Mechanics to make going second more appealing.

[Kramer]

What battleplan mechanics are out there to make choosing to go second more appealing?

I'm kinda disappointed that GHB2020 didn't take things further by introducing more mechanics to reward going second. But luckily about half my games are narrative so I can do whatever we want 😅

So in a way i'm just looking for cool ideas. But simultaneously it might turn into nice discussion if it would be good for Matched play as well. I do understand there are in game reasons to not go first. Like denying the opportunity for a double into next turn, forcing an opponents hand, etc. 

For example, The Blades Edge is a great scenario with 6 objectives. The player who goes second chooses to remove one objective from the battlefield. Great mechanic imo. Forces you to make a tough choice. What's your favourite?

 

BIG EDIT, JUST TO KEEP IT ON TRACK. NO PRO'S AND CON'S ON THE PRIORITY ROLL. IT IS WHAT IT IS AND LET'S LEAVE IT AT THAT FOR THIS CONVERSATION. 

Edited July 15, 2020 by Kramer

[PrimeElectrid]

Going second is already more appealing because of the potential for a double turn*.

Additionally, in turn 1, many spells/abilities will be outside range at the top of turn 1.*

*Unless you have an alpha strike army that can circumvent the range limitations.

[Saturmorn Carvilli]

I agree with PrimeElectrid. 

I think Age of Sigmar does a pretty good job placing pros and cons for going first or second for an IGOUGO system.  My current army is pretty capable to handle either which usually has my opponents taking a think about going first or second since most of them are less capable of weathering a double turn than me, but them going first means I can get a lot more charges off as they move into no-man's-land.

[Kramer]

13 minutes ago, Saturmorn Carvilli said:

I agree with PrimeElectrid. 

I think Age of Sigmar does a pretty good job placing pros and cons for going first or second for an IGOUGO system.  My current army is pretty capable to handle either which usually has my opponents taking a think about going first or second since most of them are less capable of weathering a double turn than me, but them going first means I can get a lot more charges off as they move into no-man's-land.

I agree with @PrimeElectrid as well. But I’m specifically looking for battle plan mechanics that make it a more interesting choice. 

also you both seem to talk about the first turn only right? Which again, very valid points but I’m also looking for battleplan reasons to go second in turn four and five. Like the relocation orb that awarded you three or one point depending on the turn order. 

[Bululu]

49 minutes ago, PrimeElectrid said:

Going second is already more appealing because of the potential for a double turn*.

Additionally, in turn 1, many spells/abilities will be outside range at the top of turn 1.*

*Unless you have an alpha strike army that can circumvent the range limitations.

I agree, in fact that very same scenario is the one i disliked from the new books. So did i dislike the "gain 3 points if you go second or 1 point if you go first" scenario of before. Having the chance of double turn is usually better than going first, except on alpha or ranged meta teams when the enemy has an answer to you

[Saturmorn Carvilli]

Beyond first turn, I think the only thing Double turn gets you is better table positioning for the most part.  After Round 2, most of my hammer-ish (Knights/Varanguard/Heroes) units have locked themselves in fights and very likely by the end of the Round are either looking to clear that fight or have been cleared themselves.  If the objectives are static double turn movement isn't that much of a boon usually.  Moving objectives can be won or loss with Double Turn moves, but that's the drawback of me having a fairly slow army too. 

The only thing that really upsets the balance is armies with high amounts of Shooting.  Which I do face quite a bit with DoT flamers and KO overall.  It does seem kinda OP to me, but I can't say that for certain as my faction is very low on meaningful ranged units so of course I am going to feel a Phase that I don't really participate in is going to feel broken when 9 flamers and an Exalted flamers basically hit me with +2, Rend -1 while I am bogged down against Pink/Blue/Yellow Horrors.  But I could say the same about healing and summoning which I feel my army is also pretty weak.  So while I feel it is OP, I don't know if it actually is or if it is just a matter I can't really do anything about it with my army.  I lean toward the latter since the 'Grass is Greener' is probably more in effect than it actually being overpowered.

