The Big Community Survey 2019

[Qaz]

7 hours ago, Belper said:

No

Actually, play it all the time at my local and the local tournaments use it too.  I've had a game when I'm KO and had 6" missile range or played gavriel + evocators on 'Total Commitment' and was thankful for the teleport spell. Sure, it kinda sucks when the battlefield turns against you but if I play against a gunline and I have to cross an open field then I'm playing his game everytime. Realmscapes also mean that if you skew your list based on a single strategy, you are more susceptible to 'bad' battlefield conditions. 

The existence of realmscapes and realms just makes me invest on having more magic and diversify my units/strategy. Not perfect in any way so we houserule'd it that any player can dispute the first roll and force a second roll but must abide to that roll on the realmscape. If I were to change something (or run a tournament for example), I would pick D3 realmscape that are impactful but not crippling (not 6" range but 12" range etc).

I'm looking forward to what kind of actions GW will take based on this survey. 

 

[Tropical Ghost General]

5 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

Its a combination of standing around for two turns in a row doing nothing, combined with the outcome of the game being way heavily dependent on the dice turn to see who goes next.  That there is a lot of hate for it indicates something... its a controversial mechanic that is not super popular.

I've had plenty of games where I've lost every priority roll. Being 2nd every turn sucks in a game where so many armies can get effective turn 1 charges or shooting and I'm not on about an odd unit either. The reason I find 40k less balanced is the static turn system. If you have one army goes first and kills say 10%-15%. The second army has 85%-90% against an army that has 100%*of it's forces. It means constantly being at a disadvantage. I've rarely played a game of 40k where the player going 2nd has won. 

If you get rid of the turn priority roll, then you need to have a sufficient system in place to compensate the huge advantage of always going first. 40k has had to make some fairly significant changes to how missions are scored with the last CA18 and you don't even have to scratch that deep to find a large amount of players wanting an alternative to the current static turn system that they have in place. 

If a suitable replacement to the priority roll was presented it would have to compensate for so many elements that are currently in the game. GW never (very rarely) update warscrolls for recently released armies. So from Maggotkin onwards to Fyreslayers, all of the units in those books would need to get re-evaluated to see if they would work in a completely different structure to the game that their rules are currently designed for. 

Yes it can suck having 2 turns of standing around doing nothing but having to make unbinding rolls or making save rolls or moving endless spells but that's also just a part of table top gaming, it's called your opponent's turn. If you want to be playing a game where you aren't constantly stood around doing nothing then play a game like Infinity with alternating unit activations or if you want a game of static turns play 40k. 

[Dead Scribe]

Quote

If you want to be playing a game where you aren't constantly stood around doing nothing then play a game like Infinity with alternating unit activations or if you want a game of static turns play 40k. 

Or we can petition GW through their survey to remove it from AOS   Considering Infinity is a sci fi skirmish game and 40k is a sci fi game and AOS is neither of those things.

Edited April 19, 2019 by Dead Scribe

[Tropical Ghost General]

4 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

Or we can petition GW through their survey to remove it from AOS 

As I put in that last reply. The current system has warscrolls, battletomes, army drop count and other elements designed with the roll for turn priority. I'm hearing lots of calls for change but not hearing any solutions to fix the issues that will arise if it simply gets dropped. 

I'm all up for embracing change but provide me some some fixes to how all the elements of the game will adapt to dropping this turn priority roll, such as missions like Shifting Objectives, where going second is already an issue. Without providing solutions to fixing an issue you have with the game but merely stating that you don't like something isn't going to convince anyone who currently has no issue to with the turn priority system (such as myself 😊). 

[Dead Scribe]

That would belong in a thread about alternate ways to change the current turn structure.

The system will remain inferior to me while it is both unengaging (because you stand there for two turns in a row doing nothing but removing models) and while the game itself is heavily swung on a double turn.

If I have to choose between 40k static turns, which I have watched and observed, I would take that 1000x over what we have right now despite its flaws because I've read enough places that do AOS like this anyway without having a major issue.  I have also participated in some trial games where we did not use the double turn and just used static turns and I enjoyed it much better.

