Better method to score objectives?

[Tropical Ghost General]

Would the game be improved if objectives were scored at the end of the battle round rather than the end of the player turn? 

And would making a change of this nature make the choice of taking first or second turn be more of a tactical decision to the game? 

[JackStreicher]

14 minutes ago, Tropical Ghost General said:

Would the game be improved if objectives were scored at the end of the battle round rather than the end of the player turn? 

And would making a change of this nature make the choice of taking first or second turn be more of a tactical decision to the game? 

All this change would do is reducing the overall amount of victory points scored across a game. The result and tactical choices would remain largely the same.

[Tropical Ghost General]

2 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

The result and tactical choices would remain largely the same.

So considering that you couldn't double turn someone and guarantee scoring objectives how would the tactics and results be the same? 

[Sleboda]

I like it as is. The prevalence of missions where you cannot do the whatever thing with the objectives until turn two helps with reducing the power of first turn, which is big.

I really like the state of play around objectives.

Edited November 10, 2019 by Sleboda
Missing crucial words

[armisael]

I like this idea.

So, who got the first turn has a opportunity to strike first. While who got the second turn has a opportunity to counter it.

[JackStreicher]

8 hours ago, Tropical Ghost General said:

So considering that you couldn't double turn someone and guarantee scoring objectives how would the tactics and results be the same? 

The fight for the objectives would be the same: there‘s no difference if the enemy holds an objective and you try to take it from them. Also you‘d try to secure the objective no matter what.  
How could you not guarantee to hold an objective right now? There are two ways how you can guarantee to hold an objective: no enemy can get to it before you score, or your unit holding it is too tanky or big to lose the objective. This remains the same no matter when you score. 

The only advantage the current system has is that you can sacrifice a unit to score some points in your turn which is more flexible than scoring at the end of the battleground and makes scenarios in which objectives grant an increasing amount of points per round or per turn you control them way more flexible.

Edited November 10, 2019 by JackStreicher

[Kramer]

10 hours ago, Tropical Ghost General said:

Would the game be improved if objectives were scored at the end of the battle round rather than the end of the player turn? 

And would making a change of this nature make the choice of taking first or second turn be more of a tactical decision to the game? 

I like the scenario's where it makes a difference in points if you go first or second. So keep things as they are in general but more scenarios that change the basis would be my thought. The current rules offer a very solid foundation to build upon. I hope GW gets creative with it. 

For example the shifting objectives 2020 scenario. Roll for determining the primary objective, not between battlerounds. But at the end of the players turn who goes first just before calculating his points scored. I think that would be a very interesting choice. Do I go for the momentum? Can I claim two objectives by going first and have a 2/3 chance of getting the primary. Or do I let my opponent go first and react but with the risk of not being able to reclaim the objective while he already scored points. 

 

[AaronWilson]

I think the best thing about AoS right now is how the game is all about scenario play and I don't think that aspect needs changing

[mikethefish]

11 hours ago, Tropical Ghost General said:

Would the game be improved if objectives were scored at the end of the battle round rather than the end of the player turn? 

And would making a change of this nature make the choice of taking first or second turn be more of a tactical decision to the game? 

It's a bad idea quite frankly.  Being able to score objectives the current way makes for a more exciting and dynamic game.

[Tropical Ghost General]

So to all of those who don't want to see a change to the current system, I follow up by asking, what could be added to the game to make the decision to always take the first turn, when rolling for priority, a less attractive option and less of an auto-decision?

GW tried to use endless spells but it hasn't worked, especially now OBR and other factions have endless spells that can't damage their own models. 

The tactical element of choosing which turn to take (after the initial choosing at the start of the game) rarely ever happens in games, it's more often than not take the first turn and smash your opponent. 

So what could be added to the game to make this core mechanic of the game be more of a tactical decision, rather than a no-brainer decision?

[robertxtrem]

More points if you went second in the battle round is good. On orb of relocation taking first turn each time can actually make it harder to win.

[mikethefish]

Personally I am not going to answer that question, because I disagree with you that it's a problem.

I don't think it needs to be this overwhelming tactical decision.  Being an auto-decision is perfectly fine.  The point of the double turn is to shake up games and it does a more than good job of doing so.

I've played 40k (which doesn't have a double turn, of course) for a number of years.  In basically every edition of the game, it's always the same thing.  Two players start.  One player starts to lose.  He then loses some more, and then continues to lose until finally...he loses.  Now of course I am using hyperbole, but this is an essential problem of this game.  Once the game's course is set, it's far too difficult for players to alter that course.

