AoS Power Creep

[Kramer]

On 12/30/2020 at 8:12 PM, Overread said:

One thing I notice EVER so often when watching battle reports on youtube - whoever gets the doubleturn nearly always wins.

One thing I notice EVER so often when watching battle reports on YouTube is that they play for it (and complain about it being deciding) 

MWG has a habit of this. Look at the batreps of doom and darkness. He and his opponents only play for the double if they know they would otherwise lose. 

and that’s the big point for me. 
As a community we tend to talk about as if losing to the double is only because of it. Most of the time it seems to me that player would also have lost  with a I go You go system. 

@Overread as a favour. The next few batreps you watch. Remember this conversation and just pause it and see if it actually made a difference. Or if it just likely sped the result up. 
 

on a separate and anecdotal  note. I was in such a painting frenzy last week I even watched a warhammer fantasy battle batrep and even I, who never played that edition, could see who would win top of turn 1 three times in a row 😂

[Neverchosen]

@Kramer I am much less experienced than many others here but I have noticed the exact same thing. Many players seem to play with certain assumptions, not balancing the risk and reward which is an integral part of the game. I think that this is often the grounds for successful and unsuccessful players more often than not. I think that a lot of players also play 40k and default to it as a normalized standard style of play.  I also like it because it reminds me of the idea of a battle swinging due to external factors. For example, if one side is getting additional double turns it can be thought of as having a battlefield advantage, but when it swings the other way possibly the competing army is rallying back or maybe acclimatizing to the field. 

I like Miniwargamming, as it is a great and fun showcase of various models, terrain and rules I would otherwise not see. I also enjoy that they do not place massive importance on the competitiveness of the armies. But it is frustrating to hear many of their members complaints when they are blatantly ignoring  a major tactical aspect of the game. I do think the popularity of the channel leads to people learning some of these habits, I am somewhat guilty of it, but I also think that certain players are better examples than others. I think this again returns to 40k functioning as their default, as I feel that it makes up a larger portion of their content and views. Many of the smaller and AOS focused channels do a much better job of keeping the double turn in mind from what I have seen. I also think that smaller channels have smaller army pools, which make them less entertaining but also better experienced with their chosen factions. 

Of course it is just a game system, and people will have their preferences and there is not a right or a wrong answer. But the idea of exchanging turns, alternating activations, or randomized turn order are no more or less representative of reality and I personally like the changing tactics provided by AOS' system. I do think it would be cool if there was more thematic methods of countering the turn order. Archaon's rules spring to mind, but a lot of people find them overpowered. I like in 40k the rule for attempting to steal turn priority at the cost of a command point, that would be an interesting command ability for certain generals. I think the issue is that it is very hard to balance turn priority manipulation into an army's special rules or a character's profile without making power creep an even greater issue. As such I am fine with keeping priority manipulation/knowledge purely with the game's big bad. 

Forgive my inexperience, particularly if I spoke out of turn on the subject. I am also terrible with strategy and I mostly play for fun so please take my opinion with a grain of salt. If anything I probably like double turns as they make up for my own various strategic incompetencies. I will not be overly angry if they change the rules, I just enjoy the additional strategic decisions. 

Edited January 2, 2021 by Neverchosen

[Overread]

I think the problem with Fly in AoS is that GW mostly sort of kind of treats fly like you've got jump-jets. You hop when you need it otherwise you're on the ground. I'd love for them to introduce a proper flight mechanic so that units are either in flight or on the ground. Then split units with fly into those that are constantly in flight (eg KO airships) and those which are able to switch between the two states. Then you can start to say "Ok a unit in flight in a wood is visible at all times because they are above the trees and can move as normal; but if they are able and select "grounded" then they can land and walk through the woods - no movement bonus but they also count as in cover etc...

I think it would be a great addition to deepening the rules and also giving flight units something beyond just hop skipping over terrain. 