I wouldn't mind an alternating action either but there are many ways that route can go and that doesn't belong in this thread.

Convincing people that the current turn system is inferior is fruitless since its my opinion and I'm not really trying to convince you my opinion is better than your opinion.  However if enough people share my opinion (via the GW survey) then it would stand to reason that they take action on that as  enough people express a distaste in it that it needs changed.

Edited April 19, 2019 by Dead Scribe

[Tropical Ghost General]

@Dead Scribe I'd be up for changing the priority roll system if the current way how 1st turn is decided was also dropped. And if the magic system was also changed so that endless spells was also adapted to having fixed turns. And if scoring in missions wasn't decided as it currently is being done, as some missions are basically decided on who goes first and others on who goes second. Also if all armies got adapted to work with a fixed turn system. 

I'm not saying that the current system is perfect but it's not just a case of dropping turn priority roll and then all the problems are resolved because doing so would mean having to overhaul a lot of other elements to the game. 

[JPjr]

yeah attractive as alternating activations the more I've thought about it the more I've concluded that unless the game has been designed from the start with that in mind you're going to run up against all kinds of issues that you can't just for-see yet. I mean maybe it would work just fine but as there will be people actively looking for ways to break the game by using some weird combo inevitably it will turn into a mess.

they've headed towards it with Kill Team though so maybe Warcry will see a full AA mechanic, which then could bleed into the next version of the main game.

as it stands though I think we're better off trying to find fixes that work within the set parameters. a few weeks ago I suggested having a dice pool allowing you to at least give players more agency in terms of determining priority, seems like @Vextol has been having some fun playing with that.

I guess the next step could be something like having access to command abilities that can be triggered in the opposing players turn, that way you're more involved even when it's not your go. or having something like a 'Scout' or 'Ranger' keyword for certain units that, in certain circumstances, allowed them to move or shoot or just do something in your opponents turn.

of course the issue there is it needs to be applied universally at once otherwise it'd be  huge disadvantage for factions who haven't been updated to reflect this, but maybe it could be like a battalion where it's a buy-on point cost you can apply to select models from each faction. but certainly having one or two units that could be activated in your opponents turn (either they can just do it or you need to place them on some kind of 'overwatch' mode) would keep everyone on their toes.

[Dead Scribe]

I think no matter what mechanic you use there will be people trying to game it and break it.

[Ravinsild]

Hey did anyone notice that the sweet ForgeWorld armies aren’t included in the survey? When it asked what models you own there wasn’t a chance to say Legion of Azgorh or Tamurkhan’s Horde or any of the literal stand alone armies that aren’t 1 off models. 

Which is sort of relevant to that thread I made about what exactly are ForgeWorld armies. Why aren’t they covered by the giant survey that asks about all their games and products....

[Dead Scribe]

Thats a great point and indicitive to me that forge world armies aren't legal armies.

Edited April 19, 2019 by Dead Scribe

[King Taloren]

I actually saw Azgore in the list of what sigmar factions you collect you might have overlooked it.

[Ravinsild]

13 minutes ago, King Taloren said:

I actually saw Azgore in the list of what sigmar factions you collect you might have overlooked it.

Maybe I should look again somehow but I looked very hard and did not see it. 

[SwampHeart]

1 minute ago, Ravinsild said:

Maybe I should look again somehow but I looked very hard and did not see it. 

It was 100% there as an option for me. 

[chord]

WAIT!  I wasn't supposed to enter into the survey that we desperately need more Khorne and Stormcast?  

[Forrix]

13 hours ago, Tropical Ghost General said:

I've had plenty of games where I've lost every priority roll. Being 2nd every turn sucks in a game where so many armies can get effective turn 1 charges or shooting and I'm not on about an odd unit either. The reason I find 40k less balanced is the static turn system. If you have one army goes first and kills say 10%-15%. The second army has 85%-90% against an army that has 100%*of it's forces. It means constantly being at a disadvantage. I've rarely played a game of 40k where the player going 2nd has won.  

