What would you like for AoS 3

[yukishiro1]

The big thing about the double turn is that it is so divisive. Even people who like it have to realize that it's a massive turn-off for a huge segment of the potential player population. "Whoa? There are double turns in this game? Awesome!!11" says nobody, ever, but "What? Double turn? Count me out" is one of the most common responses you get when trying to get new people into the game. 

I'm not opposed to it existing in some way, but I think it's really clear by now that within the framework AOS has developed into - where magic and shooting are a massive part of the game - it simply doesn't work the way it's currently implemented. I have yet to find a single person who thinks it's good gameplay to have a game system that allows a shooting-focused faction to take the T1 to T2 double and delete 50-75% of the opposing army before it gets a chance to do anything back. 

[Frowny]

I strongly support the double turn. I think it adds a lot of tactical depth to the game, where uncertainty in the present forces more interesting decisions in the present. Do I push further forward to better capitalize if I get the double or do I hang back in case I don't is an interesting decision. So too is planning for  

Mostly, I think it is most important for mitigating the 1st turn advantage. Strong t1 alphas are already very powerful. Without the reciprocal threat of a double back, I think certain armies with longer ranged shooting would be even more dominant. And they are already on the stronger end now. 

Look at 40k where T1 is absolutely massive. You can take the most objectives AND ALSO blow up a portion of your opponent before they can strike back. I think the double is a big part of the reason AoS is more balanced. 

[Ragest]

Sorry but you just can’t tactically play vs dr+shooting armies with more than 18” range having two consecutive turns.

They don’t care about screens, positioning or scoring. Just jump around killing everything with the double turn and then win.

And the worst part, most of them can force double turns with low drop lists.

[Galas]

Nobody would support a double turn like the one AoS has if it was something on a less well known wargame and not GW-endorsed. 

 

Calling a so tactically shallow game as AoS (Even if I like it) more depth because it has double turn is just... no, please.

 

But this thread was not to discuss the double turn.

Edited February 1, 2021 by Galas

[Orkmann]

I like the roll off/double turn mechanism, because it adds extra depth to the game, but the roll off should be applied to the first battle round as well. First turn priority is such a huge deal in AoS, that it is silly that some armies can almost guarantee it every game without much tax paid in points. 

[yukishiro1]

That isn't borne out by the data, though. The reason there was T1 advantage in 40k in 9th was because GW screwed up the missions; 2020 ITC had a T1 win rate of like 52%, i.e. nothing. Prior to them ****** up the missions, the conventional wisdom was that you generally wanted to go 2nd to control the scoring if you were a better player. 

AOS is far less balanced by who takes what turn than 40k right now. A ranged-focused army that gets the T1-T2 double turn has an overwhelming - we're talking about 75% or more - chance to win the game in AOS right now, magnitudes greater than even the 58% going first win rate that pre-FAQ 9th had. 

Now if AOS had 40k-style terrain rules and you could hide from shooting, this would change. But the combination of ranged attacks you cannot hide from and the double turn is literally game-determining. There is no tactical depth to getting low-dropped and then double-turned by ranged armies right now, because there's no real way to mitigate it. 

[Lich King]

4 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

That isn't borne out by the data, though. The reason there was T1 advantage in 40k in 9th was because GW screwed up the missions; 2020 ITC had a T1 win rate of like 52%, i.e. nothing. Prior to them ****** up the missions, the conventional wisdom was that you generally wanted to go 2nd to control the scoring if you were a better player. 

AOS is far less balanced by who takes what turn than 40k right now. A ranged-focused army that gets the T1-T2 double turn has an overwhelming - we're talking about 75% or more - chance to win the game in AOS right now, magnitudes greater than even the 58% going first win rate that pre-FAQ 9th had. 

Now if AOS had 40k-style terrain rules and you could hide from shooting, this would change. But the combination of ranged attacks you cannot hide from and the double turn is literally game-determining. There is no tactical depth to getting low-dropped and then double-turned by ranged armies right now, because there's no real way to mitigate it. 

I would go even further that it’s been this way since day one. Ranged has always been an issue with combination of double turn. They eventually remedied some of it by giving armies abilities and artefacts to reduce shooting etc. - but nothing in the core rules. This needs to stop being abilityhammer and start being warhammer. Less fancy abilities / add-ons and more core rules where choice matters on a universal scale .

[Orkmann]

4 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

 There is no tactical depth to getting low-dropped and then double-turned by ranged armies right now, because there's no real way to mitigate it. 