[JPjr]

what I'm hoping to see is them develop, expand and really lean into the new secondary objectives and what's in the new 40K rules, so winning points isn't just a case of squatting on an objective marker like a motley group of bums but actually doing things.

different units having different actions that they can perform to score more points. 

get it even further away from it being a game of just smash and kill the other side and actually set out to achieve specific things within a battle (though of course fun to have some straight up murder, death, kill games).

the good thing is if done well (BIG IF of course) that could be a way of making specific, perhaps underused, units more popular and shifting the ✌️meta✌️ away from just the most powerful, damage dealing choices.

it could introduce more tactical play and, to get back to your original point, if they really went to town there could be specific things that can only be scored in either the first or second turn, so it's not just I go first so I can kill you first, or I go second so I can get the double turn.

[Bululu]

Just now, Saturmorn Carvilli said:

Beyond first turn, I think the only thing Double turn gets you is better table positioning for the most part.  After Round 2, most of my hammer-ish (Knights/Varanguard/Heroes) units have locked themselves in fights and very likely by the end of the Round are either looking to clear that fight or have been cleared themselves.  If the objectives are static double turn movement isn't that much of a boon usually.  Moving objectives can be won or loss with Double Turn moves, but that's the drawback of me having a fairly slow army too. 

The only thing that really upsets the balance is armies with high amounts of Shooting.  Which I do face quite a bit with DoT flamers and KO overall.  It does seem kinda OP to me, but I can't say that for certain as my faction is very low on meaningful ranged units so of course I am going to feel a Phase that I don't really participate in is going to feel broken when 9 flamers and an Exalted flamers basically hit me with +2, Rend -1 while I am bogged down against Pink/Blue/Yellow Horrors.  But I could say the same about healing and summoning which I feel my army is also pretty weak.  So while I feel it is OP, I don't know if it actually is or if it is just a matter I can't really do anything about it with my army.  I lean toward the latter since the 'Grass is Greener' is probably more in effect than it actually being overpowered.

I cant agree more, the new shooting meta is something i dislike the most, specially combined with teleport and/or 1 drop armies that will shoot you down before you can do anything, or leave you to go second if you have no answer to them, so they might get the double turn to shoot you out even more...  I mean long ago the nerfed shooting because they realized something. And now they have gone back to shooting, i dont really know what are they thinking...

[Dressedspring1]

17 minutes ago, Saturmorn Carvilli said:

Beyond first turn, I think the only thing Double turn gets you is better table positioning for the most part.  After Round 2, most of my hammer-ish (Knights/Varanguard/Heroes) units have locked themselves in fights and very likely by the end of the Round are either looking to clear that fight or have been cleared themselves.  If the objectives are static double turn movement isn't that much of a boon usually. 

I think you are vastly undervaluing the importance of the hero phase for some armies. Being able to heal 3 x D3 wounds + resurrect a slain unit two hero phases in a row when playing for instance legion of grief is a hugely different scenario than being beat on by your opponent for two combat phases in a row without access to your healing or summoning. 

[Baron Klatz]

5 hours ago, Kramer said:

For example, The Blades Edge is a great scenario with 6 objectives. The player who goes second chooses to remove one objective from the battlefield. Great mechanic imo. Forces you to make a tough choice. What's your favourite?

Oh that's really cool.

(Also wise edit to nip that controversy in the bud)

I've been teasing Narrative scenarios based on this and stuff like the Ogor scenarios that let you hire a third army on the field. Something like treasure or resource build-up by going second or just being slower so you can win a wealth victory for say Kharadron or spend the aether-gold to boost their engines & weapons if a victory by battle is insight.

Similarly I was thinking of adding on to the realmscape cards stuff like getting overheated in Aqshy so your movement and Hits are halved if you choose a double turn.

[Saturmorn Carvilli]

4 hours ago, Dressedspring1 said:

I think you are vastly undervaluing the importance of the hero phase for some armies. Being able to heal 3 x D3 wounds + resurrect a slain unit two hero phases in a row when playing for instance legion of grief is a hugely different scenario than being beat on by your opponent for two combat phases in a row without access to your healing or summoning. 

I think it is less me undervaluing Healing and more my army does very little damage.  I consider 7-8 wounds at Rend -1 a pretty solid hit with my army (usually 10 Knights with Daemonic Strength running or similar).  That just isn't deleting anything but the smallest of chaff units or weakest of Heroes.  So my particular army has to grind on most enemy units 2-3 rounds to come out on top (if I can survive that long).  Regardless of how turn order comes out, my opponent is going to get a number of chances to heal if they have the capability.  For me, healing, which I don't consider to dissimilar to summoning (wounds no points were paid for), also feels kinda overpowered.  Again, in most cases it probably isn't, but when your army only really has units they have plus maybe a few Warcry Cultists summons, it can be tough watching your wounds diminish at a faster rate than your opponent's.  Which for an attrition army like mine, usually means a loss. 