If you get rid of the turn priority roll, then you need to have a sufficient system in place to compensate the huge advantage of always going first. 40k has had to make some fairly significant changes to how missions are scored with the last CA18 and you don't even have to scratch that deep to find a large amount of players wanting an alternative to the current static turn system that they have in place. 

If a suitable replacement to the priority roll was presented it would have to compensate for so many elements that are currently in the game. GW never (very rarely) update warscrolls for recently released armies. So from Maggotkin onwards to Fyreslayers, all of the units in those books would need to get re-evaluated to see if they would work in a completely different structure to the game that their rules are currently designed for. 

Yes it can suck having 2 turns of standing around doing nothing but having to make unbinding rolls or making save rolls or moving endless spells but that's also just a part of table top gaming, it's called your opponent's turn. If you want to be playing a game where you aren't constantly stood around doing nothing then play a game like Infinity with alternating unit activations or if you want a game of static turns play 40k. 

A big issue with 40k that AoS doesn't have is the range and firepower of shooting weapons in 40k. When I played 40K I played Imperial Guard and 24 inches was short range with most of my weapons, particularly the hard hitting ones, having 36 to 72 inch ranges. With AoS being focused more on the combat phase and with charging not making you go first, first turns are no where near as impactful (outside of a few alpha strike lists). In my meta it is almost unheard for a player to actually take the first turn battle round 1 when they win with drops. There's little incentive normally to go first but a double turn can sometimes win you the game. 

[Ravinsild]

8 minutes ago, Forrix said:

A big issue with 40k that AoS doesn't have is the range and firepower of shooting weapons in 40k. When I played 40K I played Imperial Guard and 24 inches was short range with most of my weapons, particularly the hard hitting ones, having 36 to 72 inch ranges. With AoS being focused more on the combat phase and with charging not making you go first, first turns are no where near as impactful (outside of a few alpha strike lists). In my meta it is almost unheard for a player to actually take the first turn battle round 1 when they win with drops. There's little incentive normally to go first but a double turn can sometimes win you the game. 

Basically this. Few armies have meaningful ranged options (but there are some who do) and so 80% of games are "well I can't run and charge and I have a movement speed of 5 and this is an 18'' deployment so I'll take second turn" and the other players walks up between 5 and 7'' forward and does probably nothing else except maybe a spell and maybe an ability or something and then you go and get a whole turn of buffs and spells and prayers and then walk foward, get the charge and smash their face in. Or their first turn they hold back and wait for YOU to move so they can charge you. 

[Tropical Ghost General]

@Forrix at the moment shooting is making a come back, and there are so many ways to make fast units even faster to guarantee that 1st turn charge, even a sub-par unit like hexwraiths can get 23" move and get a +3" to the charge. At one of the UK tournaments a mixed destruction list won (or placed top 3) and it had a silly fast moving stone horn (or thundertusk) that could fly, run and charge with rerolls on runs and charges. Getting to your opponent in 1st turn is easily doable for a fair few armies.

And in missions like arcane places where it's about heroes holding objectives 1st and opponents not being able to claim it until theat specific hero dies, going second is basically game over. Some of the missions heavily favour 1st turns, while some heavily favour 2nd turns. Having those positions set in stone for the duration of the game makes playing those missions pointless.

Now as stated before I'm happy to change if appropriate solutions get presented to counter all the other issues that introducing fixed turns would instantly bring up (see previous post). 

[Dead Scribe]

You're giving up standing around for two turns and giant swingy mechanic in place of a potential scenario that currently I don't see happening much at all, wherein the potential exists for who goes first should just dominate the game. 

If that were true, that whoever goes first would dominate the game, then I'd expect even with double turn that going first would be similar because if I can go first and alpha strike you and wipe you off the table like in 40k or shoot you off the table, then I'd do it now with double turn as well because you wouldn't have much left to hurt me with your double turn should you get it right off the bat.

