Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Ajmaus said:

ITC missions ruin the game.. It makes it 99% list building because the missions are 100% predictable.. Let us hope GW doesnt think we want them to change their missions to predictable garbage.

Thats why the people that like ITC missions like ITC missions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

I think IGOUGO in general is bad and should be removed entirely and that a more interactive alternate activation sequence be used in its place.  A lot of games have moved to this and I tend to like those more.

Infinity has a neat variation of IGOUGO where in units that have line of sight on the active unit can make reactions such as shooting with a reduced number of dice, dodge out of the way, hack the active unit etc. I find it makes for a nice flow of the game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

Thats why the people that like ITC missions like ITC missions.

Most people who like ITC missions like ITC missions because its all they play. They don't actually care about the missions so much as they just play all ITC format all the time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

For the most part I like it.  Mostly because it leaves the "window of hope" open longer. There's obviously a break-point in every game where even with incredible luck there's no coming back, but initiative roll-offs keep the losing player engaged in the game for much longer rather than disengaging because there's no "catch-up" mechanic.

On the flip-side, I've recently been having a ton of negative play experiences where in a close game the ENTIRE game comes down to an initiative roll-off. This can happen as early as T2 or T3 in a lot of cases. It doesn't help that at higher levels of play, the lists are so finely tuned that they can capitalize on a double-turn so well that the games pretty much over. 

Edited by Andrew G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Andrew G said:

For the most part I like it.  Mostly because it leaves the "window of hope" open longer. There's obviously a break-point in every game where even with incredible luck there's no coming back, but initiative roll-offs keep the losing player engaged in the game for much longer rather than disengaging because there's no "catch-up" mechanic.

I've had plenty of games where I was down but in a position to make a come back. Then my opponent got the double turn and everything went to hell.

Really, the double turn just injects more randomness for the sake of randomness into an already pretty random game. The main tactical effects in my experience being that it encourages slightly more defensive play if your opponent is up for a potential double turn or giving your opponent a double turn if you're in a good position with all you buffs up. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like it Love it Hate it,

Double turned by skaven or Ironjaws you might as well just pack up, but I kind of like the fight back to try and get the objectives and pull of a win

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SwampHeart said:

Most people who like ITC missions like ITC missions because its all they play. They don't actually care about the missions so much as they just play all ITC format all the time. 

I've been running ITC tourneys and I don't even know what ITC missions are we just run GW missions, either rolled for or announced in the rule packs, and for a local tourney I placed in one of my own design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TimM85 said:

I've been running ITC tourneys and I don't even know what ITC missions are we just run GW missions, either rolled for or announced in the rule packs, and for a local tourney I placed in one of my own design.

Not sure I'm following your point. I didn't say that everyone who plays ITC tournaments uses ITC missions, just that people who are used to ITC missions are so used to them that they assume they're the default. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SwampHeart said:

Not sure I'm following your point. I didn't say that everyone who plays ITC tournaments uses ITC missions, just that people who are used to ITC missions are so used to them that they assume they're the default. 

Sorry it's more a question where are ITC missions? What are they? Why are they bad/boring? 

Still going to just run GW ones rolled for or pre announced before the day but should really do some research on this a point in where I can find them would be appreciated and the reasons why they are boring/bad/etc would also be appreciated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The folks I know know of other missions, they prefer the ITC missions (in 40k) because they can tailor their objectives and tailor their list to those objectives.  I would say none of them prefer ITC missions because they are the only missions that they know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/4/2019 at 9:02 AM, Vextol said:

To the people who are super against the double turn because it puts too much luck on a single die roll, l really don't understand how you are ignoring the enormous elephant of "Who goes first" that comes with alternative activation.  Anyone who has played Warhammer for any amount of time has to know how big of an advantage that is.  It's huge to go first if you have no chance of being double turned.  

1. You can immediately gain objectives without needing to reinforce.   If a tough unit can hold out for one turn, they'll have the objective for two because there's no risk of being hit twice.  Plus, that allows slow units to hobble on in there or run at will because they know they will have two turns to get up there. 

2.  First player teleports become less tactical and way more powerful.  You only get one shot to kill that huge unit of skeletons, sequestors, saurus guard, berserkers....etc so you can drop them in without needing to reinforce.  See step 1 / 6.

3.  What's your movement?  Ok good.  I move/keep my unit of snipers that much away and shoot the garbage out of you.  Good luck ever getting to me.

4.  What's your spell range?  Ok good.  I move/keep my unit of anything that much away so you can never be in range.  Good luck with any of your spells.