 

 

@Kramer honestly even if its only doing that in set matches its still not a good mechanic. Even if it is just speeding up the win its doing so in the most insulting way to the one on the losing side. They aren't just losing to a better player in a better situation in the game, but they are doing so without question of having a chance to retaliate. 

[Overread]

I think the problem with Fly in AoS is that GW mostly sort of kind of treats fly like you've got jump-jets. You hop when you need it otherwise you're on the ground. I'd love for them to introduce a proper flight mechanic so that units are either in flight or on the ground. Then split units with fly into those that are constantly in flight (eg KO airships) and those which are able to switch between the two states. Then you can start to say "Ok a unit in flight in a wood is visible at all times because they are above the trees and can move as normal; but if they are able and select "grounded" then they can land and walk through the woods - no movement bonus but they also count as in cover etc...

I think it would be a great addition to deepening the rules and also giving flight units something beyond just hop skipping over terrain. 

 

 

@Kramer honestly even if its only doing that in set matches its still not a good mechanic. Even if it is just speeding up the win its doing so in the most insulting way to the one on the losing side. They aren't just losing to a better player in a better situation in the game, but they are doing so without question of having a chance to retaliate. 

Again if this dice roll is deciding or cementing the game state is it really that much fun to have most of the game hinge upon one dice roll

[Enoby]

For double turn, while there are many good arguments for and against, I think we should look at the most important aspect - do most people enjoy it? Of course, no one here knows the opinions of thousands of AoS players. Anecdotally, no one I play with enjoys the double turn; not because they lose, but because they have to sit through two turns in a row and some people play really slowly (about 45 mins per turn) and the game feels very one sided. I personally see some merits in it - it does make you think more about placement than "you go I go" - but on the whole I don't enjoy the experience of it. Even if I do play well and the double turn is deflected by good placement, I don't enjoy being double turned, nor do I enjoy running over someone's army if I get the double turn. Of course, there's always going to be parts of the game people don't enjoy (e.g. having a unit wiped out), but usually those parts have at least one player enjoy it (e.g. wiping out an opposing unit); the double turn is one of the few mechanics (as well as battleshock) that I've seen negative play experience from those benefiting from it and those suffering it. 

Usually, in my group (about 7 people), we tend to just skip the double turn with a quick question of "would you have fun if I took the double turn" and the answer of almost always "no". The armies vary, but there's only one Tzeentch and Kharadron list and the rest are usually melee focused. 

For me, it's less of a discussion about how good of a mechanic the double turn is, and more about how people seem to not have fun when it happens. 

Tangentially relating to power creep, I think the double turn excentuates it. The more offensive power an army has (especially at range), the more they'll benefit from a double turn. 

As for cover and scenery. It helps, but unless you cram the board with scenery it's super hard to fully hide a big unit and cover offers no protection from mortal wounds. In addition, cramped scenery tends to be finicky to move large unit around so people don't enjoy playing with too much. 

[NinthMusketeer]

I don't enjoy the double turn because of how easy it is to win with it. If I am building for matched play I know that the ideal is to go for low-drop to ensure turn choice, choose second, then play every round assuming the double turn won't happen. Why? If it does I know I will have such an overwhelming advantage that any preparation hardly matters. There is no 'strategic' element of planning what to do if the double does or doesn't happen, it's just planning what to do if it doesn't because if it does I just win. But it doesn't feel like a win, because I didn't earn it. Even if I was going to win anyways it feels hollow,  heavily-considered tactics and plans rendered moot because victory was handed to me on a platter. Like getting half way through a boss fight then the boss just freezes up and lays down while being beaten to death.

I prefer to lose a game because I didn't take the double than win because I did.

[Kramer]

1 hour ago, Overread said:

onestly even if its only doing that in set matches its still not a good mechanic. Even if it is just speeding up the win its doing so in the most insulting way to the one on the losing side. They aren't just losing to a better player in a better situation in the game, but they are doing so without question of having a chance to retaliate. 

