Double Turn begone! AoS should get rid of the double-turn

[Harioch]

29 minutes ago, The World Tree said:

I don't mean to be dismissive but it is hard to take your view seriously given that you have not played it...

Yeah now that I re-read myself I understand what you mean 😁 I tried to make it like "what does that mechanic looks like from the view of a noob in AoS" but failed to deliver. Maybe it adds no real value to the topic and for that I apologize.

Edited February 7, 2022 by Harioch

[JackStreicher]

1 hour ago, Marcvs said:

don't much care for defending the double turn at all costs (the game could be better designed with or without it) but I don't think this is a valid argument. A significant portion? How significant? Based on which piece of opinion poll, market research, anything?

I participate in the Warhammer for schools Programm with my pupils (You g people of 16+ years). Let‘s just say that not a single pupil liked the DT, some were really put off and joined the 40K players instead.

just to name some citations „what? That’s not fair“, „why!?“, „that sucks“, „I can’t do anything again?“

 

 

 

[Skreech Verminking]

1 hour ago, JackStreicher said:

I participate in the Warhammer for schools Programm with my pupils (You g people of 16+ years). Let‘s just say that not a single pupil liked the DT, some were really put off and joined the 40K players instead.

just to name some citations „what? That’s not fair“, „why!?“, „that sucks“, „I can’t do anything again?“

 

 

 

Oh so you teach, that is perfect, would you be interested if we could come together at some point 

I’m currently studying in the same direction, and am interested in seeing how games (like board games, card games or even tabletop games) could be helpful in the learning process for pupils, or people in total.

If your fine with that I’ll happily write to you in private.😉

Edited February 7, 2022 by Skreech Verminking

[Yondaime]

just to be clear. even in activations games (lets take UW) DT is a huge advantage, activating 2 times in a row, let alone a whole turn

 

Thats the reason because in legion priority is not random, for who dosnt know in legion priority is won by a card (cards are the same for all armies) you play at the beginning of the round, who plays the card with he highest value activates first, so if you won initiative  one time its extremely unlikely you'll win again (if the opponent is good)

In this way you have to be really carefull to take or give double at the right time (and again we are talking about activations, not a whole turn)

[Enoby]

1 hour ago, JackStreicher said:

I participate in the Warhammer for schools Programm with my pupils (You g people of 16+ years). Let‘s just say that not a single pupil liked the DT, some were really put off and joined the 40K players instead.

just to name some citations „what? That’s not fair“, „why!?“, „that sucks“, „I can’t do anything again?“

 

 

 

While I've not taught kids AoS, when teaching new players I can concur that the double turn tends to raise the most complaints and has put people off should it happen at a bad moment. 

While "play around it" can work for experienced players, new players (especially kids) won't know how to and so their first experiences (likely their most important experiences) are going to be tainted. 

It's close to impossible to prove the majority consensus of all players, especially players who left/didn't start the game. But from anecdotal evidence it has put some people off.

If we assume you can play around the double turn (which I believe you can), and that poorer players struggle to plan around it (which can happen), then new players who will almost always be poor players (due to lack of experience) will likely not be able to play around it and so more likely to experience the worst case scenario double turn. One bad experience in the beginning can turn someone off a system for life.  

[Flippy]

41 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

just to name some citations „what? That’s not fair“, „why!?“, „that sucks“, „I can’t do anything again?“

First time I tried AoS (around 2017) I was fairly sure that this is a joke of a game. Coming from WHFB 5^th edition what I saw was:

-               conga lines (WTF? is that a unit?);

-               weird scoring (no VP for killing? is that a wargame or what?);

-               no points assigned to units (is that even a game?).

Once I got to the DT, I was laughing so hard that we never actually finished the game. Took me another four years to give it another shoot, and it turned out that the DT is not nearly as bad as I remember. So, I understand the initial reactions, as the mechanic seems very unfair – most games (any games) are based on alternating the initiative and so the DT looks like a disturbance in the natural flow of things, and it feels wrong. But surprisingly, the actual game is fine once you accept the idea and don’t mind spending the opponent’s DT on chatting, admiring minis, having a drink, explaining the game to kids and occasional reactionary command abilities. I don’t.

[KrispyXIV]

I got doubled in both games I played yesterday, and pulled out wins in both.  

