixed by Errata I think it's generally close to impossible to cost them correctly because the unit incorporation of Battalions is too flexible.

3. I'd love it if they'd introduced Stratagems to the GH2018 for players to get to know how much fun they add to the game. Then for 2nd Edition AoS I'd love it if Battalions where replaced by them. Ultimately it's the abilities of Battalions that are really cool but I believe you can also pre-set those abilities to unit inclusions and have a ton more army design flexability. 

The reason why I have these 3 points is because of 'who goes first' massively impacts the game.

- IF you have an army with a strong ranged game and you go first, it's most certainly a plus plus and a lot of the game's outcome can be decided turn 1. I'd say both Tzeentch and Seraphon can really show how incredibly potent such a combination is. Say goodbye to all your (support) characters.
- IF you have a Battalion who incorporates all the units you want you gain acces to a sub-game that really isn't too much fun...
- If we would include Stratagems even a re-roll to start is an option to use. Same with using two Artefacts and much more. I believe that the Stratagem system is superior to that of Battalions because it doesn't have anything to do with who's going to out-drop each other and actively allows for 'intervention' of snowballing. E.g. in 40K you swing first if you charged, except you can 'counter' that with a Stratagem who reverses that. I think a 'swing first' Stratagem for AoS could excist too.

[Redmanphill]

I doubt the current stock of battalions will change much. I do think we will start seeing the introduction of smaller cheaper battalions which won’t be able to contain an entire armies worth of models.

this would make the battalions viable and also would benefit a d6 roll to see who goes first rather than the current system.