The double turn solves this.  If a losing player gets double-turned, then he simply loses that much faster, and finishes the game quicker.  If a losing player gets to take a double turn, then it gives him a chance to come from behind.

So personally I think that the turn sequence is just fine, and I don't particularly care that the turn choice is a simple one

 

[Tropical Ghost General]

@mikethefish I'm not critical of the double turn mechanic. It's part of the game and something that I really like about AoS. I'm only asking if there should be as much reward for taking the 2nd turn as there is for going 1st. You think not, which is fine. 

 

[Sleboda]

2 hours ago, Tropical Ghost General said:

to all of those who don't want to see a change to the current system, I follow up by asking, what could be added to the game to make the decision to always take the first turn, when rolling for priority,

To me it's not.

I often like to have the other guy go first for various reasons.

[Kasper]

2 hours ago, Tropical Ghost General said:

So to all of those who don't want to see a change to the current system, I follow up by asking, what could be added to the game to make the decision to always take the first turn, when rolling for priority, a less attractive option and less of an auto-decision?

GW tried to use endless spells but it hasn't worked, especially now OBR and other factions have endless spells that can't damage their own models. 

The tactical element of choosing which turn to take (after the initial choosing at the start of the game) rarely ever happens in games, it's more often than not take the first turn and smash your opponent. 

So what could be added to the game to make this core mechanic of the game be more of a tactical decision, rather than a no-brainer decision?

Sure some armies got Endless spells that dont affect their own models, but you still got stuff like Geminids that can honestly be quite impacting. From my own experience, people are lazy and dont bother much with Endless spells.

[soak314]

End of round scoring is already the case for Meeting Engagements. For the end of round scoring to work, the format also adds:

• a hard 4 round limit to all battleplans
• Major and Minor victories for all battleplans based on the amount of points you beat your opponent by (not just tiebreakers)
• 2-3 stage staggered deployment where the new units come out immediately at the end of player turns

In ME scoring at the end empowers whoever takes second turn, as it lets them call the shots for the layout of the table for the turn incoming, or for the very end scoring phase. Going second also lets you immediately react to any additional units that have come in, as well as buff a unit up for the receiving end of combat if you end up going second again next turn.

You see a similar meta in Infinity, where having the second, reactionary turn is much more sought after in missions where there are objectives to sit on and buttons to push.

I personally think end of round scoring works phenomenally well with the dynamic of the double turn, especially in Meeting Engagement's smaller format.

For standard 2k though? You'd have to give the system a rehaul before flipping scoring to end of round. It could totally work on specific battleplans, and I would love if they made a set of matched play battleplans for 2k that follows Meeting Engagement's design lead.

Edited November 10, 2019 by soak314

[Ahriman]

To throw in my thoughts, I'm also on the side that taking first in a battle round is definitely not an auto-decision.

In fact, I've seen quite a few people - and realised its happened to me too - where they've lost the game due to taking that first turn. Whether its restricted the amount of movement they can do, or led to giving their opponent more of a chance to respond to their strategies, I think it happens in an awful lot of games.

 

But then I don't play at any sort of competitive level, so the amount of damage an army can do to me is often less than if they had a fully optimised list, so that may change things slightly.

 

I would love Endless Spells to be tweaked though, just to make that decision making harder, and so that we would see more of them around.

[sal4m4nd3r]

I think the only problem with the objective play in this game is that hordes are to "powerful"  in the sense they dominate the scoring mechanic.. as its based on the number of models. Now if you went to the other end of the pendulum and chnanged it to remaining wounds around the objective, I think monster mash armies, or armies like tyrants of blood (bloodthirster lists) or Gristlegore armies would be inappropriately beneficiaries. Perhaps a middle ground using the new Ogor rules as a trial run. Multi wound models count as 2models for the purpose of scoring objectives (or half - rounding up  - the number of wounds remaining), and perhaps monsters just count as flat 5. 

[tripchimeras]

On 11/10/2019 at 6:58 AM, Tropical Ghost General said:

I'm only asking if there should be as much reward for taking the 2nd turn as there is for going 1st. You think not, which is fine. 