Yes, I agree, but I think it's more of a problem of the extreme range shooting and low drop/teleporting armies brought by the recent books, than the system itself.

On the other hand, if you field two melee armies, or at least armies with reasonable ranged shooting, that can lead to tactically amazing games. 

[yukishiro1]

Something else you could do is just not let people have a shooting phase on a double turn, period. Sorry, your army was so busy taking the initiative and moving again that they didn't have time to reload! That would nip the problem right in the bud, and it would also create a natural reason not to go put all your eggs in the shooting basket in the first place, as the opponent could then give you the double turn to neuter your damage output. Magic-based armies would still be able to get a big advantage from a double turn, but I'm not sure that's so oppressive without the shooting component too, and with magic there is at least the trade-off of having to try to get your buffs off a second time vs letting them last through another of your opponent's turns. 

31 minutes ago, Orkmann said:

Yes, I agree, but I think it's more of a problem of the extreme range shooting and low drop/teleporting armies brought by the recent books, than the system itself.

On the other hand, if you field two melee armies, or at least armies with reasonable ranged shooting, that can lead to tactically amazing games. 

 

 

I agree with this. If I wasn't clear before, my problem with the double turn is how it actually plays out in AOS right now, not with the theory of it. It works out ok in games where both armies are combat-focused. But it doesn't mix with the game we have right now where most of the dominant factions are built around shooting and magic. 

Edited February 1, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Nullius]

3 hours ago, stratigo said:

 

The most important determinant of victory in AoS is the list you run. A tourney list won't be beaten by a casual list. There's a reason you see the same lists in tournaments over and over. 

When the players are roughly equally skilled that is true, but not when they are unequally skilled.

[yukishiro1]

Yes, but that's true in any game of reasonable complexity. And if you want to compare to 40k, player skill is more relevant there at the moment than in AOS, thanks to AOS' terrain rules bizarrely impacting melee more than ranged. There's very little player skill involved in double-turning your opponent's army off the board with ranged attacks they can't hide from. 

AOS is a frustrating game right now because it has the basic bones to be a really good tactical game, but the way they've allowed the game to become a shooting gallery really minimizes how much the basic game can shine. With just a little more care and attention it could be so much better. 

[Bosskelot]

I think what yukishiro said about the theory of it is the crux of the issue, especially for people who defend the double turn.

The idea behind it is fine, and as I said previously, priority rolls work AMAZINGLY in LOTR because the turn structure is fundamentally different and you also have counterplays within the system if you did not win the roll-off.

The actual reality of the seizing of priority in AOS though is that one army gets another uninterrupted entire turn of dismantling the enemy army with 0 counterplays available and the other player has to basically sit there for another 20-30 minutes with their finger up their bum. Some of the suggestions raised in this thread do not really help either of these two issues either.

Mentioning 40k provides an interesting contrast actually, because when 9th was announced there were a lot of disappointed voices raised at how the basic IGUGO turn structure wasn't changing and how there was no possibility for alternative activations (AA) as a system. The main reasons why people feel this way is because giving one player an entire turn to do what they want with few counters can lead to very one-sided games but can also lead to excessive downtime for players, neither of which are really desirable design goals. (and the latter is IMO the actual biggest issue with the double turn)

The idea of it being a comeback mechanic is just absurd too. Comeback mechanics in games are usually more player controlled and/or have concrete and defined ways to identify when a player is actually behind. In Dota 2, if you're behind in levels and gold, killing higher level higher networth opponents gets you more of both comparatively. The higher level you are, the longer your spawn time too which allows behind teams to exploit that gap. That is a system that can quantify (because computers innit) actual values, but which is still all about an underdog player/team outplaying their opponents and said opponents also messing up and making mistakes which can be exploited. In AOS, not only is this supposed comeback mechanic based on a random roll, but it is just as (if not more) powerful for the winning player than it is for the person behind. It is a win-more mechanic, not a comeback one.

If GW are so wedded to the priority roll idea but do not want to change to LOTR's alternating-phases turn set-up (where it works) then there's few possible ways I see it working or being fixed. One idea I kinda like is giving the receiving player specific Command Abilities that are only for when they get double-turned and are about interrupting the normal flow or order of operations in order to do counterplays somehow.

[Greybeard86]

16 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

AOS is a frustrating game right now because it has the basic bones to be a really good tactical game, but the way they've allowed the game to become a shooting gallery really minimizes how much the basic game can shine. With just a little more care and attention it could be so much better. 