In both cases, I made decisions and positioned units in ways that were risks because the double turn was a possibility, and if there was not a double turn there would have been no risk associated with those decisions.  

My Screens would have been 100% effective, and I'd have had entirely safe and predictable games.  Because the double happened, my opponent was able to clear a screen and then hit my units behind them - instead of getting caught in my screen and just getting hit by my hammers. 

But I won because I had contingencies, and because I set myself up to have a plan b when this happened.  

None of that layer exists with static turn order.  

[Skreech Verminking]

2 hours ago, KrispyXIV said:

I got doubled in both games I played yesterday, and pulled out wins in both.  

In both cases, I made decisions and positioned units in ways that were risks because the double turn was a possibility, and if there was not a double turn there would have been no risk associated with those decisions.  

My Screens would have been 100% effective, and I'd have had entirely safe and predictable games.  Because the double happened, my opponent was able to clear a screen and then hit my units behind them - instead of getting caught in my screen and just getting hit by my hammers. 

But I won because I had contingencies, and because I set myself up to have a plan b when this happened.  

None of that layer exists with static turn order.  

I wish skaven could do that, but currently every unit in our book cost so many points that it is literally impossible to have enough screening units, when you are trying to have enough punch in your army to at least be able to kill-kill halve a mega gargant

[NauticalSoup]

3 hours ago, KrispyXIV said:

None of that layer exists with static turn order.  

I think most of us agree this is how it's supposed to work but the game has hit a point where being a good army is somewhat predicated on your ability to completely ignore trifling concerns like enemy screens. As a result the effects of turn order are super warped with good armies.

Also one game wouldn't really tell us anything, I'm pretty sure I could get doubled every turn by Beasts of Chaos and even my casual SCE list would just walk all over them regardless.

[yukishiro1]

13 hours ago, Yondaime said:

just to be clear. even in activations games (lets take UW) DT is a huge advantage, activating 2 times in a row, let alone a whole turn

 

Thats the reason because in legion priority is not random, for who dosnt know in legion priority is won by a card (cards are the same for all armies) you play at the beginning of the round, who plays the card with he highest value activates first, so if you won initiative  one time its extremely unlikely you'll win again (if the opponent is good)

In this way you have to be really carefull to take or give double at the right time (and again we are talking about activations, not a whole turn)

Yeah, the way Legion handles priority is quite clever (in contrast to the way it handles, or rather doesn't handle, activation spam). AOS goes in precisely the opposite direction, by encouraging you take the T1/T2 double but then punishing the player who gets doubled T1/T2 if they get the potential for a T2/T3 double. So it's a double whammy - not only is the T2/T3 double generally less valuable than the T1/T2 double because you have less of your force left, you also get kicked in the teeth for doing it by a mechanic that rewards the player who just doubled you if you try to double them back.

You can see what they were going for with the "remove an objective" thing but right now it just makes taking the T1/T2 double even more attractive and impactful. 

Edited February 8, 2022 by yukishiro1

[Lich King]

You can tell a rule is bad when they have to slap on others on top of it to try and justify its existence. “ Burn objective round 3” or “player who went first last round wins ties “

Edited February 8, 2022 by Lich King

[KrispyXIV]

8 hours ago, Lich King said:

You can tell a rule is bad when they have to slap on others on top of it to try and justify its existence. “ Burn objective round 3” or “player who went first last round wins ties “

Games do the exact same thing when they have static initiative as well.

There will always be advantages and disadvantages based on players not getting to act at the exact same time, and games will always implement rules to adjust for this.

This complaint is entirely independent of double turns.

[pnkdth]

15 minutes ago, KrispyXIV said:

Games do the exact same thing when they have static initiative as well.

There will always be advantages and disadvantages based on players not getting to act at the exact same time, and games will always implement rules to adjust for this.

This complaint is entirely independent of double turns.

It should surprise no one that giving a player in a 2k game of I GO, YOU GO, a second full activation with all their units is going to cause problems but here we are. As it stands the priority roll only serves to magnify the issues with power creep + brutal early DT alpha + ranged meta and by doing so also exposes a flaw of the priority mechanic itself.

The biggest issue, however, is just how absurdly powerful shooting has become. This alone is a hard counter to just about any screening or positioning a player can make and by extension how well the player can actually deal with a double. You could bring more screens, sure, but at some point you're also going to have to do something yourself. Now we're also touching the larger issue faction balance.