 

Do you mean at the start of the battle or in subsequent turns...  Because at the start of the battle I would say that if anything I see players choosing to go second more often then not.  Though it is army and scenario dependent and I think both get chosen fairly frequently.  As for subsequent turns, yes it is fairly rare to forego the double turn or to allow your opponent to have a double turn, but it is not without situational benefit.  Things like the orb scenario for example can encourage going second later on in the game.  Really any of the scenarios that give extra points for stealing objectives will have use-cases at some point for purposely giving your opponent the first turn in a battle round.  There are other use-cases as well, where units are momentarily trapped in combat and giving your opponent the next turn will allow them to break free for your next turn.  Or you see that a T3 double turn is going to be far more valuable to you then a t2 double, so you purposely forego it on T2.  All of these situations already exist in the game, and while I agree in so far that it is far more common to take the first turn in a battle round then not, I think mechanics already exist to break this up.  I just think that people are so conditioned to take double turns that even when there is a clear advantage to passing on it, players will often take it anyway in the heat of the moment out of habbit.  So I personally don't feel like this is a huge issue.

Edited November 11, 2019 by tripchimeras

[Tropical Ghost General]

@tripchimeras yeah, I'm referring to the turns after the 1st, so turn 2 onwards.

I agree that there are situations that can be more beneficial to go 2nd, but more and more the game is introducing units that auto-delete stuff, so choosing to go 2nd is basically accepting that any units currently in combat (or sometimes just elsewhere on the board) are going to be eliminated before you get your 2nd turn. One of the lizard players in my local play group can dish out 26 mortals a hero phase (on average), sometimes more, sometime less, but when you are facing more and more armies that can easily auto-delete your units, the tactical decision of going 2nd for a play later on in the game often isn't a choice, as your units will be dead by the time you get your turn.

 I've asked this question across a view groups and platforms and I'm regularly met with the answer that what I'm facing is solely a localised thing and having your army auto-deleted by your opponent, especially if they do double turn, is not a common experience, yet all the tournaments I've been to, it's been a very similar case of having your toys being taken off by opponent's choosing to take the 1st turn after winning priority rolls. So it maybe that my local meta is just very strong or it could be that my personal experiences are just that and the issues of their being no reward incentive to going 2nd is just something that has only ever occurred to me 🤷‍♀️.

[RuneBrush]

I've felt for a while that the victory conditions for battleplans could do with some improvement, but I do think GW are trying different things to make it better and see what's popular.

We now have a couple of battleplans where the victory points scored in for the player who goes second are greater than the first, which is a step towards making the priority roll choice more tactical based on the battleplan.  One downside of this is that it almost puts too much emphasis on the priority roll - most of us will have played games (and in cases whole events) where we've lost nearly all our priority rolls and in those cases battleplans that use this weighted victory points could be determined by the luck of just a few dice.

I've also felt that I'd like there to be a better distinction between minor and major win/loss conditions.  I've played quite a few games that have been really tight and the win determined by a single victory point - there's always a bit of a bitter taste if the victory points are 19 to 20 and is a major win/loss when it felt that a minor win/loss would have been more appropriate.  That said one of the joys of AoS battleplans is that they are largely pretty streamlined and not too complicated.

[sal4m4nd3r]

4 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

I've felt for a while that the victory conditions for battleplans could do with some improvement, but I do think GW are trying different things to make it better and see what's popular.

We now have a couple of battleplans where the victory points scored in for the player who goes second are greater than the first, which is a step towards making the priority roll choice more tactical based on the battleplan.  One downside of this is that it almost puts too much emphasis on the priority roll - most of us will have played games (and in cases whole events) where we've lost nearly all our priority rolls and in those cases battleplans that use this weighted victory points could be determined by the luck of just a few dice.

I've also felt that I'd like there to be a better distinction between minor and major win/loss conditions.  I've played quite a few games that have been really tight and the win determined by a single victory point - there's always a bit of a bitter taste if the victory points are 19 to 20 and is a major win/loss when it felt that a minor win/loss would have been more appropriate.  That said one of the joys of AoS battleplans is that they are largely pretty streamlined and not too complicated.

I have taken part in many margin of victory tournaments.. I can tell you a sliding scale of victory only promotes negative play experiences. In order to get the most victory points, it encourages players who are winning or doing well to just completely stomp on the opponent. Even in the face of certain victory, you have to continue to play through to get max points and its not fun for either player.Really dislike this type of play. 

[RuneBrush]

37 minutes ago, sal4m4nd3r said:

I have taken part in many margin of victory tournaments.. I can tell you a sliding scale of victory only promotes negative play experiences. In order to get the most victory points, it encourages players who are winning or doing well to just completely stomp on the opponent. Even in the face of certain victory, you have to continue to play through to get max points and its not fun for either player.Really dislike this type of play. 