Again, I don't have that many games under my belt, know my army isn't very optimized and I will probably not ever be a good player at AoS.  I am surprised I have even won games at all with it.   So anything that feels overpowered to me I chalk up to my shortcomings more than the game.  I know full well Double Turns can make or break some factions.  A number my of opponents seem to play them and are elated or crushed depending on the result of Initiative.  At the same time, some factions aren't too bothered by Double Turns either (I know mine isn't). I think for that alone, it is understandable why debates on getting rid of Double Turns get a little long winded.

I think one of the biggest weaknesses AoS has is too many factions/armies can be hard-countered by something, and thier nothing they can really do about it.  Sometimes the hard-counter is another faction.  I know I probably don't stand a chance vs. OBRs as they do what my army does but more focused/better.  Other times it is a particular mechanic such as Double Turns or maybe Magic.  With more rounded unit options for every faction maybe this wouldn't be an issue.  I don't know what the solution could be.  I do know that often AoS games feel like two powerful energies pushing against each and if one slips slightly it is annihilated.   It surprises me that I have seen as many close games as I have since it feels so easy to fall off that tightrope with a single mistake.

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

13 hours ago, Kramer said:

For example, The Blades Edge is a great scenario with 6 objectives. The player who goes second chooses to remove one objective from the battlefield. Great mechanic imo. Forces you to make a tough choice.

Just played that Battleplan and confirm that the choice it forces did cause my opponent to choose to go second in the second round to ensure they were able to remove one of my objectives.  
 

Before that we played Total Conquest from GH19 which gives you 2 VP if you take away an objective for an opponent and there are situations there were you’d prefer to go second to either get the double or where you want to avoid giving such an opportunity to your opponent.

As regards basic game mechanics will admit to accidentally discovering one the first couple times I played.  Didn’t read close enough to see that VPs were allocated at end of each players turn so we were only allocating at end of each round.  That created a huge incentive to go second so you had better control of what the board looked like when scores were tallied.

Edited July 16, 2020 by Beer & Pretzels Gamer

[Tropical Ghost General]

We played a similar form of Blade's Edge quite a lot at a narrative night I ran pre-covid. The main difference we had, was that whoever lost the priority roll got to remove the objective. The the other player decides to go 1st or 2nd. It opened up the balance and decision making a lot more and didn't put all of the power in the hands of the priority roll winner, as they could play with the intent of choosing to go 2nd and then also remove the objective, which we found was what happened. (FYI - I love the priority roll in case my above statement might say otherwise 😁) 

[Kramer]

6 minutes ago, Tropical Ghost General said:

We played a similar form of Blade's Edge quite a lot at a narrative night I ran pre-covid. The main difference we had, was that whoever lost the priority roll got to remove the objective. The the other player decides to go 1st or 2nd. It opened up the balance and decision making a lot more and didn't put all of the power in the hands of the priority roll winner, as they could play with the intent of choosing to go 2nd and then also remove the objective, which we found was what happened. (FYI - I love the priority roll in case my above statement might say otherwise 😁) 

That's an interesting set up as well. I love those choices in the game. 

[Sonnenspeer]

new rule 😁

TAKING A BREATH
In the heat of the battle, to pause and rethink your strategy sometimes is the better option.
After the winner of the roll off decided who goes first in that battle round, whoever goes 2nd receives one additional CP.

 

Edited July 16, 2020 by Sonnenspeer

[NJohansson]

Really surprised (not judging) that so many people find going first being an advantage. Sure there are some Alpha strike armies that can pull it off but most armies benefit going second. You get the possibility of double turn (not just taking it but dictating if the opponent get the chance or not), better chance of getting range on spells, charges etc. and you also get the possibility that your opponent do not get full efficiency out of their army (turn one) due to not having range etc. I generally see a need for scenarios to increase benefits for going first - not for going second.

[Sonnenspeer]

9 minutes ago, NJohansson said:

Really surprised (not judging) that so many people find going first being an advantage. Sure there are some Alpha strike armies that can pull it off but most armies benefit going second. You get the possibility of double turn (not just taking it but dictating if the opponent get the chance or not), better chance of getting range on spells, charges etc. and you also get the possibility that your opponent do not get full efficiency out of their army (turn one) due to not having range etc. I generally see a need for scenarios to increase benefits for going first - not for going second.