So I guess I half-agree half-disagree on your final statement. I would be very interested to see how much of an impact it would have to have the first priority roll during T3, i.e. give both players an early setup and then introduce the double when they've had a chance to put their battle plan into motion. I think that could alleviate a lot of feelbads and ragequits + not make it as much of an all or nothing moment.

 

[Lich King]

Double turn , much like the now obsolete Warscroll Battalions - are a relic from pre - first edition. It Was a time when the game was finding itself and had no allegiance abilities or army books and wanted to set itself apart in an experimental way. Lo and Behold we are now over half a decade into this game and we are back to full army books, spell lores , large amounts of rules per page etc . Time is gone and we should evolve from it. 

[Erosharcos]

On 2/7/2022 at 9:52 AM, KrispyXIV said:

I got doubled in both games I played yesterday, and pulled out wins in both.  

In both cases, I made decisions and positioned units in ways that were risks because the double turn was a possibility, and if there was not a double turn there would have been no risk associated with those decisions.  

My Screens would have been 100% effective, and I'd have had entirely safe and predictable games.  Because the double happened, my opponent was able to clear a screen and then hit my units behind them - instead of getting caught in my screen and just getting hit by my hammers. 

But I won because I had contingencies, and because I set myself up to have a plan b when this happened.  

None of that layer exists with static turn order.  

That’s my problem with the double turn, it’s something you have to play around and keep in mind with your decisions. There’s risks and rewards to playing around the double turn but the heart of the gameplay shouldn’t be about a single d6 role for initiative. The double turn just creates a feel bad moment for someone 99.99% of the time. As others have argued in the thread, the double turn can either accelerate a win or grant a player a comeback… in both of these perspectives, it’s a single d6 roll that decided the outcome of a game. Taking risks in a wargame is absolutely fun and true to the spirit of the game-genre. However, a single d6 changing the entire course of the game by affecting initiative, especially with the smaller table size in 3.0, makes it a frustrating and annoying facet. 
 

I think only one fellow made a brief comment about how the double turn is inconsequential, everyone who argues for or against the double turn acknowledges its significance over the game. It’s the “key” to the initiative portion of the war game. 40K with it’s fixed turn order yields me much more exciting and close/competitive games. Bolt Action’s initiative system is the most interesting to me, and feels more like a component of the game rather than a determining factor - IE, the biggest factor are the decisions of the players in the gameplay loop, not a single roll-off on a d6 and whether a player got unlucky. 

[RuneBrush]

In truth the discussion about the priority roll is one that I don't think there is a single answer/response because we all view it in different ways and have very different experiences of.  Certainly there are some major downsides to having it in AoS, but it's something that genuinely does define AoS because there isn't anything else that does it in quite this way.

For me, the issue isn't with the priority roll per-se.  Instead it's the resultant double turn when combined with the amount of damage that one army can unleash (often at range) within an IGYG system.  This is compounded when an army may take 45 minutes to take a single turn.  The priority roll in Necromunda actually works really well, but it's an alternative activation system, where I pick a unit to perform their actions and then my opponent does (my leader units can also activate others within there activation so there is strategy required).  Winning priority gives me an edge rather than winning me the game.

One of the key points about the priority roll is that it does help to prevent the scenario where the player who doesn't go first simply gives up.  There's a chance you may be able to pull something back if you get a double, especially as many games are objective based.

What's the solution?  I genuinely don't know.  Removing the priority roll wouldn't remove some of the key issues (long turn time, high amount of ranged damage etc), but changing to alternative activations would require a huge rewrite of the game plus many warscrolls and battletomes (you'd no longer have "Your <xxx> Phase" just "<xxx> Phase").  Now one possibility would be a hybrid approach, so you roll priority, you then both complete each phase one at a time before going to the next phase.  Winning priority would still give a huge edge, but would allow some reaction.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

On 2/7/2022 at 6:05 PM, Skreech Verminking said:

I wish skaven could do that, but currently every unit in our book cost so many points that it is literally impossible to have enough screening units, when you are trying to have enough punch in your army to at least be able to kill-kill halve a mega gargant

Is it really so bad? I just checked the points for Skaven and you get 10 Plague Monks for 85. That seems like a pretty good screen, right there.

