AoS - But with alternating activations

[JackStreicher]

Hello fellow hobbyists,

A word of warning: This is not a thread for competitive gaming and it’s not about balance.

AA - Alternating activations

AT - Alternating Player Turns
 

Spoiler

I‘ve been playing quite some Games of One Page Rules recently. While the game is super fun and plays fluently it lacks in the characterful factions department.

The best facts about One Page Rules in my opinion are:

- No down time due to AA

- Generalized easy to learn special rules

- Way more player interactions

- Less mortality

 

I‘d like to test AoS with a AA System in place. (Report will follow).

One way of doing it would be to play the OPR System with AoS rules. This solution is invasive. That’s why I will try to translate the changes in a less invasive manner:

- Effects that last until your next hero phase mean the next hero phase of the acting model

- No bonus CP for going second

- The Roll off stays, however it affects who has the first activation in the new battle round

- Spells: Attempting to unbind costs a spell slot

- Mortal wounds are changed to automatic wounds with a rend of -2. This rend ignores ethereal and any positive modifiers to the save.

- Any kind of healing or resurrecting models in an automatic manner requires a roll of 4+ for each wound you are attempting to heal.

I‘ll have a test game on Friday and I‘ll report on how the game played.
 

Spoiler

Concerns:

- Alternating Hero Phases could not add a lot tactical depth, especially due to automatic buffs and the stacking thereof.

- Other issues: unpredictable rules-interactions might occur and have to be fixed on the spot. Rule of thumb: It has to feel okay to both players.

 

 

Tell me what you think? (No comments about balance please) would you like to try it yourself too?

What would you approach differently?

Edited July 13, 2022 by JackStreicher

[Gitzdee]

I remember us talking about this before. Cant seem to find the Topic though.

I did try to come up with something before. I really like the idea of alternating activations.

This is what i came up with: 

It is a bit different but u might like the idea.

Edited July 13, 2022 by Gitzdee

[Beliman]

Not sure if I like an AA that each unit must pass over all phases again and again. I prefer the One page rules were every unit has Actions (maybe not as restriced as one page rule) with, I don't know, 2 actions for units, 3 actions for Heroes or something like that. Casting, running, moving, charging, Commands, etc... all can become Actions.
It's a lot of work, but I think it's a bit better than other options.

[Skreech Verminking]

6 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

Hello fellow hobbyists,

A word of warning: This is not a thread for competitive gaming and it’s not about balance.

AA - Alternating activations

AT - Alternating Player Turns
 

  Hide contents

I‘ve been playing quite some Games of One Page Rules recently. While the game is super fun and plays fluently it lacks in the characterful factions department.

The best facts about One Page Rules in my opinion are:

- No down time due to AA

- Generalized easy to learn special rules

- Way more player interactions

- Less mortality

 

I‘d like to test AoS with a AA System in place. (Report will follow).

One way of doing it would be to play the OPR System with AoS rules. This solution is invasive. That’s why I will try to translate the changes in a less invasive manner:

- Effects that last until your next hero phase mean the next hero phase of the acting model

- No bonus CP for going second

- The Roll off stays, however it affects who has the first activation in the new battle round

- Spells: Attempting to unbind costs a spell slot

- Mortal wounds are changed to automatic wounds with a rend of -2. This rend ignores ethereal and any positive modifiers to the save.

- Any kind of healing or resurrecting models in an automatic manner requires a roll of 4+ for each wound you are attempting to heal.

I‘ll have a test game on Friday and I‘ll report on how the game played.
 

  Reveal hidden contents

Concerns:

- Alternating Hero Phases could not add a lot tactical depth, especially due to automatic buffs and the stacking thereof.

- Other issues: unpredictable rules-interactions might occur and have to be fixed on the spot. Rule of thumb: It has to feel okay to both players.

 

 

Tell me what you think? (No comments about balance please) would you like to try it yourself too?

What would you approach differently?

It sounds interesting, definitely worth testing 

[NinthMusketeer]

Some questions that come to mind, note these are not criticisms at this stage but points of consideration the rules need to cover or at least consider.

How do abilities which trigger at the start/end of a given phase function? When do endless spells move?

If a hero activates first and casts a spell that lasts until the next hero phase, could the player then activate that hero last on the subsequent turn, allowing for an effective two round duration on the spell?

Many models have aura abilities that require they move forward alongside other units to keep them in range, how is this managed?

How does activation work for units not on the battlefield? Summoned units?