But thats only true for the first battleround!

[zilberfrid]

39 minutes ago, NJohansson said:

Really surprised (not judging) that so many people find going first being an advantage. Sure there are some Alpha strike armies that can pull it off but most armies benefit going second. You get the possibility of double turn (not just taking it but dictating if the opponent get the chance or not), better chance of getting range on spells, charges etc. and you also get the possibility that your opponent do not get full efficiency out of their army (turn one) due to not having range etc. I generally see a need for scenarios to increase benefits for going first - not for going second.

With Lumineth, you need to kill Teclis in the first round, before his spell is up.

[Kramer]

44 minutes ago, NJohansson said:

Really surprised (not judging) that so many people find going first being an advantage. Sure there are some Alpha strike armies that can pull it off but most armies benefit going second. You get the possibility of double turn (not just taking it but dictating if the opponent get the chance or not), better chance of getting range on spells, charges etc. and you also get the possibility that your opponent do not get full efficiency out of their army (turn one) due to not having range etc. I generally see a need for scenarios to increase benefits for going first - not for going second.

You get the possibility of the double. But if you never go first in the battleground. You’re never taking advantage of it 😂

it’s like postponing the first kiss on a date until the date is over. You gotta take a chance at some point 

[hughwyeth]

On 7/15/2020 at 1:00 PM, Kramer said:

For example, The Blades Edge is a great scenario with 6 objectives. The player who goes second chooses to remove one objective from the battlefield. Great mechanic imo. Forces you to make a tough choice. What's your favourite?

I've played Blade's Edge twice now, and it's really fun. Going second is a really powerful thing in this scenario as you dictate the whole direction of the game. Choosing to go first on a round take a lot of thought. First time I didn't really realise this and decided to go first to try and get someone off an objective which wasn't too effective.  Second game i decided to go second every turn (lucky priority roles!) and found it to be a really powerful position to be in. Take up a defensive posture on your home objectives and just remove opponent's objectives 1 by 1. Bog them down on one objective with 40 ghouls in one turn, then pick that objective to be removed- they just wasted 3 units for an objective that's no longer there. 

[NJohansson]

10 hours ago, zilberfrid said:

With Lumineth, you need to kill Teclis in the first round, before his spell is up.

How many armies can do than reliably? Against new players that is a possibility for maybe half of them, with proper positioning by the Lumineth player maybe a handful (probably less).

[zilberfrid]

1 minute ago, NJohansson said:

How many armies can do than reliably? Against new players that is a possibility for maybe half of them, with proper positioning by the Lumineth player maybe a handful (probably less).

No idea, but the game gets a lot harder if Teclis can't be removed before he bubbles everything and starts blasting mortal wounds simply by casting cogs or similar.

Lumineth is not a vs new player friendly army.

[NJohansson]

10 hours ago, Kramer said:

You get the possibility of the double. But if you never go first in the battleground. You’re never taking advantage of it 😂

it’s like postponing the first kiss on a date until the date is over. You gotta take a chance at some point 

This is a common misconception - not using the double turn results in a greater chance of denying your opponent said chance. As an example - My Tzeentch army happily goes turn by turn - witch usually result in me winning the attrition game - the double turn is the only real threat to that.

[NJohansson]

1 minute ago, zilberfrid said:

No idea, but the game gets a lot harder if Teclis can't be removed before he bubbles everything and starts blasting mortal wounds simply by casting cogs or similar.

Lumineth is not a vs new player friendly army.

If your only chance to win is to remove Teclis first turn then you need to rework your army. Sorry to say that but you really can’t base your strategy on it. Not reliable in the long run.

[zilberfrid]

5 minutes ago, NJohansson said:

If your only chance to win is to remove Teclis first turn then you need to rework your army. Sorry to say that but you really can’t base your strategy on it. Not reliable in the long run.

Teclis puts out a 5+ fnp bubble, and can, assuming the warscroll means what it states, drop some 20d3 mortal wounds on average per round in very specific builds. Up to 40-ish mw's on average if you really go for it.

If I assemble an army, it is either TE or KO. Both of which can take him out if the L player isn't really careful, or at least make the mw output a lot smaller by shrinking the aura.

Edited July 16, 2020 by zilberfrid