[Skreech Verminking]

2 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

Is it really so bad? I just checked the points for Skaven and you get 10 Plague Monks for 85. That seems like a pretty good screen, right there.

Plague are a battleline  if condition unit.

we are basically forced to take clanrats (which cost 130points or stormverminz (110) points as battleline.

now if we could take plague monks as a battleline unit in a mixed skaven list they wouldn’t be that bad (giant rats would just be better, but that is something different)

the problem becomes clear when you notice that having plague monks as battleline would force one to only play pestilence.

in a mixed list the max. Amount of plague monks a unit can have is 20.

with twenty models plague monks are able to gain a +1 hit buff, but would loose it immediately.

Save stacking didn’t really hep them either,

with no rend they will be doing almost no damage, and thx to their low save they are going to die like flies.

so my offer to make plague monks great in their own way would be to increase their size to 20, have the points decrease (when taking in 20s) to a 150 (instead of having to pay 170)

this change would allow a mixed skaven army to take plague monks in a max. Unit size of 40, allowing them to be able to use the allegiance ability, the skaven provide.

In a only

 pestilence army this would allow one to play

 a max. Amount of two units of 60 plague monks, but considering that plague monks are basically the only option for any mono pestilence army, I don’t quite see how this would be problematic, also they die like flies.

Skaven are an amazing army, yet when their whole allegiance ability, basically only buffs hordes (at 20+ models +1 to hit , at 30+ models +1 to wound in addition) it is quite frankly questionable if there really only should be a single unit  (which currently is the clanrats) who can really make use of those rules.

Stormvermins loose their efficiency after looosing a single model (since their max. Amount of models is currently only 30) and plague monks unless played in mono pestilence, can’t even be considered a horde at this point anymore, yet they want to function like one.

so if gw wants the skaven to function like a skaven army, should, they really have to increase the size of every horde like unit (meaning stormvermins, plague monks, skryre acolytes and so on) and decrease points, since most elite armies are already outnumbering us with just basically wounds, which is horrendous, considering that these units are often able to dish out 30-60 damage per turn.

I don’t mind loosing a unit of clanrats, yet currently it really hurts with their price increase.

with s price increase of 10 points they may not look that bad, yet the worst happens when we add the numbers of models.

where a unit of 20 clanrats may have a increase of 10 points  an unit of 40 clanrats are currently sitting on an increase of 60 points (thanks to the loss of the horde bonus) with 60 clanrats we are paying a 100points more, which is very inefficient.

If I am taking some of my older list into aos 3.0 edition I am very much likely unable to field any of them, since most of those list have gotten 600-700 points more expensive, not something a skaven player enjoys.

personally I would like a decrease across the range or at least one for the more commonly seen units like clanrats, Stormvermins and plague monks

This would allow us skaven players to have the option to have a mixture of horde and maybe even if luck is on our side some killing power, that would allow us to at least try and kill-kill a single giant per round.

 

Edited March 9, 2022 by Skreech Verminking

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

4 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:

Plague are a battleline  if condition unit.

we are basically forced to take clanrats (which cost 130points or stormverminz (110) points as battleline.

now if we could take plague monks as a battleline unit in a mixed skaven list they wouldn’t be that bad (giant rats would just be better, but that is something different)

the problem becomes clear when you notice that having plague monks as battleline would force one to only play pestilence.

in a mixed list the max. Amount of plague monks a unit can have is 20.

with twenty models plague monks are able to gain a +1 hit buff, but would loose it immediately.

Save stacking didn’t really hep them either,

with no rend they will be doing almost no damage, and thx to their low save they are going to die like flies.

so my other to make plague monks great in their own way would be to increase their size to 20, have the points decrease (when taking in 20s) to a 150 (instead of having to pay 170)

this change would allow a mixed skaven army to take plague monks in a max. Unit size of 40, allowing them to be able to use the allegiance ability, the skaven provide.

In a only

 pestilence army this would allow one to play

 a max. Amount of two units of 60 plague monks, but considering that plague monks are basically the only option for any mono pestilence army, I don’t quite see how this would be problematic, also they die like flies.

Skaven are an amazing army, yet when their whole allegiance ability, basically only buffs hordes (at 20+ models +1 to hit , at 30+ models +1 to wound in addition) it is quite frankly questionable if there really only should be a single unit  (which currently is the clanrats) who can really make use of those rules.