Is there any countermeasure to a player using MSU to bleed opponent activations before teleporting in a death star unit, then activating that unit first on their next turn for a guaranteed 'mini double turn'?

Units normally shoot once per round but fight twice per round, how is this accounted for?

Many effects trigger on a per-turn basis, of which there are two per round. How are these managed?

[NinthMusketeer]

I also do not see a particular connection between the mortal wounds and the healing to alternate activation, what about AA necessitates those changes?

[JackStreicher]

16 minutes ago, NinthMusketeer said:

Some questions that come to mind, note these are not criticisms at this stage but points of consideration the rules need to cover or at least consider.

How do abilities which trigger at the start/end of a given phase function? When do endless spells move?

If a hero activates first and casts a spell that lasts until the next hero phase, could the player then activate that hero last on the subsequent turn, allowing for an effective two round duration on the spell?

Many models have aura abilities that require they move forward alongside other units to keep them in range, how is this managed?

How does activation work for units not on the battlefield? Summoned units?

Is there any countermeasure to a player using MSU to bleed opponent activations before teleporting in a death star unit, then activating that unit first on their next turn for a guaranteed 'mini double turn'?

Units normally shoot once per round but fight twice per round, how is this accounted for?

Many effects trigger on a per-turn basis, of which there are two per round. How are these managed?

Good Questions!

I forgot to clarify: turn order would change as both players share a common turn. So one turn becomes a battle round. A turn would be the period of time between a player activating a model to the moment a player activates the same model in the same phase (next battle round) 

Abilities: Trigger when the model with the ability is activated

The spell would last until that hero is activated again

Endless Spells would move after all units that could act in the hero phase were activated

Auras: depends on the Aura and when it triggers

Summoned units/Ambush units get their activation in the phase they joined the battle (joining at the end of the movement phase means that the unit does not get to move but can be activated in the charge phase later on)

No countermeasure to bleeding activations  except, maybe a maximum number of units and a change of role for shooting -> dealing with MSU units

All units only shoot once and fight once. The conceot of turns is gone, both players play in AA through the phases of a Battle Round

Example:

Hero Phase - I activate a hero phase action, then you do

Shooting - I pick a unit to shoot, then you pick a unit to shoot etc.

 

Edited July 13, 2022 by JackStreicher

[NinthMusketeer]

Ah, so alternate by unit and by phase, got it. You are correct--I misunderstood. Taking that and the responses let me refine my questions;

-A large number of effects from abilities to endless spells to battleshock to objective control are based on a per-turn basis and thus happening twice per round, how does this system address that? If it does not, what would the response be to players who do not want to use it because of that?

-Tying into the above, as it stands this system essentially doubles the offensive output of shooting & magic with no compensation for melee. What would the response be to players of melee-focused armies not wanting to use these rules because of that?

-A unit has an ability that activates at the start of the opponent's phase, when does it trigger?

-A player can activate a small chaff unit and charge them forward with the aim of pulling as many enemy units within 3" as possible, thus stopping any of them from charging themselves. Is there anything which accounts for this?

-Returning to my secondary question above, how does the nerf to mortal wounds and healing tie into an AA structure? If they are distinct house rules it would almost certainly be better to have them elsewhere rather than as part of the rules that are being sold as AA.

 

A big hole I commonly see people fall into is looking at their own system from the lens of people trying to make it work, and comparing it to GWs system from the lens of people trying to break it. A quality ruleset needs to be capable of staying that way even when players are left to their own devices, and that is the very factor which gets Warhammer rules into trouble so often. Which is to say if you want this to work it needs to be evaluated & designed not just from looking at the best case scenario but also the worst.

[Lich King]

You should play Age of Fantasy with Command points / it’s part of the advanced rules . That beats warhammer fantasy and age of sigmar all day. You can use the regular and regiments version. 

Edited July 14, 2022 by Lich King

[NinthMusketeer]

Presenting an opinion on such a subjective matter as a claim of fact undermines the legitimacy of the claim made.

[Rors]

Having played Malifaux I'm a huge fan of AA. It's a better design space, especially in wargames.

For AoS to keep it simple I think firstly, you want markers to show who has already activated.

I'd then take some of the rules design from Malifaux. Basic units get 2 activations, could be move, attack, shoot, whatever, you don't do all of them though you do two. Hero's get 3 activations. When a unit is activated it also makes both activations, so for example a unit could move (and charge if within range I'd make that an extra step of the same activation), then attack. Or move into range then shoot, or shoot then move back out of range.

