The Rumour Thread

[Kaleb Daark]

I'm probably saying nothing new here, but have we noticed the slaanesh symbol on the map now between the realm of shadow and light?

[bsharitt]

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/05/16/16th-may-faction-focus-everchosen-and-slaves-to-darknessgw-homepage-post-3/

Not a ton of hard info there. Points reductions, a warscroll battalion that affects the priority roll(perhaps to be an ability seen across the game?), and Archaeon getting an updated warscroll, perhaps indicating that warscroll updates may be common for more power stuff.

[bsharitt]

2 minutes ago, Kaleb Daark said:

I'm probably saying nothing new here, but have we noticed the slaanesh symbol on the map now between the realm of shadow and light?

That's where the elf gods are/were storing Slaanesh, right?

[Kaleb Daark]

2 minutes ago, bsharitt said:

That's where the elf gods are/were storing Slaanesh, right?

indeed, but I wonder if having it on the map means that the other gods have cottoned on to this now?

[Skabnoze]

20 hours ago, Xasz said:

Would be terrible with current double turn and would render the I-go-you-go system (which I rather enjoy) pretty much useless.

I agree with your other points, but personally I would loudly cheer the death of I-go-you-go.  Everyone has their own opinion on this, but after having played many many tabletop games since the late 80s - I really just don't like I-go-you-go much anymore.  I greatly prefer alternate-activation style systems (which Age of Sigmar already does in the combat phase), and even more I prefer interesting takes on the turn system like how X-wing or now Star Wars Legion handles it.  Your mileage may vary.

[lolwut]

5 minutes ago, Skabnoze said:

I agree with your other points, but personally I would loudly cheer the death of I-go-you-go.  Everyone has their own opinion on this, but after having played many many tabletop games since the late 80s - I really just don't like I-go-you-go much anymore.  I greatly prefer alternate-activation style systems (which Age of Sigmar already does in the combat phase), and even more I prefer interesting takes on the turn system like how X-wing or now Star Wars Legion handles it.  Your mileage may vary.

I agree. I feel like Sigmar would lend itself beautifully to alternating activation. 

My friend and I drafted some rules for multiplayer Sigmar games. In a free-for-all setting where you have 3+ players, the concept of i-go-you-go  falls apart pretty quickly, especially with the turn ordering reshuffling. In the first 5 turns in a 3 player game, it's entirely possible for you to have 1 turn. If each player turn takes 25 minutes, that means you're taking 25 minutes of turn out of the first 125 minutes. In other words, you're sitting there hemming and hawing for 100 minutes of the first part of this game. Ouch? Not fun. 

In essence our rules are: 

1. Hero + movement. Alternating activation here. You activate a unit and it can use all of its powers, and move. 

2. Shooting. Alternate activation. 

3. Charge. Alternate activation. 

4. Combat - already alternating. 

Personally I would like to split hero & movement, but we're playtesting this on my friend's strong opinion that these should go together. I don't agree, but, sometimes you just have to let people see the rubber meet the road to best understand your objections

[sorokyl]

24 minutes ago, bsharitt said:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/05/16/16th-may-faction-focus-everchosen-and-slaves-to-darknessgw-homepage-post-3/

Not a ton of hard info there. Points reductions, a warscroll battalion that affects the priority roll(perhaps to be an ability seen across the game?), and Archaeon getting an updated warscroll, perhaps indicating that warscroll updates may be common for more power stuff.

5

 

The battalion isn't new, it's already in the Everchosen battletome.  I don't see how it plays much differently in 2.0 though. it overrides the old turn system and the updated turn system.  

[Skabnoze]

2 hours ago, hughwyeth said:

That's a nice rule change. Double turn is a nice differentiator for AoS to any other system but this makes it a little bit more interesting. 

I was a bit disappointed by this to be honest.  They made it sound like there was some more tactical depth to this, but the chance of a tie on priority roll is very low (roughly 16%).  Our brains tend to prioritize outlier results and we all have anecdotes and memories of these sorts of ties (sure, they do happen), but in actuality this rule change is extremely trivial. 

It reminds me of all of the "roll a double on charge" rules that litter the various goblin warscrolls and are effectively worthless abilities since they will trigger so infrequently unless there was some way to adjust dice rolls - which does not exist for these units.

Edited May 16, 2018 by Skabnoze
goblins suck at math

[lolwut]

I may not be reading you properly, but the odds of a tie on an fair dice game is 6/36, with each player having a 15/36 chance to beat the other. So the odds of winning goes up to 21/36, which is a nontrivial increase from 15/36. It does in effect reduce the double turn considering the choice is *always* to avoid the double turn if possible. That is also why I don't particularly like it is a mechanic. Despite the fact that i think alternating activation are better, it's difficult to conceive of a scenario in a fair and balanced game wherein one player would actively choose to let the other player take a double turn if they could prevent it. 