Come on, first off it isn't insulting. That's just being hyperbolic about it. But this argument is glass half full or empty isn't i?. You see it as an insult. That GW has added a mechanic that says: Here you go, when you're already losing, here's a mechanic that can make you lose faster.
To me the mechanic shouts: Here you go, when you're already losing, here's a mechanic that can get you back in it. 

So maybe that's just it. Personal preference, and nothing more and nobody to convince or persuade.

45 minutes ago, Enoby said:

For me, it's less of a discussion about how good of a mechanic the double turn is, and more about how people seem to not have fun when it happens. 

 

I agree with this. We really enjoy it though. It's a fun and exciting dice roll. One that gets you talking before and after it happens. So I would miss it if it was gone. 

 

47 minutes ago, Enoby said:

Tangentially relating to power creep, I think the double turn excentuates it. The more offensive power an army has (especially at range), the more they'll benefit from a double turn. 

Yeah agreed.

In general I think the only bad thing is the wait time if you get double'd. We often play 1,5K games. So it's a bit better but still that part isn't good. And I wouldn't mind if in 3 years time we think of the mechanic as a halfway station and we have a hybrid system in place that negates the wait time but still mixes things. That would be cool. But going back to an I Go You Go mechanic would be such a step back in the dynamic gameplay imo.. Gorka/Archaon/Sigmar/Morka/Nagash forbid that it turns into a game where you know half way through the game who's going to win. That would kill the game for me. 

1 hour ago, Neverchosen said:

Of course it is just a game system, and people will have their preferences and there is not a right or a wrong answer. But the idea of exchanging turns, alternating activations, or randomized turn order are no more or less representative of reality and I personally like the changing tactics provided by AOS' system. I do think it would be cool if there was more thematic methods of countering the turn order. Archaon's rules spring to mind, but a lot of people find them overpowered. I like in 40k the rule for attempting to steal turn priority at the cost of a command point, that would be an interesting command ability for certain generals. I think the issue is that it is very hard to balance turn priority manipulation into an army's special rules or a character's profile without making power creep an even greater issue. As such I am fine with keeping priority manipulation/knowledge purely with the game's big bad. 

Yeah that would be cool. In my mind the advantages and disadvantages of the priority choice should be in the scenarios. And I feel GW are trying it more and more. With the blades edge battleplan, scoring more points if you hold them both turns in a battleround. Somebody on here suggested defensive bonuses if you get doubled, all kinds of cool stuff is possible. 

 

[Sarouan]

To be honest, while the discussion on the Double Turn mechanism being relevant or not is interesting, I don't believe it actually has direct ties with the power creep in AoS. Either it ends the game earlier like Kramer said, or it allows the disadvantaged player to make a comeback. On that matter, I'd say it helps more against an army deemed "overpowered" than a classic I Go You Go system, because it still gives the opportunity to the underdog to go back in the game. I do understand the overpowered player may not find it "fun" to lose in such a way, as much as the underdog player may not as well in a classic I Go You Go system. Either way, it's more a matter of perspective rather than the mechanism being actually good or bad.

It's always easy to blame the Double Turn for the cause of your loss, in the end, and that indeed shows in some famous Youtubers videos.

Edited January 2, 2021 by Sarouan

[Kramer]

14 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

To be honest, while the discussion on the Double Turn mechanism being relevant or not is interesting, I don't believe it actually has direct ties with the power creep in AoS. Either it ends the game earlier like Kramer said, or it allows the disadvantaged player to make a comeback. On that matter, I'd say it helps more against an army deemed "overpowered" than a classic I Go You Go system, because it still gives the opportunity to the underdog to go back in the game. I do understand the overpowered player may not find it "fun" to lose in such a way, as much as the underdog player may not as well in a classic I Go You Go system. Either way, it's more a matter of perspective rather than the mechanism being actually good or bad.

It's always easy to blame the Double Turn for the cause of your loss, in the end, and that indeed shows in some famous Youtubers videos.