5.  What's your charge?  Ok good.  I move/keep my.....etc.

6. If your opponent doesn't take your objective point EVERY turn, you'll crush them on points because while they are struggling and fighting to take the objective, you can just sit back and continue to hold it because unless they can completely wipe it in just 1 turn, you'll still get your points without threat while nonchalantly moving in support. 

7. If they DO get your objective, they've either fully committed, leaving the board open, or they're not supported and you can usually easily just take it back because they haven't gotten a chance to re-support after the claim.

It's not theoretical or dumb.  It isn't "wouldn't happen".  It's Warhammer Fantasy.

TLDR: 

I'm not saying they couldn't do away with it.  I'm just saying I've never played a Warhammer game that handled the "first turn power" problem with any kind of grace.  Why do you think they started the double turn to begin with?  It's super weird.  They did it because of how problematic going first was.  It's not a mystery, it's history (rhyme).

1. Only because of how insanely fast half the armies in AoS are. If the game's movement was slower, or objectives were less important on the first round, then it would be less of an issue. For a lot of (mostly shooty) armies, going 2nd is still preferable, since nothing is in range anyways. So yeah going first is still a problem, but less so than the double turn. There's lots of better solutions for fixing it. 

2. I always found teleporting alpha strikes to be mindless and lack tactics anyways. And I would argue it becomes LESS powerful, since every teleport/alpha strike list I've fought in tournaments chooses to go second, so that they can hit me then get the double turn to make the alpha strike twice as powerful. 

3 - 5. These points all contradict point 6, and already exist in AoS to some degree anyways. If you keep everything out of range, then you aren't contesting objectives strongly enough and should just lose them. And if the double turn is your only way of catching units, then I think that's a different problem with the game, and one that I've never really experienced haha.

6-7. Yes, and if you retreat all support every turn, then your single unit holding the objective will be overrun. It's a game of strategy with some luck to shake things up. SOMEONE will hold an objective before the other person, and the rest of the game will always be about fighting over it. I personally love scenarios where the objectives are worth more later in the game, because that alone completely fixes the problem of "he got it first so he wins"

I played a lot of Warhammer Fantasy before also playing a lot of AoS. I like both games. The double turn doesn't fix the issues you described at all though. The same issues exist, and in some cases are made worse by a double turn (like alpha strikes and shooting). AoS combat is also much more "grindy" than Warhammer fantasy, where units would often flee and be run down in a single turn's combat. This means that the whole topic of "who gets the objective first wins by just sitting on it" is even worse in AoS. 

I'm not saying Warhammer Fantasy did it better. I'm just saying the double turn is NOT the right solution to the problems you put forward. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/13/2019 at 11:06 AM, Tidings said:

1. Only because of how insanely fast half the armies in AoS are. If the game's movement was slower, or objectives were less important on the first round, then it would be less of an issue. For a lot of (mostly shooty) armies, going 2nd is still preferable, since nothing is in range anyways. So yeah going first is still a problem, but less so than the double turn. There's lots of better solutions for fixing it. 

2. I always found teleporting alpha strikes to be mindless and lack tactics anyways. And I would argue it becomes LESS powerful, since every teleport/alpha strike list I've fought in tournaments chooses to go second, so that they can hit me then get the double turn to make the alpha strike twice as powerful. 

3 - 5. These points all contradict point 6, and already exist in AoS to some degree anyways. If you keep everything out of range, then you aren't contesting objectives strongly enough and should just lose them. And if the double turn is your only way of catching units, then I think that's a different problem with the game, and one that I've never really experienced haha.

6-7. Yes, and if you retreat all support every turn, then your single unit holding the objective will be overrun. It's a game of strategy with some luck to shake things up. SOMEONE will hold an objective before the other person, and the rest of the game will always be about fighting over it. I personally love scenarios where the objectives are worth more later in the game, because that alone completely fixes the problem of "he got it first so he wins"

I played a lot of Warhammer Fantasy before also playing a lot of AoS. I like both games. The double turn doesn't fix the issues you described at all though. The same issues exist, and in some cases are made worse by a double turn (like alpha strikes and shooting). AoS combat is also much more "grindy" than Warhammer fantasy, where units would often flee and be run down in a single turn's combat. This means that the whole topic of "who gets the objective first wins by just sitting on it" is even worse in AoS. 

I'm not saying Warhammer Fantasy did it better. I'm just saying the double turn is NOT the right solution to the problems you put forward. 