[bsharitt]

4 minutes ago, Skabnoze said:

They made it sound like there was some more tactical depth to this

It sounds like the tactical depth may be coming later with more rule interacting with the turn order.

[Ahn-ket]

3 minutes ago, Skabnoze said:

I was a bit disappointed by this to be honest.  They made it sound like there was some more tactical depth to this, but the chance of a tie on priority roll is very low (roughly 2%).  Our brains tend to prioritize outlier results and we all have anecdotes and memories of these sorts of ties (sure, they do happen), but in actuality this rule change is extremely trivial. 

It reminds me of all of the "roll a double on charge" rules that litter the various goblin warscrolls and are effectively worthless abilities since they will trigger so infrequently unless there was some way to adjust dice rolls - which does not exist for these units.

For a it's more the less 16% because there are 6 out 36 rolls witch are draws

[bsharitt]

2 minutes ago, lolwut said:

considering the choice is *always* to avoid the double turn if possible

Not necessarily always. Might be worth it to give away a turn 1/2 double turn to avoid a 2/3 double turn(or perhaps set up your own).

[PJetski]

Previously, if you went first you had a 15/36 chance of winning a roll off. Now you have a 21/36 chance of winning - your success chance has increased by 40% (21/15 = 1.4)

That's a big deal.

[Skabnoze]

8 minutes ago, Ahn-ket said:

For a it's more the less 16% because there are 6 out 36 rolls witch are draws

Correct.  My brain failed me and I treated the events as linked when the roll off is effectively a distinct pair.  It is still a rare enough event that it will impact the odd game here or there but on the whole not really make a difference in the grand scheme of things.  In regards to tactics, it is only worth considering on the rare occasions when it pops up. 

It's like the 40k roll a 6 and seize the initiative thing.  It happens, but not enough to care one way or the other most of the time.

Edited May 16, 2018 by Skabnoze

[Skabnoze]

4 minutes ago, PJetski said:

Previously, if you went first you had a 15/36 chance of winning a roll off. Now you have a 21/36 chance of winning - your success chance has increased by 40% (21/15 = 1.4)

That's a big deal.

Thats not really true, since your first result assumes that you lose in the case of ties - which is not the case and you simply reroll.  If you simply napkin math the reroll as a 50% chance to win then you have 18/36 vs 21/36 - which goes right back to the 16% increased success chance.

I'll take anything that makes the chance of double turns lessened, but this particular rule mechanic change is so small I can't really get excited about it.  That said, it's better than the current rule so I'll take it - I'm just not doing backflips over it.  I was hoping for something that had a bit more thought and tactics to it.

[PJetski]

The probability of not losing is different than the probability of succeeding

[lolwut]

27 minutes ago, PJetski said:

Previously, if you went first you had a 15/36 chance of winning a roll off. Now you have a 21/36 chance of winning - your success chance has increased by 40% (21/15 = 1.4)

That's a big deal.

The odds of winning a fair dice roll-off game with ties rerolled, converges to 50/50. 

(15/36) + (1/6)(15/36) + (1/6)(1/6)(15/36) + ... + (1/6)^n*(15/36) +... =  (15/36) * ( (1/6) + ... + (1/6)^n +...). 

This is just 15/36 multiplied by a geometric series, which converges nicely: 
Sum (ar^k) /w a = 1, r = 1/6, and k being the exponent, and r < 1. With a set to 1, this converges to 1/(1-r). 

So, 1/(1-1/6) * (15/36) = 1/2. 

Now, it's theoretically possible that two gentlemen who sat down to play their first game of AoS back when it launched are still rolling off to determine who gets the next turn. But, it's pretty unlikely. 

In essence it went from 18/36 to 21/36 (an increase by 1/6th, which makes sense, considering 1/6 of the time you're producing a tie). 

 

EDIT - If you're confused by the answer given here, shoot me a private message, would be happy to explain in greater detail what is happening. I don't want to give an authoritarian answer like "it's 50/50!" without demonstrating why. 

Edited May 16, 2018 by lolwut

[Swooper]

1 hour ago, bsharitt said:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/05/16/16th-may-faction-focus-everchosen-and-slaves-to-darknessgw-homepage-post-3/

Not a ton of hard info there. Points reductions, a warscroll battalion that affects the priority roll(perhaps to be an ability seen across the game?), and Archaeon getting an updated warscroll, perhaps indicating that warscroll updates may be common for more power stuff.

That was terribly disappointing. Still doesn't seem to be any reason to play Everchosen. Was hoping they'd just go ahead and merge these two factions, but that doesn't seem to be their plan. Maybe some warscroll changes (marks for Varanguard?) and point reductions will make them easier to use together?

[PJetski]

Well the article does say there's more in the works but they aren't talking about it yet

[Skabnoze]

25 minutes ago, lolwut said:

The odds of winning a fair dice roll-off game with ties rerolled, converges to 50/50. 

(15/36) + (1/6)(15/36) + (1/6)(1/6)(15/36) + ... + (1/6)^n*(15/36) +... =  (15/36) * ( (1/6) + ... + (1/6)^n +...). 