• Reduce the sniping potential.
• Reduce unit model count; make this the skirmish game with lower model count and OW the ranked game.
• Be more generous with keywords & reward more variety in compositions.
• Stop having such large meta waves, it is discouraging for hobby oriented people.

[Overread]

Just now, Greybeard86 said:

• Reduce the sniping potential.
• Reduce unit model count; make this the skirmish game with lower model count and OW the ranked game.
• Be more generous with keywords & reward more variety in compositions.
• Stop having such large meta waves, it is discouraging for hobby oriented people.

I can't see GW making things smaller, if anything I'd expect things to get a bit bigger army wise as time goes on. That said I think GW wants to have more skirmish games and that having things like Warcry, Underworld, Meeting Engagements and the new Warhammer Quest are ideally suited to feed into that skirmish focus.

 

 

[NoMaDhOoK]

Pipe dream: I actually hope that shooting becomes alternating activations (like combat phase), as I think that will allow GW to nerf shooting to a more balanced state. 

IMO: A major issue with shooting heavy lists in AoS is that either you get the double turn, can shoot twice in a row and decimate, or you get double turned, spend 2 turns doing absolutely nothing, and get decimated. 

This somewhat forces shooting armies into trying to force the double turn in order to win. That massive disparity makes shooting pretty much impossible to balance (either way too good, or really bad). 

Having both armies be able to shoot in both turns means that it can be balanced (and reduced) in a more controlled environment (maybe incorporate some of the other suggested shooting changes).

---

This assumes that the double turn stays (though personally I wish it would go away)

Edited February 1, 2021 by NoMaDhOoK

[Televiper11]

Many battles in history have been won off luck & random elements. The double turn reflects that, IMO.

Make shooting be YGIG like combat and beef up Look Out Sir and/or allow wound soaking bodyguards for Heroes and you solve the issue without losing the double turn.

The lack of double turn in 40K is why I’ve never started playing it. 

Edited February 1, 2021 by Televiper11

[yukishiro1]

16 minutes ago, Televiper11 said:

Many battles in history have been won off luck & random elements. The double turn reflects that, IMO.

Make shooting be YGIG like combat and beef up Look Out Sir and/or allow wound soaking bodyguards for Heroes and you solve the issue without losing the double turn.

The lack of double turn in 40K is why I’ve never started playing it. 

Yes, but does that make for a satisfying game? Has anybody in the entire history of AOS rolled for priority on T2 against a shooting army that just removed 1/4 of their army, lost, conceded the game because it was obviously over after another round of shooting, and then been like "that was totally awesome because we just accurately depicted the degree to which luck can determine battles?" I really doubt it. 

Maybe we should roll before the battle and if either side rolls a 1 they get cholera (or bone-eating parasites for death armies, you can come up with something for everybody) and 25% of their army gets removed before the first turn and the rest gets a -1 to everything?

AOS, of all games, seems like the last where we should be worried about accurately simulating what war is really like. 

edit: Missed your edit. Going YGIG for shooting only fixes the issue when you have two ranged armies; otherwise, there's no functional difference if your combat army gets double turned as you aren't doing anything in their shooting phase either way. Fixing Look Out Sir etc would help deal with shooting generally, but it's not the fundamental problem with the double turn. The fundamental problem is a ranged-focused army can remove more than 50% of your army on the T1 to T2 double turn with no ability for you to mitigate it or react. 

I mean if you want to go to YGIG for every phase sure, that'd fix things in the sense that it would make whose turn it is much less important. But I really can't see GW going that way for AOS or 40k, and that's a far more fundamental change to the game than limiting double turns to start on T3 or something like that. 

Edited February 1, 2021 by yukishiro1

[EMMachine]

7 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

Here's an example of what I am talking about: As of GHB 2020, a unit can't attempt to negate a wound more than once. Except that's not actually true. You can't attempt to negate an assigned wound more than once. You are still allowed to attempt to negate unassigned wounds as much as you like. There are abilities that let you do this, like the OBR Aegis Immortal battalion ability. I am sure that 99% of players don't even know that the distinction assigned/unassigned wounds even exists. It would be nice to have a document that tells you this mechanic is even a thing.

Ahm ... to this case.Undying Guardians of the Aegis Immortals has actually a assigned wounds part. The Ability is referring to Soulbound Protectors, which triggers if a wound is allocated to a Ossiarch Bonereapers hero.