1. Alternating activation (turns) WAS the problem with warhammer fantasy.  That and lack of support...but either way, going first was unquestionably the biggest and most controversial thing I ever encountered in fantasy.  Double turns cause some problems and are still probably the biggest and most controversial thing I've encountered, but less than going first.  No one wanted to go second in warhammer fantasy (I knew this guy once with a particular army!!...blah blah.  Noone wanted to go second).  As you pointed out, going first isn't always the best option in Sigmar, but...it still pretty much always is.  However, it is nice to have the potential of the first double turn so that's a plus.

2. Whether or not you find it mindless doesn't matter.  It IS a tactic and planning on the double turn is a calculated risk.  Teleporting and not getting it can be devastating, especially with the 9" charges failing regularly (though admittedly they are making it easier).

3. I recognized the potential call out when I wrote it up.  However, both situations don't have to exist independently.  If you have a particularly problematic unit (shooter, caster etc.) that is keeping you weak and crushing your "point takers" from getting to the objective, with alternating activation, that unit can satellite around the "point holder" unit and you can never engage them with any hope of taking the point.  Everything isn't always cut and dry.  Sometimes you need to take out the support before you can handle the big block.  If the support can always remain right outside your threat range (points 3-5) you can never take the point from the unit being supported and if you do, you won't have any backing for it (point 6-7).  No contradiction 😁

No credentials required.  I have played a ton of games as well.  I believe that Warhammer should be the pinnacle war game, even though that isn't their intention.  Outside traditional board games, which I typically tire of quickly, I haven't seen 'turns' handled well by anyone.  Runewars had a pretty OK system except I found it hard to focus on a legitimate plan when the battlefield changed so dramatically from the start of the phase to the end.  However, I didn't enjoy it.  Don't know why.  I still enjoy Sigmar but I want them to explore much more unique ways of handling  turns.  They need to add an element of some kind to make it more interesting.  Give each player five set rolls numbered 1-5.  You choose your roll for the initiative.  Something like that. 

I know it's a luck based game and all that but turn order CANNOT be purely luck based anymore.  They need something more.  The double turn is fine, but how you go about getting it needs to be revamped completely.

 

Edited by Vextol
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2019 at 4:06 PM, Tidings said:

1. Only because of how insanely fast half the armies in AoS are. If the game's movement was slower, or objectives were less important on the first round, then it would be less of an issue. For a lot of (mostly shooty) armies, going 2nd is still preferable, since nothing is in range anyways. So yeah going first is still a problem, but less so than the double turn. There's lots of better solutions for fixing it. 

2. I always found teleporting alpha strikes to be mindless and lack tactics anyways. And I would argue it becomes LESS powerful, since every teleport/alpha strike list I've fought in tournaments chooses to go second, so that they can hit me then get the double turn to make the alpha strike twice as powerful. 

3 - 5. These points all contradict point 6, and already exist in AoS to some degree anyways. If you keep everything out of range, then you aren't contesting objectives strongly enough and should just lose them. And if the double turn is your only way of catching units, then I think that's a different problem with the game, and one that I've never really experienced haha.

6-7. Yes, and if you retreat all support every turn, then your single unit holding the objective will be overrun. It's a game of strategy with some luck to shake things up. SOMEONE will hold an objective before the other person, and the rest of the game will always be about fighting over it. I personally love scenarios where the objectives are worth more later in the game, because that alone completely fixes the problem of "he got it first so he wins"

I played a lot of Warhammer Fantasy before also playing a lot of AoS. I like both games. The double turn doesn't fix the issues you described at all though. The same issues exist, and in some cases are made worse by a double turn (like alpha strikes and shooting). AoS combat is also much more "grindy" than Warhammer fantasy, where units would often flee and be run down in a single turn's combat. This means that the whole topic of "who gets the objective first wins by just sitting on it" is even worse in AoS. 

I'm not saying Warhammer Fantasy did it better. I'm just saying the double turn is NOT the right solution to the problems you put forward. 

 

2 hours ago, Vextol said:

1. Alternating activation WAS the problem with warhammer fantasy.  That and lack of support...but either way, going first was unquestionably the biggest and most controversial thing I ever encountered in fantasy.  Double turns cause some problems and are still probably the biggest and most controversial thing I've encountered, but less than going first.  No one wanted to go second in warhammer fantasy (I knew this guy once with a particular army!!...blah blah.  Noone wanted to go second).  As you pointed out, going first isn't always the best option in Sigmar, but...it still pretty much always is.  However, it is nice to have the potential of the first double turn so that's a plus.