Stormvermins loose their efficiency after looosing a single model (since their max. Amount of models is currently only 30) and plague monks unless played in mono pestilence, can’t even be considered a horde at this point anymore, yet they want to function like one.

so if gw wants the skaven to function like a skaven army, should, they really have to increase the size of every horde like unit (meaning stormvermins, plague monks, skryre acolytes and so on) and decrease points, since most elite armies are already outnumbering us with just basically wounds, which is horrendous, considering that these units are often able to dish out 30-60 damage per turn.

I don’t mind loosing a unit of clanrats, yet currently it really hurts with their price increase.

with s price increase of 10 points they may not look that bad, yet the worst happens when we add the numbers of models.

where a unit of 20 clanrats may have a increase of 10 points  an unit of 40 clanrats are currently sitting on a increase of 60 points (thanks to the loss of the horde bonus) with 60 clanrats we are paying a 100points more, which is very inefficient.

If I am taking some of my older list into aos 3.0 edition I am very much likely unable to field any of them, since most of those list have gotten 600-700 points more expensive, not something a skaven player enjoys.

personally I would like a decrease across the range or at least one for the more commonly seen units like clanrats, Stormvermins and plague monks

 

I appreciate the mechanical difficulties that Skaven face (no doubt they are not exactly thriving as an army in 3rd ed), but I thought you were specifically saying that Skaven have no points left over for screens. And my understanding of a screen is a small unit that gets into the line of fire to absorb an attack and die. Without in-depth Skaven knowledge, it seems like 10 Plague Monks would do quite well in that role. Not being battleline actually seems like an upside in this scenario, because it means they can't be exploited by the opponent to score battle tactics.

Are Skaven points really so tight that you can't slap in a few units of 10 to safe guard more important pieces?

[Skreech Verminking]

11 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I appreciate the mechanical difficulties that Skaven face (no doubt they are not exactly thriving as an army in 3rd ed), but I thought you were specifically saying that Skaven have no points left over for screens. And my understanding of a screen is a small unit that gets into the line of fire to absorb an attack and die. Without in-depth Skaven knowledge, it seems like 10 Plague Monks would do quite well in that role. Not being battleline actually seems like an upside in this scenario, because it means they can't be exploited by the opponent to score battle tactics.

Are Skaven points really so tight that you can't slap in a few units of 10 to safe guard more important pieces?

Well you could take some of those units as a second screen that don’t give points away. y

et just taking 2 units of them to screen would almost remove a warplightning cannon or a good amount of rattling gun weapon teams.

Every Unit of plague monks taken, would also remove a good amount of damage dealing skryre tech or moulder beasts, removing a good chunk of damage potential.

at some point the skaven just have a damage potential of nothing.

I’ve played a good amount of times with only skryre trying to get as many warplightning cannons rattling gun weapon teams and stormfiends into my list, and still against a giant player I can not get rid of just even 1 gargant per turn, this is how much skaven are struggling against the current meta

edit: and as for a second screening unit, giant rats are just better then plague monks.

at a cost of 40 for 6 models, they won’t be mist at all.

yes plague monks do have a better damage potential, but when they are going to die anyways when charged it really is less painful to loose a unit of giant rats then some plague monks.

Edited March 9, 2022 by Skreech Verminking

[Pyrescribe]

By my reckoning, there are two types of wargamers: wargamers who play to hang out with friends, and wargamers who play to dominate their peers. I'd say 90% of wargamers fall into the first category, but the 10% who play to dominate are generally quite noticeable. They're very vocal about the injustices cruel fate thrusts upon their fortunes in game. Emotional outbursts like this occur because game result don't align with their beliefs about who is better. While AoS is hardly the first game to have randomized elements that can rob the most skillful play its due, thee double turn bakes it into the game in the most dramatic way possible.

Those who cannot handle the dissonance experienced from having a win robbed from them by a single dice roll simply self-select out of the meta. They go back to "better" games that more accurately reflect player skill differentials.

What makes AoS unique is that the key skill as a player is humility, rather than intellect. The double turn, along with big impacts built into statistical extremities, make this a game that is both incredibly random, but where decisions are still extremely impactful.