This is just 15/36 multiplied by a geometric series, which converges nicely: 
Sum (ar^k) /w a = 1, r = 1/6, and k being the exponent, and r < 1. With a set to 1, this converges to 1/(1-r). 

So, 1/(1-1/6) * (15/36) = 1/2. 

Now, it's theoretically possible that two gentlemen who sat down to play their first game of AoS back when it launched are still rolling off to determine who gets the next turn. But, it's pretty unlikely. 

In essence it went from 18/36 to 21/36 (an increase by 1/6th, which makes sense, considering 1/6 of the time you're producing a tie). 

 

EDIT - If you're confused by the answer given here, shoot me a private message, would be happy to explain in greater detail what is happening. I don't want to give an authoritarian answer like "it's 50/50!" without demonstrating why. 

Honestly, we are doing the math wrong in regards to the chance to win the priority roll.

This is not an actual 16% increase.  True, there is a ~16% chance to encounter a tie, but with the current rules each player has a 50% chance to win that tie as you demonstrate in the math lesson above.  Approximate math is close enough for this discussion (again, as you displayed) and so currently everyone has a 18/36 chance to win any turn roll off.  That has now shifted so that the player who went first in the previous battle round has a 21/36 chance to win (~58.3%) and the player who just had a turn has a 15/36 chance to win (~41.6%).  So this is really an 8% shift in practical results.

8% more is still more, and something is better than nothing.  That said, this sort of rule is the kind of thing that is a small footnote in rules sections and most of the time forgotten.  This is a lot of noise being made about something that is still pretty trival in the grand scheme of the game.  The rule that says you add +1 to bravery for every 10 models in a unit has more impact on a game and I find that most of the players I meet forget that rule even exists.

I'll take it, but I am a bit disappointed because I was hoping for a more interesting and meaningful change.

Edited May 16, 2018 by Skabnoze

[AverageBoss]

Honestly, I feel this simply strengthens going 2nd on the 1st round beyond what it already is. You are still guaranteed the 1st double turn of the game when doing so (which 9 times out of 10 is the most impactful one). Then afterwards your opponents chances of getting their own to counter you in a timely manner are diminished.

[BURF1]

1 hour ago, lolwut said:

I may not be reading you properly, but the odds of a tie on an fair dice game is 6/36, with each player having a 15/36 chance to beat the other. So the odds of winning goes up to 21/36, which is a nontrivial increase from 15/36. It does in effect reduce the double turn considering the choice is *always* to avoid the double turn if possible. That is also why I don't particularly like it is a mechanic. Despite the fact that i think alternating activation are better, it's difficult to conceive of a scenario in a fair and balanced game wherein one player would actively choose to let the other player take a double turn if they could prevent it. 

Deliberately setting up a terrible double turn for your opponent is one of the best parts of the double turn mechanic. 

[Carnelian]

Sometimes people don't take a double turn when they could, but had anyone ever chosen to give their opponents a double turn?

[Drofnum]

1 hour ago, lolwut said:

I may not be reading you properly, but the odds of a tie on an fair dice game is 6/36, with each player having a 15/36 chance to beat the other. So the odds of winning goes up to 21/36, which is a nontrivial increase from 15/36. It does in effect reduce the double turn considering the choice is *always* to avoid the double turn if possible. That is also why I don't particularly like it is a mechanic. Despite the fact that i think alternating activation are better, it's difficult to conceive of a scenario in a fair and balanced game wherein one player would actively choose to let the other player take a double turn if they could prevent it. 

I've done it plenty.  If you're set up far enough away that its very unlikely they can charge you, or only charge you with a portion of their army it can be beneficial.  Also letting them move up in to your gun range if they are outside of it.  You can give yourself the chance at a double by giving one up early on as well, for some slower armies that cant get to you in turn 1 and can only get some units to you on the second there is no reason to be worried about getting double turned.

 

There are quite a few instances where it can be advantageous to give away a double turn actually. I could probably come up with quite a few more if given time to think about it, those are just the ones off the top of my head that i've done before.

 

Edit:  Another instance where it isnt really worrisome is a Turn 2/3 double when playing Idoneth.  Especially against a melee heavy army, I dont care in the slightest if you take the double on turn 3 as i'm attacking first in melee no matter what.  And again it could potentially force you to close with me so I get my charges for sure in turn 3 which means i get more bonuses with every unit attacking first.

Edited May 16, 2018 by Drofnum

[BURF1]

Just now, Carnelian said:

Sometimes people don't take a double turn when they could, but had anyone ever chosen to give their opponents a double turn?

I have. It's not super common but against low shooting armies or armies that rely on the doubleturn themselves(death) it can win you the game. Set up a wayback deployment, buff up as much as you can and force your opponent to DT 1-2 and either deny them the DT for the rest of the game or take the DT yourself the next turn for a 2-3 hammerblow.