2. Whether or not you find it mindless doesn't matter.  It IS a tactic and planning on the double turn is a calculated risk.  Teleporting and not getting it can be devastating, especially with the 9" charges failing regularly (though admittedly they are making it easier).

3. I recognized the potential call out when I wrote it up.  However, both situations don't have to exist independently.  If you have a particularly problematic unit (shooter, caster etc.) that is keeping you weak and crushing your "point takers" from getting to the objective, with alternating activation, that unit can satellite around the "point holder" unit and you can never engage them with any hope of taking the point.  Everything isn't always cut and dry.  Sometimes you need to take out the support before you can handle the big block.  If the support can always remain right outside your threat range (points 3-5) you can never take the point from the unit being supported and if you do, you won't have any backing for it (point 6-7).  No contradiction 😁

No credentials required.  I have played a ton of games as well.  I believe that Warhammer should be the pinnacle war game, even though that isn't their intention.  Outside traditional board games, which I typically tire of quickly, I haven't seen 'turns' handled well by anyone.  Runewars had a pretty OK system except I found it hard to focus on a legitimate plan when the battlefield changed so dramatically from the start of the phase to the end.  However, I didn't enjoy it.  Don't know why.  I still enjoy Sigmar but I want them to explore much more unique ways of handling  turns.  They need to add an element of some kind to make it more interesting.  Give each player five set rolls numbered 1-5.  You choose your roll for the initiative.  Something like that. 

I know it's a luck based game and all that but turn order CANNOT be purely luck based anymore.  They need something more.  The double turn is fine, but how you go about getting it needs to be revamped completely.

 

 

Lets start with WFB I loved it but at the end of the day it was just fancy chess, the only way my dwarfs were fighting first was if i got a charge off which mostly never happened (mostly played against elves and their higher initiative). Ive had my love and hate for the double turn but it is what is and it's a core mechanic learn to play it and screen to negate it it waffling and whining won't change it. They only true fix would be to play AOS like necromunda complete it all activations with a unit then opponent does a unit etc yet this would still have problems so you would have to break it down more. So you would have alternating hero activations, then alternating movement, then alternating shooting, then alternating charges then alternating combat. Now this would be awesome but it would take forever, entry into the game would be lengthy therefore putting off newbies, (just spent a day doing intro aos and looked at some of the other games going on and thought not a chance i have enough a tokens as it is and they've got 10x that in a game with 4 models each) though it would mean that the game would then be just 5 turns not 10 as the whole battle round would be rolled into one. Its the most balance way I can think up and just stole it from necro and broke it down. Give it a go.

Simply roll off first activation 

hero phase- alternate then the person who finishes their activations first gos first in the movement phase

M phase- same drill

Shoot- Same drill

Charges - Same Drill

Combat - Same drill

Should be more balanced for you and should balance it out. (i have no intention in doing this unless unless it becomes core rules)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, TimM85 said:

Lets start with ... learn to play it...wining won't change it....have alternating...activations...I have no intention in doing this unless unless it becomes core rules

Lovely.  I'm a massive advocate for the double turn and also against alternating activation (which is what runewars has).  I also am not a fan of the "go play a different game" argument.  I believe Sigmar is excellent and having tried a lot of war games (in rules theory and in reality) I prefer almost everything about Sigmar. 

Tweaks to mechanics that are very divicive are something we should always be looking toward especially when you could easily preserve the core aspects of the game.  They've been doing it since the beginning. 

I would not advocate for the removal of the double turn. I used to advocate for it, but have since changed my ways.  I do believe that the one gigantic and completely unnecessary random swing aspect of the game (the roll for it) could be tweaked in such a way to make it much more fun for those who hate it and essentially identical for those who don't.

The only complaint I don't have a solution for is time between turns.  The only simple fix I can see is to learn to play faster or time the games (thus playing faster).  That I can't see being fixed without huge intervention and fairly massive overhaul or completely doing away with the double turn which I am opposed to and frankly, don't believe fixes the core problem with slow turns.

Edited by Vextol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Vextol said:

Lovely.  I'm a massive advocate for the double turn and also against alternating activation (which is what runewars has).  I also am not a fan of the "go play a different game" argument.  I believe Sigmar is excellent and having tried a lot of war games (in rules theory and in reality) I prefer almost everything about Sigmar. 

Tweaks to mechanics that are very divicive are something we should always be looking toward especially when you could easily preserve the core aspects of the game.  They've been doing it since the beginning. 