 

3 hours ago, TheCovenLord said:

-Make shooting into combat impossible. Either make it so units cannot fire into their own combat (allowing melee units to rush and lock up ranged units) or make it impossible for units to fire into combats involving friendlies for fear of hitting them. Something needs to be done about shooting  and this is a potential solution. Make it so either it harkens back to eras past where if a ranged unit got locked in combat they had to resort to their awful melee profile with knives/fists OR make it so the fear of hitting friendlies prevent them from focus firing units pinned in place off the board. Either one would do wonders to help mitigate some shooting lists (still doesn't fix hard 1st turn alphas but that may have to be a tome by tome basis). I did consider making it so that units run the risk of dying to shots fired into a combat with friendlies. However, it encourages a rather toxic playstyle of pinning with cheapest chaff (you don't care about) and shooting it anyway (regardless of fluff) OR putting a unit that is just too difficult to kill by the source of shooting and shooting into the combat anyway. Without how good shooting is at the moment I'd be very doubtful that using "misses" as hitting your own units would be much of a detriment to people who invest heavily in the shooting game.

I think not able to shoot with a unit that is in combat would make weapons like throwing axes or Javelins completly obsolet because they rarely have the chance to fire outside of combat. The restriction that you can only shoot at units you are in combat with is already a restriction.

Not shooting into frendly combat would be more possible. I think the main problem with this is, that shooting into combat doesn't have any disadvantage maybe it could help gaving a -1 to hit or something instead of banning it completly.

 

7 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

Finally, since losing troops to battleshock is not the most positive play experience in the world, the mechanic could be redone entirely. Maybe failing battleshock could force a unit to retreat in the next round, with all that entails.

I actually like the mechanic of losing models. Mostly for one reason. It's hard to describe that a hero isn't dead if he loses the last wound when fleeing models are moving. If fleeing models are removed as well, the char can simply say, "I have enough, we meet next time" and runs off.

In case of Inspiring presens, after the model has to be in range of a hero, using the bravery of the hero could be an option too, but I guess, that heroes should have a higher bravery for this.

Edited February 1, 2021 by EMMachine

[Ganigumo]

1. Keeping the priority roll. This is what makes AoS unique. Don't remove it just because a handful of bent armies abuse it, fix the offending armies and leave it as it is. It adds much needed dynamism to the game and you need to strategize around it, of course it will lose you games sometimes, but it will also win you games sometimes. Deciding whether or not to risk something on the potential of a big reward if you get a double, or holding it back so you don't overextend yourself if you don't presents meaningful decisions with no "right" answer, this is good. I've found playing with a static turn order to be much less interesting lately, because it changes every scenario into one with a "right" or "best" answer instead of creating scenarios with different risks and rewards which you need to weigh against each other. That isn't to say you don't need to weigh your options with a static turn order, but the added dynamism of the priority roll reduces the number of scenarios where one option is actually the "best" one.
2. Keep the first turn in the control of the players, sure some battletomes have better options for controlling it, but that should be part of the balance of the game, and any failures are due to poor book writing. 
3.  Increase monster movement. I know some monsters are fast, but alot are slow (looking at you arachnarok). Let them run 2d6" instead of 1d6" (maybe putting in a rule about them not being able to charge even if they get run & charge after)
4. Changing the Core command abilities. We've seen a lot of reroll charge command abilities that are just worse than the core rule one which leads me to believe these may be changing.
5. Buff look out sir, maybe to the 40k version, or just letting things block line of sight more effectively, like if you're behind a unit of the same or a larger base you can't be seen, regardless of the "model". no more shooting characters through the legs of trolls!
6. Shooting into combat has a penalty (maybe just -1 to hit) no penalty if you're shooting at something you're in melee with
7. A list of Generic artefacts available to everyone.
8. Return of Gitmob!

 

[Pyrescribe]

I personally like the potential for a double turn, but LotR SBG does it better. As it is, I recognize that it elicits more negative reactions than positive--and that ought to change so more people enjoy playing the game. 

I would like for there to be better guidelines and rules for playing 1000 point games. The Meeting Engagement rules change the game too radically--having normal scenarios designed for 48*44 tables would be nice.

[AverageBoss]

I would like to see the entire game go full alternating activations like the combat phase (which is typically the most fun and interactive phase of the game for both players). When a unit activates, it can take only so many actions, which can include moving, shooting, charging, casting a spell, using an ability, etc. Or at the very least, just get rid of the double turn.