If you game to show you have a big brain, you probably dislike the double turn. If you game to have a good time, it's just part of the fun.

FWIW, I don't think there's anything wrong with playing to dominate, or to demonstrate your big brain. In 12 years of Warmachine I met lots of wonderful people whose sole purpose is to win games. I just know a lot of them would (or have expressed how much they) hate the double turn.

[Boingrot Bouncer]

Since the one that decide who to take first turn will have a quite big advantage there will be a race to the bottom into always getting a one drop list (which will limit the list building) unless there is some way to counteract it. For AOS it is the double turn and if you take it away alpha shooting one drop list will be so dominating that a lot of games will be determined by the roll off to see who gets to drop first.

So the double turn can decide some games, but to remove it will only cause new problems. And since shooting list are already dominating the meta now I prefer if we don't give them more advantages.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

30 minutes ago, Boingrot Bouncer said:

Since the one that decide who to take first turn will have a quite big advantage there will be a race to the bottom into always getting a one drop list (which will limit the list building) unless there is some way to counteract it. For AOS it is the double turn and if you take it away alpha shooting one drop list will be so dominating that a lot of games will be determined by the roll off to see who gets to drop first.

So the double turn can decide some games, but to remove it will only cause new problems. And since shooting list are already dominating the meta now I prefer if we don't give them more advantages.

In my opinion, this has always been the best justification for keeping the double turn around. Alpha strikes are a naturally dominant strategy in games where they are possible. Not because any particular piece of game design, but due to a general mathematical regularity know as Lanchester's Law. In essence, Lanchester's Law tells us about what happens if two military units fight each other, under the assumption that their offensive power diminshes as members of the unit die (so, just like it works in AoS). The big take away from it is that just a small difference in the offensive strength of units has a big difference on the outcome of battles. If two groups of 10 guys fighting is an equal engagement, it might turn into a one-sided fight even with a small difference in unit sizes, such as 10 vs. 13. The reason being that the 13 guys get to bring more offensive power to bear, which leads to the smaller unit losing guys faster, which leads to that unit losing offensive power faster, which further increases the power disparity between the two.

This makes alpha strikes a naturally dominant strategy because of how much the mathematics reward attacking first*. Even if you don't completely shoot the opponent off the table turn 1, a successful alpha strike will have a snowball effect: You destroy a quarter off their guys. This means they don't have the offensive output to completely wipe out your units when they attack. This means you have more units left to bring their offensive power to bear. This means higher losses for the opponent... A successful alpha strike, especially a successful ranged alpha strike that the opponent cannot counterattack against, is just the easiest and most consistent way to place yourself in a winning position.

I definitely believe that strategy games are better if the strength of alpha strikes is mitigated in some way. In AoS, the double turn serves that function. However, I think there are other designs could do it better, particularly because of what some people in this thread have mentioned: It's a real turn-off for new players. Since the double turn seems to be a design element GW is unwilling to do away with, I think the way foreward is to make it more controllable and less random. People have already mentioned initiative cards that other games use, and that sounds neat. A fixed double turn on turn 3 would probably also work. Or you could let people bid on turn priority by spending a resource like command points.

 

*It also explains why summoning 1000 points of units over the course of the game is not as good as having 3000 points from the start. Sorry, Hedonites players, the math was rigged against you all along.

[Beliman]

18 hours ago, Pyrescribe said:

If you game to show you have a big brain, you probably dislike the double turn. If you game to have a good time, it's just part of the fun.

Disagree.

I only play casual games, even I go to tournaments just to see friends and participate with the AOS community. And the worst experience I had (besides  being destroyed early game by a 2" bad set-up) is when you need that turn to stay in the game but the dice thinks otherwise and my opponent take a double turn and the game ends abruptly.

That kind of gameplay reminds me of a certain videogame:

 

Edited March 10, 2022 by Beliman
grammar

[Sonnenspeer]

I just invented a cool rule:

The player who controls more objectives at the end of the battle round decides who go first in the next battle round.
If both control the same number of objectives, roll a D6.

With this the player who goes second in the current battleround has a good chance to prevent a double turn if he is willing to put resources into controlling more objectives. If he fails the consequences may be brutal as he exposed his units to conquer that objective in the middle or in the enemy backfield. I think this would create a lot of tight situations, a lot of close combat fights, a lot of fun