I would not advocate for the removal of the double turn. I used to advocate for it, but have since changed my ways.  I do believe that the one gigantic and completely unnecessary random swing aspect of the game (the roll for it) could be tweaked in such a way to make it much more fun for those who hate it and essentially identical for those who don't.

The only complaint I don't have a solution for is time between turns.  The only simple fix I can see is to learn to play faster or time the games (thus playing faster).  That I can't see being fixed without huge intervention and fairly massive overhaul or completely doing away with the double turn which I am opposed to and frankly, don't believe fixes the core problem with slow turns.

The only times i've had lengthy games are old sylvaneth and current Ironjaws they streamlined the trees, khorne and stormacast and hope to see the same with Ironjaws. Also Tourney environment everyone knows their armies so games go quicker and a smoother whereas sometimes in a casual game you get sidetracked chatting and drinking brews.It seems you have edited my quote to a make negative paragraph therefore taking it out of context by just using a few words of each part?

How would you tweak it without over complicating it? (I would love a charge reaction/retreat mechanic but again it would over complicate the game and wouldn't really work)

Without alternating activations in combat your opponent gets all his charges off and you say good bye to your army, slaanesh would be even better and it would be a game based around who can run the fastest? what would your solution be? Bear in mind it would be unfeasible to bring back initiative stats at the would require new war scrolls for every model current and compendium? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2019 at 8:41 AM, DerZauberer said:

Somebody played the new Relocation Orb Mission from GHB2019? It really shows the huge hidden potential the double turn has for the game.

For people not aware of it: On Relocation Orb the player on first turn gets 1 point for scoring the Orb, the player on the second turn gets 3 points if he holds the orb.

This was a blast to think of how to approach your turns and plan ahead. This really needs to be embodied heavily into all missions of AoS (and 40k), as it is a awesome trade off between "let me do the damage" or "let me get the points". I've won the priority roll, had a potential doubleturn, but thought like 10 minutes about it as i really needed the points and i passed the priority, had to take a beating but scored the objective in the end, being able to win on points but got beaten to near death. It was a blast clinging to the objective with all you had knowing you get ahead when you just survive and hold it.

Make second turn allways an way better option on the mission (like in relocation orb) and this would add a ton of depth to the game and make first turn (and double turns) way weaker. 

I played relocation orb at Blackout the other weekend and although I agree in principal, would have to say in it's current guise that battleplan actually highlights the worse part about the priority roll.  My opponent had less drops than me (by 1) and won priority on turns 2 and 3 - so they parked their two exceptionally tough monster heros (I'm talking Morathi & a monster with ethereal amulet) on the objectives turn one and harvested 6 VP's on turn two and three (putting them at 14VP at the end of battle round 3).  In short two dice rolls actually determined the outcome of the game.  As my opponent and I said at the time, dropping the second turn victory points to 2VP rather than 3 would actually make that battleplan a lot better.

Like I say, I agree in principal.  I think a lot of the things that people don't enjoy could be resolved (at least in part) by battleplans making it more advantageous to not have a double turn (not necessarily going second).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem that at what point do you stop trying to bend everything in the game - units, stats, turn sequence, battleplans - to work with the doubleturn and just admit that either you take the whole game back to the board and rebuild it around the doubleturn; or just take the one single element that causes all the trouble out. 

I don't even see it as a selling point, GW doesn't make any marketing noise about the double turn; gamers don't get excited about it; in fact in most chats many seem to pretend it sort of doesn't exist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Overread said:

I think the problem that at what point do you stop trying to bend everything in the game - units, stats, turn sequence, battleplans - to work with the doubleturn and just admit that either you take the whole game back to the board and rebuild it around the doubleturn; or just take the one single element that causes all the trouble out. 

I don't even see it as a selling point, GW doesn't make any marketing noise about the double turn; gamers don't get excited about it; in fact in most chats many seem to pretend it sort of doesn't exist. 

Taking the double turn out would also mean you need to take the game back to board some armies would always go second without, some armies only have 1-2 battalion choices so they all either always be second or you will just see the same builds and alternating turn actually creates more problems as one person has put above, it means you will almost always be able to stay out of range of a move and a charge and just win through range attacks.  

Even if the first turn was down to a dice roll and not drops you would then completely change the game as everyone would take more drops to out position their opponent then as put in several posts above the whole game would change it was alternating turns not activations. 