I would like to see terrain be meaningful and impactful, in all facets of the game.

I would like to see some rule condensation. 90 percent of shields in the game should just be shields and follow the same rules. We don't need every single shield in the game to be a special snowflake with its own unique rules.

This problem I have with 40k as well. Too many heroes that exist for no other reason than to be buff engines. Too many over stacking abilities and bonuses to the point where army construction resembles a TCG deck. I want to see the game move away from that.

Edited February 1, 2021 by AverageBoss

[Beliman]

Note: AoS turn-roll is not "unique". LotR, Malifaux (flip instead of roll), Conquest,  Asoiaf... have a roll each turn to see who starts too.
Imo, the main diference between them and AoS is that the later has the most debastating double turn between all of them (IGYG and a ranged/magic meta seems to help too).

[El Syf]

1 minute ago, Beliman said:

Note: AoS turn-roll is not "unique". LotR, Malifaux (flip instead of roll), Conquest,  Asoiaf... have a roll each turn to see who starts too.
Imo, the main diference between them and AoS is that the later has the most debastating double turn between all of them (IGYG and a ranged/magic meta seems to help too).

Double turn in lotr worked pretty well imo. Although I’m a massive fan boy for that game system.

[stratigo]

4 hours ago, Orkmann said:

I like the roll off/double turn mechanism, because it adds extra depth to the game, but the roll off should be applied to the first battle round as well. First turn priority is such a huge deal in AoS, that it is silly that some armies can almost guarantee it every game without much tax paid in points. 

What depth. Please explain it

 

1 minute ago, El Syf said:

Double turn in lotr worked pretty well imo. Although I’m a massive fan boy for that game system.

Because turns alternate. I'd be over the moon if they adopted SBG like rules. it's be amazing. Which is why it will never happen

[Ganigumo]

3 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

The big thing about the double turn is that it is so divisive. Even people who like it have to realize that it's a massive turn-off for a huge segment of the potential player population. "Whoa? There are double turns in this game? Awesome!!11" says nobody, ever, but "What? Double turn? Count me out" is one of the most common responses you get when trying to get new people into the game. 

I'm not opposed to it existing in some way, but I think it's really clear by now that within the framework AOS has developed into - where magic and shooting are a massive part of the game - it simply doesn't work the way it's currently implemented. I have yet to find a single person who thinks it's good gameplay to have a game system that allows a shooting-focused faction to take the T1 to T2 double and delete 50-75% of the opposing army before it gets a chance to do anything back. 

Yes the double turn is divisive, but something isn't divisive because half the community hates it, and half the community doesn't care. The issue about magic and shooting heavy armies tabling people on the double isn't a flaw with the double turn, it was a failure of the book writers to balance things properly. The double turn predates the worst offenders, and it seems the writers at GW didn't see the issue of giving shooting focused armies low drops.

 

3 hours ago, Galas said:

Calling a so tactically shallow game as AoS (Even if I like it) more depth because it has double turn is just... no, please.

 

4 minutes ago, stratigo said:

What depth. Please explain it

The double makes AoS more insteresting by reducing the number of right answers. I don't know if depth is the right term, but by adding unpredictability in the order things unfold the priority roll adds weight to both sides of the risk/reward dichotomy of decision making. 

Heres an example:

A unit of knights wants to fight a unit of orcs 20" away, the knights can move 8", and charge 2d6", the orcs move 4" and charge 2d6"

With a static turn order the knights have a 1/36 chance of making that charge. and the orcs have a 40% chance to be able to counter-charge on their turn, with a 0% chance of making the charge if I don't approach.

With a priority roll those knights have a 1/36 chance of making that charge, if I have the potential of a double I have a 13/36 chance, since the chance of getting a double is 12/36 (I think).  If my opponent has the potential of a double he can threaten the knights even if they don't move (only a 1/36 chance in this scenario but its very simplistic).

A full game is much more complex, but even this simplistic scenario shows how much it changes the weights of the decisions in a good way.

In short I'll compare it to 40k, which I have some experience in.

40K gives the player a "best" answer, and obscures it by making it out of 100 options.

AOS gives the player 5 options, but each has its own Risk/reward.

So 40k tends to play more like a puzzle, with an answer, and aos tends to play like roulette, bet big and win/lose big, or bet safe and win/lose small.