Way more succinctly put what I tried to write.
After you read my previous posts. Forget them and read this 😂

[novakai]

they could just make it optional to play the double turn mechanic, like how you roll for your artifacts instead of choosing one, so you don't have to force players to play it if there an agreeance with the other player.

less feel bad moments for new players too

[Sarouan]

1 hour ago, novakai said:

they could just make it optional to play the double turn mechanic, like how you roll for your artifacts instead of choosing one, so you don't have to force players to play it if there an agreeance with the other player.

less feel bad moments for new players too

Players can do whatever they want once they agree with each other - including changing the rules. That's pretty much how the social contract in games works.

Edited January 2, 2021 by Sarouan

[Nasrod]

On 12/28/2020 at 11:03 AM, stratigo said:

40k is only really ever worse in the imaginings of those AoS players who need something to be worse to not feel as bad. The actual balance flipflops between the two depending on releases. Right now, I'd say 40k has managed a place where the game is in a better place than AoS. 

*laughs in friend playing Tau against another friend's Relentlessly Expansionist+All Ob Sec Necron list*

Side note: by and large I agree with you. The overall balance is better but the fringe/skew match ups for the bottom tier and top tier in 40k atm may as well be an infinite abyss. 

As far as Sigmar goes, if the double turn must remain, a universal rule in which a player who takes a double turn receives -1 to hit in the Shooting phase would go a long way toward a healthier game for me. 

I certainly like Sigmar's melee rules more than 40k's. Really wish we could take the best aspects of each and make a truly great tabletop. 

[NinthMusketeer]

There is a certain amusement factor in the argument that 'yeah the double turn can break a balanced game, but it can also even out an unbalanced one!' As if that is a merit and they aren't just rewording the double turn being a completely random mechanism.

[Kramer]

1 hour ago, NinthMusketeer said:

There is a certain amusement factor in the argument that 'yeah the double turn can break a balanced game, but it can also even out an unbalanced one!' As if that is a merit and they aren't just rewording the double turn being a completely random mechanism.

Then you must also laugh at people who make a strategy around the completely random (except teclis the cheat) magic mechanics.  
there is a lot of choices, tactics and in both but in the end it’s all a dice game, so it’s random. So I have no trouble with random mechanics. Makes the game less predictable and therefore more fun  

Again except teclis, which is why I feel it’s a bad rule. But I haven’t played lumineth yet so maybe it’s not all that bad. 

Edited January 3, 2021 by Kramer

[novakai]

6 hours ago, Sarouan said:

Players can do whatever they want once they agree with each other - including changing the rules. That's pretty much how the social contract in games works.

sure but always give leeway in your rules for players, 

though i think Narrative play often time goes out the Waazoo because there still have to be organization out of it

[NinthMusketeer]

1 hour ago, Kramer said:

Then you must also laugh at people who make a strategy around the completely random (except teclis the cheat) magic mechanics.  
there is a lot of choices, tactics and in both but in the end it’s all a dice game, so it’s random. So I have no trouble with random mechanics. Makes the game less predictable and therefore more fun  

Again except teclis, which is why I feel it’s a bad rule. But I haven’t played lumineth yet so maybe it’s not all that bad. 

Those have bell curves of probability and multiple factors affecting them involving player choice. The double turn just happens. I would legitimately consider it an improvement to ditch initiative in favor of rolling d6 at the end of the game; on a 3-4 the result stands, on a 5-6 player A wins a major victory, on a 1-2 player B wins a major victory. Players like me don't have to deal with the double turn while players like you can still have a game result overturned completely at random, and everyone wins.

Edited January 3, 2021 by NinthMusketeer

[Kramer]

3 minutes ago, NinthMusketeer said:

Those have bell curves of probability and multiple factors affecting them involving player choice. The double turn just happens. I would legitimately consider it an improvement to ditch initiative in favor of rolling d6 at the end of the game; on a 3-4 the result stands, on a 5-6 player A wins a major victory, on a 1-2 player B wins a major victory. Players like me don't have to deal with the double turn while players like you can still have a game result overturned completely at random, and everyone wins.

well you're very sarky about this. I'll leave you to it then.