Also compare it to shifting objectives you complain about being double turned but what when the objective doesn't move for a whole I game I had this in a small tourney and managed a draw but the whole game the objective did not move from the the most advantageous point for my opponent making it a mega difficult game. Its just the luck of the dice the double turn is variable to make you think smarter screen better and negates ultimate alpha strike, sit back and just shoot, and prevents the game just being fancy chess.

Have you played a few games without the priority roll?

have you played alternate unit activation through every phase?

I've tried both and the second is good but long, the first is boring you know the out come of the game by end of turn 1.

But thats just my opinion.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

I played relocation orb at Blackout the other weekend and although I agree in principal, would have to say in it's current guise that battleplan actually highlights the worse part about the priority roll.  My opponent had less drops than me (by 1) and won priority on turns 2 and 3 - so they parked their two exceptionally tough monster heros (I'm talking Morathi & a monster with ethereal amulet) on the objectives turn one and harvested 6 VP's on turn two and three (putting them at 14VP at the end of battle round 3).  In short two dice rolls actually determined the outcome of the game.  As my opponent and I said at the time, dropping the second turn victory points to 2VP rather than 3 would actually make that battleplan a lot better.

Like I say, I agree in principal.  I think a lot of the things that people don't enjoy could be resolved (at least in part) by battleplans making it more advantageous to not have a double turn (not necessarily going second).

Sorry to tell you but you got screwed there. You can only score 1 or 3 points per turn in Relocation Orb regardless of how many models/heroes/wizards you have within 3" of it.

Of course even the 7 point lead would have been massive by end of turn 2 and unwinnable by you.

Just wondering how did he manage to keep the Orb controlled on turn 2 and 3 when it moved and you had the first turn to go and contest the new location.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've tried both and the second is good but long

Alternate activation shouldn't take any longer than IGOUGO.  The only difference is that one person doesn't get a break from doing anything for a half an hour or longer.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alternate activation per unit would require some fundamental changes to work properly. For example the way auras work in the current game, many can have quite short ranges (esp when fully within is a requirement). This works because the units move in one go and then attack in a second action all at once. This means your buffing units can move up in the movement turn and be ready to buff for the attack phase. 

However if units alternately activated then the buff unit would be left behind since your attacking unit would move and attack all in one go. So auras and such would have to change; gaining a longer range, perhaps having the aura boosting unit become a unit attachment so it moves with the infantry etc... Lots of ways to change that. 

It can be a bit slower first times since its a new way to play and it can be a bit more tricky at times because what order you do things in really matters a lot. Not just for auras and such; but also because your opponent can react the very next action. Now charging forward with a super fast unit really can leave them high and dry and let your opponent tear them apart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about if the current phases were to be kept but you alternated activations within them? So we start with the hero phase, I choose a command ability, you cast a spell, I use a trait, you cast another spell, I cast a spell, you use a command ability, and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

Alternate activation shouldn't take any longer than IGOUGO.  The only difference is that one person doesn't get a break from doing anything for a half an hour or longer.  

Alternating activation is a different game.  And it definitely takes longer.  It's part of the whole assembly line principle.  Why would someone good at building an engine take longer than a bunch of people doing one part of building and engine?  Because you don't have all the "uncounted" steps like walking over to your unit, reconsidering your plan based on what your opponent did, recognizing it's your turn, measuring new distances etc.  All those little bits add up and only happen once when it's a turn by turn game.

And as I pointed out earlier, in order to have a 30 minute gap in your turn it means you are playing a 2.5 hour long game with zero combat phases.

Also, things like shooting units go out of control good if they can always back up from the charge.

Double turn is fine.  Good for this game I believe.  You just need to control the random.  Either with a mechanism or within the battleplans.

Edited by Vextol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Kirjava13 said:

What about if the current phases were to be kept but you alternated activations within them? So we start with the hero phase, I choose a command ability, you cast a spell, I use a trait, you cast another spell, I cast a spell, you use a command ability, and so on.

That's a way of playing that I've been testing for a few days and it's pretty cool. I have also tried adding bag with tokens to make the activation of units during combat and move phases more random (each player has a bag with tokens for different unit types and you can only activate units with the type of the token you just draw)  and I have to say that the game takes a great turn in terms of playability.

I have to add that I decided to try it because some people in my game group don't like the classic IGOUGO, we don't have anything against the double turn, we are used to it but wanted to try some new ways to play AoS just for fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or  adapt the WarCry system for AoS:

Each one is rolling 7 (?) dices

The one with the most singles has the priority. Doubles can be used for spells, comand abillitys and summoning, Triples for elite abilities and endless spells.…

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...