Interesting to hear the other side of this and hadn't thought how it could cause a negative experience (you're right, some people would use it as a way of prolonging the agony of a certain win).  My thinking is based on my own experience (as somebody who doesn't play a massive amount), that it's pretty disheartening in an event to have a really close game but come away with a major loss - basically diddly for the effort you put in.  Something in the middle would work.  I do think secondary objectives have certainly helped - there's something to play towards regardless of the outcome of a game, but I still think the almost binary win/loss conditions could be improved.

[sal4m4nd3r]

3 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

Interesting to hear the other side of this and hadn't thought how it could cause a negative experience (you're right, some people would use it as a way of prolonging the agony of a certain win).  My thinking is based on my own experience (as somebody who doesn't play a massive amount), that it's pretty disheartening in an event to have a really close game but come away with a major loss - basically diddly for the effort you put in.  Something in the middle would work.  I do think secondary objectives have certainly helped - there's something to play towards regardless of the outcome of a game, but I still think the almost binary win/loss conditions could be improved.

I suppose the way a major/minor is SCORED in an event is different then whether a major/minor is ACHIEVED in game is different. Certainly in the former, yeah it sucks when a winning player has to keep on the throat to get max points. So perhaps a scaled major/minor in game but a fixed amount of tournament points could be interesting. If you only win by one VP in the game.. that can hardly be considered a MAJOR VICTORY FIRE OFF THE TRUMPETS WE DID IT BOYS! more like holy ish we barely pulled that one off..

[tripchimeras]

1 hour ago, sal4m4nd3r said:

I suppose the way a major/minor is SCORED in an event is different then whether a major/minor is ACHIEVED in game is different. Certainly in the former, yeah it sucks when a winning player has to keep on the throat to get max points. So perhaps a scaled major/minor in game but a fixed amount of tournament points could be interesting. If you only win by one VP in the game.. that can hardly be considered a MAJOR VICTORY FIRE OFF THE TRUMPETS WE DID IT BOYS! more like holy ish we barely pulled that one off..

I remember back in 8th where everything was based off of Kill points, and objectives were only secondary pt getters, what you have been discussing with "running up the score" was always an issue.  I was a competitive player and while I did my best to end wide margin games as quickly as I could, as someone in competition for a top spot I was essentially required to play through every last moment to get as many VP as humanly possible to secure that Massacre and get all my secondary objectives scored.  It wasn't something I wanted to do, but it was a requirement of the tournament, and round 1 in particular getting matched up against a new player, and forcing them to sit through turns where the game was basically already over was not fun for either of us.

I think the other aspect for this is that with a more sliding scale, the tactics can change.  If I need to not just win, but utterly destroy my opponent in Objectives, the armies that are best changes heavily in a specific direction.  Its no longer enough to just outlast your opponent, or to score a load of objectives early and cling to victory or whatever.  You need to get to objectives early and then pound your opponent into submission to prevent them from getting any themselves.  I think while the army preferential treatment this will create isn't quite as pronounced as it is when the means of Major victories is kill points, but it is still going to preference a certain type of army, while armies designed to win close or through attrition will become significantly less impactful.

All of that being said I do really feel the pain of a close fought game resulting in a major decision.  Minor wins are next to impossible when they essentially only occur in what is basically a draw.  So I am very torn about how to position tourney points and how to crown a victor.  I want a game that supports many different play styles, and an army that smashes face in 4 games and loses 1 should not necessarily be rewarded more then an army that wins 5 close games and never loses.  That army that won 5 close games very much could be designed to do so (think the armies that win while losing most of their models; usually the objective score is close, but the way they played, and the army they chose you realize afterwards it was going to be extremely difficult to out objective them no matter how the game turned based on how they played).  Should that player and army be rewarded less then the guy who deep striked in turn 1 and killed everything allowing him to claim objectives for 5 turns?  I personally think the game is going to be much healthier if grind it out lists are rewarded just as much as kill everything and prosper builds. 

Back in 8th edition I remember occasions where a player came away 5-0 but only scored minor victories and didn't even place in the top 3.  I want those lists encouraged, it makes for a much more diverse and tactical tourney scene.  And in that way GW's current scoring system actually kind of thrives.  All that matters for the most part is going 5-0 and total objectives scored and/or kill points are really secondary. 

I think I wouldn't mind a compromise where Wins are tiered into 2 or 3 categories, but placing is based first on wins and losses, and second on tiered win points + secondary objectives.  That way you get some credit for a minor loss in the standings, but a lone 5-0 army is always going to win.  Dampens impact a bit of strength of victories, while still making it a factor.

Edited November 12, 2019 by tripchimeras