Also having actually watched games and played some test games with the removal of the double turn, we never had and I have never seen a turn 1 dominant victory by whoever went first in AOS.  

[Mayple]

2 hours ago, Tropical Ghost General said:

@Forrix at the moment shooting is making a come back, and there are so many ways to make fast units even faster to guarantee that 1st turn charge, even a sub-par unit like hexwraiths can get 23" move and get a +3" to the charge. At one of the UK tournaments a mixed destruction list won (or placed top 3) and it had a silly fast moving stone horn (or thundertusk) that could fly, run and charge with rerolls on runs and charges. Getting to your opponent in 1st turn is easily doable for a fair few armies.

And in missions like arcane places where it's about heroes holding objectives 1st and opponents not being able to claim it until theat specific hero dies, going second is basically game over. Some of the missions heavily favour 1st turns, while some heavily favour 2nd turns. Having those positions set in stone for the duration of the game makes playing those missions pointless.

Now as stated before I'm happy to change if appropriate solutions get presented to counter all the other issues that introducing fixed turns would instantly bring up (see previous post). 

None of what you mentioned there leads to the conclusion that static turns is an auto-win for whoever went first though.

Armies are not designed around doubleturns existing, although stuff like endless spells, and some scenarios are, it just happens to be a game mechanic currently implemented. The scoring system would surely be adjusted accordingly if they went with the static solution, but that fix is a bit of a no-brainer. 

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, and you're talking purely about first turning people? In which case I'm just confused, since that's probably the easiest thing to deal with in this game as it currently stands, and nothing would change that for the worse. Please clarify if this is the case, because as it stands, the statement below is a tad confusing, so surely there's a misunderstanding going on:

2 hours ago, Tropical Ghost General said:

Now as stated before I'm happy to change if appropriate solutions get presented to counter all the other issues that introducing fixed turns would instantly bring up (see previous post). 

What issues? Your previous post does not mention the issues. Unless the issues are the magic system and scoring system, which are obviously going to get the slight adjustment it requires to function around a static system, since keeping it as it is currently worded wouldn't work, since X is changed, Y must follow, which is pretty straight forward and easy to do. Am I missing something here?

Edited April 20, 2019 by Mayple

[Vextol]

Edit: Removed nonsense.

Edited April 23, 2019 by Vextol

[Thiagoma]

People are still going on and on about the turn order shenennigans? 

 

Give it a rest fellas

 

[Tropical Ghost General]

@Thiagoma fair point. It's obviously a contentious issue that is probably needing it's own thread 😂. 

[JPjr]

If we’re not using secondary school debate team tactics to engage in endless circular arguments about things we can’t change, whilst not proposing any viable alternatives, then what do we have?

NOTHING I TELL YOU.

It’s the glue that holds this community miserably together in sullen solidarity.

its that or just repeatedly asking ‘has anyone heard anything about xxxx faction?’ So be careful what you wish for.

Edited April 20, 2019 by JPjr

[Thebiggesthat]

14 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

Thats a great point and indicitive to me that forge world armies aren't legal armies.

Show your working there squire.

[Vextol]

3 hours ago, JPjr said:

If we’re not using secondary school debate team tactics to engage in endless circular arguments about things we can’t change, whilst not proposing any viable alternatives, then what do we have?

NOTHING I TELL YOU.

It’s the glue that holds this community miserably together in sullen solidarity..

But I'm rubber and you're glue!  Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you!

Edit: I can't believe I forgot to add it to the survey... I'm going to go back and take it again 😫.  I'd love some fleshed out Doubles rules.  It's the primary way my group plays and there aren't any real rules for it. 

Also, are hidden agendas a real thing now or just a "beta test"?   I think fleshing out that system could have some really cool benefits to balance in a lot of ways.  Even turn order could be addressed some. 

Obviously now it's just triumphs but that could be tweaked.  Any external, non-dice mechanism has a lot of power to change the internal balance of the game.  Lots of potential. 

Edited April 20, 2019 by Vextol