But from my standpoint a succesfull Hand of Gork can win a game just as much as a Priority roll can. But at least everybody gets a chance at that. Hell I lose, and win, more games to a succesful 9+ charge than anything else. 

[Enoby]

If double turn stays in the game through 3.0 (which it probably will as a lot of people do like it), I hope they make it more interactive by giving the double turned 'victim' some bonuses to stop a wipe. 

Imo, the least fun part of a double turn (besides the wait) is someone who has chosen to go second with a fast/ranged high attack army, charged to wipe out a big chunk of my army, and charged again to wipe out the rest that can threaten them. While it's all well and good to say 'think about positioning', new armies often have ways to mitigate that (e.g. Kharadron teleporting). The double turn I think can bring about some interesting combos and decision making, but I would like it if they gave the 'victim' a protective bonus such as +1 army wide save and +5 army wide mortal wound save during the opponent's turn and only if it was the opponent who chose the double turn. This would mean you couldn't run over armies as easily with a double turn, doesn't remove the benefit of a double turn (still the chance to cap objectives, summon, position etc), but is also more fun for the person going second as they don't have to watch their favourite models get shot/charged off the board when all they did for the whole game was move them. 

I don't hate the concept of the double turn - 'you go I go' has issues too - but it needs some tweaking to stop it being to easy to wipe with. To the side, personally I prefer unit by unit activation (e.g. player 1 activates their Lord of Change in the hero phase, player 2 activates their Fungoid Cave Shaman, player 1 activates their pink horrors etc until they move onto the next phase and repeat).  

[Kramer]

39 minutes ago, Enoby said:

I don't hate the concept of the double turn - 'you go I go' has issues too - but it needs some tweaking to stop it being to easy to wipe with.

Thinking about it. What would peoples thoughts be on a system where turn 1 and 2 the priority is set? 

but starting turn three the priority roll sets in. 
it could nicely represent that the battle gets more hectic and unpredictable as it goes on.

- Would prevent an early double turn ending the game early as people argue is a problem. 

- would allow for some late game turns and twists, as others argue is part of the value.

- would also reduce wait time as turn three both armies are usually starting to fade rapidly. And you get two solid turns of play minimum before a double turn could happen.

The priority turn 1 based on drops would have to go. (Which is really the only core rule I have an issue with anyway). Change it to a +1 on the roll off who decides turn order for the first two turns. 

In the end I still feel priority roll combined with more rewarding choices through scenarios is more fun. But that’s very much down to what you want from the game i suspect. 

[Enoby]

13 minutes ago, Kramer said:

Thinking about it. What would peoples thoughts be on a system where turn 1 and 2 the priority is set? 

but starting turn three the priority roll sets in. 
it could nicely represent that the battle gets more hectic and unpredictable as it goes on.

- Would prevent an early double turn ending the game early as people argue is a problem. 

- would allow for some late game turns and twists, as others argue is part of the value.

- would also reduce wait time as turn three both armies are usually starting to fade rapidly. And you get two solid turns of play minimum before a double turn could happen.

The priority turn 1 based on drops would have to go. (Which is really the only core rule I have an issue with anyway). Change it to a +1 on the roll off who decides turn order for the first two turns. 

In the end I still feel priority roll combined with more rewarding choices through scenarios is more fun. But that’s very much down to what you want from the game i suspect. 

Personally, I'd like it. Usually it's the first priority roll where most of the issues set in, and the other ones are important but less swingy as most things are in combat by this point.

The priority roll isn't bad on its own - it can have some really interesting gameplay interactions - but with the rest of AoS being so damage focused the first to second turn priority can be much less fun especially for new or inexperienced players when it happens to them. If AoS was a game where things were much less damaging and much more tanky, I don't think the double turn would be quite as badly thought of (that's not to say the game would be better, but just on the topic of the double turn).  Back on the topic of power creep, armies have got stronger (and most importantly, more damaging compared to tankiness) over time and so the effect of the double turn is more brutal than it was initially.

