Design Experiment: Age of Sigmar with phase-based turns

[acr0ssth3p0nd]

So, after getting into several... passionate discussions about AoS's random Turn Order and Double-Turn mechanics on here and a couple other forums, I figured I'd dig into something I've seen talked about a lot: how the Middle-Earth Strategy Battle Game's Priority system provides a very similar gameplay experience to AoS's random turn order, with tactical choice and requiring players to hedge their bets with positioning and planning for future turns, but without some of the negative effects on the game's pacing and the new player "onboarding" experience.

Before we continue, I just to make my thoughts on one thing absolutely clear:

There are many people who really, really like AoS' current random-turn-order system. They feel it's a defining feature of the game, one that adds significant depth in that it requires its players to really be very careful and flexible with their planning and movement and positioning, and makes on-the-board skill really matter to mitigate and anticipate the famed double-turn. They are absolutely right on all these points. These particular points that the current turn system adds are good for the game and the players are right to recognise them as such. Players who love the double-turn, I hear you, and I hear why you love it.

There are many players who really, really don't like the random-turn-order system. They feel it's too random and too swingy, and that it throws the pacing (not the actual speed, but the pacing, the percieved, felt speed of the game) out of whack where one player has to sit there while their opponent does everything a second time, with little they can do to react - the worst bits of an I-Go-You-Go system but exacerbated. They feel it's something new players miss the significance of, and only come to understand when they find themselves being punched by one. It's not a good way to "sell" a game to someone.  They are also absolutely right. These particular aspects are very much present, and very much negatively affect the game experience. Players who dislike the double-turn, I hear you, and I hear why you dislike it.

My thinking here is, the current turn system is seriously polarising, and for understandable reasons. If there's a way to provide all the positive aspects to the game experience that the current random-turn-order system does but without any of the negative aspects, it should be seriously looked at.

And that's what I'm doing here.

The Middle-Earth Strategy Battle Game's Priority system provides a gameplay experience that is strikingly similar to the positive aspects of AoS's current turn system. My games of the MESBG are won and lost primarily based on movement, timing, and how to mitigate and plan for changes in turn order - but I've never experienced any of the bad aspects on AoS's turn system in the MESBG. It's superbly paced, extremely accessible, and when new players fail to fully take the changing turn order into account, they still get to do stuff and interact meaningfully in the game even as their opponent is rewarded for their more-skillful play.

See, the way the SBG does turn order is that it doesn't have turns - not really. You roll for Priority at the start of each round, with the winner getting Priority and the loser from last turn winning ties. It has phases, much like AoS, and but in those phases, the player with Priority gets to act first.  So they would get to move (and charge) first, then their opponent would move and charge. Then they shoot, and then their opponent shoots. Then fights are resolved in the order determined by the player with Priority. End of round. Roll for Priority and repeat.

And my pitch is to adapt that system to AoS. Six phases - Priority, Hero, Moving/Charging, Shooting, Combat, and Battleshock. If it works, it should have all the interesting, tactical weighing-of-choices and probing, careful movement and setup, and it should have those things matter more consistently across the game, without the pacing problems and other negative aspects. (And with some slight tweaks to Shooting, this also helps alleviate the negative experiences that can come with facing a shooting-heavy army, though my work and theory for that is far rougher.)

With that pitch done, here's my first draft of Warhammer Age of SBGmar Alternative Battle Round Rules. I hope you enjoy it, and I would appreciate any constructive feedback you have.

Edited March 24, 2021 by acr0ssth3p0nd

[Kitsumy]

This cant work. Since it would mean shotting armys would have double turn ALWAYS, since would shot u in every turn, even on your own turn.

 

Sure it could be balanced if every army have same ranged units, but in real game most armys havent any shotting, and some armys have strong shoting.

 

Is simple, want fun non balanced and lucky games? Keep double turn.

 

Want tactical games where best guy and army wins? Delete that thing and make propper turn games.

 

I know you can learn to play and mitigate the effect of double turns etc etc, but at the end 1 only dice roll will turn games to one side most of times, and it shouldnt be like this. In small games like warcry it is cool and fun, but on big wargames no.

[acr0ssth3p0nd]

I'm at work right now and as such I can't offer a full response at the mo, but I do want to say that your concerns about excessive shooting are absolutely valid, and I'm 100% taking them into account. The first draft doesn't quite reflect this, since it's just a rough proof-of-concept, but I can promise I'll be addressing this in future drafts.

It's not a problem with an obvious solution, that's for sure, and is going to require a lot of design iteration and hands-on playtesting to resolve.

[Kitsumy]

Magic could be even worse, per example imagine kroak or teclis. Both do mortals around them.

His turn, they do u plenty of mortals, but then they will move closser to you, since he knows than even if he loose priority roll, he will cast again his area bomb mortals before his rival even move away or atack him, being even more letal since it would be closser than in his previous turn.

 

I get what u saying, and yes, it is ok in small games like lord of the rings was. But right now is aos cant be done, u would need to make too much changes, like every army having same shotting and magic power, capping ranged or shotting to 30% of ur points per example, etc etc

[NinthMusketeer]

Started a thread with the same thing, plus FFA rules, didn't generate much discussion:

Probably because they are so simple and straightforward there isn't much to argue about! At any rate it addresses some of the problems you have here and most importantly you can explain it to someone in less than 5 minutes before a game and they can immediately understand it. Used it a ton in my local community, few rough spots that would have overcomplicated things to fix, but really works great and a lot of fun.

[Mephideus]

I like your way of thinking. As has already been brought up your system puts emphasis on shooting and magic because an AoS game of 6 rounds gives your army 12 combat phases in which to fight (because you can also fight in your opponents phases), but only 6 hero phases, movement phases, charge phases and shooting phases.

In your system, your army would only get 6 combat phases in which to fight. Also, just running the combat phase twice in succession or doubling attacks for all units would not solve the problem, because much of the game mechanics revolve around phases lasting only one turn, with only so much damage being dealt, and even more importantly:  with re-positioning of units (i.e. a movement phase for one of the players) in between them.

 

I am not saying this (below) would work, but at least it puts the right emphasis on close combat, and might give you something to work with:

1. Priority phase

2. Hero phase (for both players)

3.  Movement phase  (Player with priority chooses which army gets to move)

4. Combat Phase (for both players, player with priority gets to activate first unit)

5.  Movement phase (The player who didn't move in phase 3, moves now)

6. Combat phase (for both players, player with priority gets to activate first unit)

7. Shooting phase (Player with priority activates first unit, then activates alternate  between players until all shooting is done.)

8.  Battleshock phase. 

 

Placing shooting after combat might cause some trouble, and it was a tradeoff, Because placing it before movement would ruin some well known game mechanics (like units not being able to shoot if they have run etc..)

 

 

[NinthMusketeer]

*cough*

Alternate By Phase: An alternative to the normal sequence of play is alternating by phase, particularly useful in free-for-all matches because it prevents any one player from waiting a long period between actions. Using this method the player who is first in the initiative order takes their hero phase, then the next player takes their hero phase, and so on. Once each player has taken their hero phase the round progresses to the movement phase which proceeds in the same manner, and so on with subsequent phases. Note that while there is only a single battleshock phase it uses the accumulated casualties of the whole round.

Second Combat: In an exception to the normal phase sequence there is a second combat phase immediately after the first which uses reverse initiative order. Abilities that expire at the end of a player turn or which rely on a type of move (other than pile-in) being performed in the same turn do not apply during the second combat phase. For example, an ability which grants benefits if the unit made a charge move the same turn can only grant them such during the first combat phase, not the second.