[tom0tom]

 

3 hours ago, Enoby said:

Personally, I'd like it. Usually it's the first priority roll where most of the issues set in, and the other ones are important but less swingy as most things are in combat by this point.

The priority roll isn't bad on its own - it can have some really interesting gameplay interactions - but with the rest of AoS being so damage focused the first to second turn priority can be much less fun especially for new or inexperienced players when it happens to them. If AoS was a game where things were much less damaging and much more tanky, I don't think the double turn would be quite as badly thought of (that's not to say the game would be better, but just on the topic of the double turn).  Back on the topic of power creep, armies have got stronger (and most importantly, more damaging compared to tankiness) over time and so the effect of the double turn is more brutal than it was initially.

+1 I also like the idea. To me any mechanics which would keep the double turn (random needed ,  not playing chess :)) but mitigate it would be welcome. Also less massive mortal wounds and easy hero sniping, and the game would be more balanced and well... almost perfect!

By the way when I started playing aos I was a little bit puzzled that a) the hit roll is the same when you shoot on a close target and on a target far away and b) you can shoot and fight. Obviously aos is not meant to be a realistic wargame but still it’s strange no? This has probably been proposed many times but as power creep is also a consequence of massive shooting armies maybe a -1 to hit (or to wound) from a given distance and a -1 to hit in combat for a unit which used its shooting abilities (or, other option, a model can only shoot (on any unit within range) or fight) would maybe also help reinstating the balance. 

[Kramer]

3 minutes ago, tom0tom said:

 

+1 I also like the idea. To me any mechanics which would keep the double turn (random needed ,  not playing chess :)) but mitigate it would be welcome. Also less massive mortal wounds and easy hero sniping, and the game would be more balanced and well... almost perfect!

By the way when I started playing aos I was a little bit puzzled that a) the hit roll is the same when you shoot on a close target and on a target far away and b) you can shoot and fight. Obviously aos is not meant to be a realistic wargame but still it’s strange no? This has probably been proposed many times but as power creep is also a consequence of massive shooting armies maybe a -1 to hit (or to wound) from a given distance and a -1 to hit in combat for a unit which used its shooting abilities (or, other option, a model can only shoot (on any unit within range) or fight) would maybe also help reinstating the balance. 

I reckon it’s just to keep it simple. Warhammer fantasy battle ended with 300 pages of rules (at least in my memory) 

And AoS started with just four. But I agree that if they want to add depth to  things this would be a good one. 

[yukishiro1]

I really like the idea of turning off the double for the T1 to T2 transition, I think that goes a long way to make the interaction with shooting armies less abusive. If the first opportunity for a double turn is after the other player has had a minimum of two turns to play the game, it drastically reduces the amount of stuff available to shoot/cast twice before you can respond. The big problem right now is that a low-drop ranged army can give you first turn, take very little casualties, and then have 90% of more of their own army to delete your entire army off the board in the double turn from T1 to T2. If that can't happen and the earliest opportunity for a double turn is the end of T2 going to T3, the opponent has enough time to make a dent in and get engaged with the ranged army before it can do its double-turn delete trick.

I may be wrong, but I also don't get the impression that even fans of the double turn actually like when it happens on the T1/T2 transition. I can't imagine having half to 75% of your army deleted by a ranged opponent after having had only a single turn to move up into range is really fun for anybody. 

 

Edited January 3, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Maddpainting]

Give the double turn a real tactical choice, if a player takes the double turn, the opponent will win the roll off automatically for them to choose a double turn or not. 

[Kramer]

17 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

army can give you first turn, take very little casualties, and then have 90% of more of their own army to delete your entire army off the board in the double turn from T1 to T2.

Indeed. In the, admittedly short, time I thought about this would be to make turn one priority a roll off. Maybe with the lowest drop player getting +1 or winning ties. 

yhay way it the shooting armies goes all in for that giving away of turn 1. They still can lose the priority. Be horribly out of position when you give them that turn 1.