The other addition I'd port over from Malifaux and adapt for AoS is additional action tokens form the force with the lower model count. These are spent to disrupt activations. You get half the number of units you're outnumbered by rounded up. So for example if one player had 5 units and the other had 10, the player with 5 units gets 3 tokens. The player with those tokens can spend them (but only one at a time to disrupt alternate activations.

With AA if you don't have a method to counter ballance uneven unit choices they player with more units has a huge advantage because of action economy. In the above example, once the other players 5 units had gone, the player with 10 units would get 5 activations with no disruption that could break balance. The balance to tokens is of you spend them, you get a double activation early (powerful) but now your opponents has even more units that can act without you having a turn. Using them correctly and deciding to have MSU or a few really strong hitters becomes a really important part of the strategy.

Edited July 14, 2022 by Rors

[JackStreicher]

12 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

Ah, so alternate by unit and by phase, got it. You are correct--I misunderstood. Taking that and the responses let me refine my questions;

-A large number of effects from abilities to endless spells to battleshock to objective control are based on a per-turn basis and thus happening twice per round, how does this system address that? If it does not, what would the response be to players who do not want to use it because of that?
Battleshock should happen when all players have finished their activations in the last phase, so no double triggering. The same goes for objective control, it's simply at the end of whichever phase objective are captured.

-Tying into the above, as it stands this system essentially doubles the offensive output of shooting & magic with no compensation for melee. What would the response be to players of melee-focused armies not wanting to use these rules because of that?

It does not. both players shoot, fight and cast spells only once per battle round. Example: Battle Round 1:
Player 1 tries to cast a spell, Player two choses a Wizard which will try to unbind that spell. Both sorcerers have spent their Spell Slots afterwards unless they can cast more than once. The same goes for shooting, melee etc.

-A unit has an ability that activates at the start of the opponent's phase, when does it trigger?

At the start of the first activation in the according phase

-A player can activate a small chaff unit and charge them forward with the aim of pulling as many enemy units within 3" as possible, thus stopping any of them from charging themselves. Is there anything which accounts for this?

That's just part of the game. could also counter act the activation bleeding

-Returning to my secondary question above, how does the nerf to mortal wounds and healing tie into an AA structure? If they are distinct house rules it would almost certainly be better to have them elsewhere rather than as part of the rules that are being sold as AA.

It's about less lethality and in reverse less anti-lethality to counter it. Free effects are effects you never had to make a roll for (alarielle's healing comes to mind, Lifeswarm in any Battle round after the one it has been summoned etc.)

A big hole I commonly see people fall into is looking at their own system from the lens of people trying to make it work, and comparing it to GWs system from the lens of people trying to break it. A quality ruleset needs to be capable of staying that way even when players are left to their own devices, and that is the very factor which gets Warhammer rules into trouble so often. Which is to say if you want this to work it needs to be evaluated & designed not just from looking at the best case scenario but also the worst.

Correct

 

 

The following image is for clarification. Five of those Battlerounds are played.
Alternating - Alternating activations. 1 activation per unit per phase.

Edited July 14, 2022 by JackStreicher

[Beliman]

4 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

It does not. both players shoot, fight and cast spells only once per battle round. Example: Battle Round 1:
Player 1 tries to cast a spell, Player two choses a Wizard which will try to unbind that spell. Both sorcerers have spent their Spell Slots afterwards unless they can cast more than once. The same goes for shooting, melee etc.

That's a mix of Actions and full Activation in each phase. It's a bit stange compared to all other wargames that I play, but could be really fun to play!

5 hours ago, Rors said:

Having played Malifaux I'm a huge fan of AA. It's a better design space, especially in wargames.

Me too! It's my favorite game (GG3.0, let's gooo)!
There are a lot of other mechanics that can help armies with an uneven number of units:

• Activation Tokens (aka Malifaux).  Ths mechanic is awesome because you can go expand it with abilities that spend Activation Tokens (e.g: elite army with small number of units that maybe could have an ability to spend Activation Tokens to do something to counter free Activations from other armies).
• Reactions or Out-of-Order actions (aka Horus Heresy Reactions): You can still react to enemy units if you don't have any available unit to be activated (once per unit maybe?).
• Actions outside the battlefield (aka, Asoiaf): Actions that are not linked to any model on the battlefield. I don't know how AoS can do something like that, but I suppose moving the Bad Moon, Fyreslayers Runes, Idoneth Tides, etc... could be a good start.
• Tweak points and make it a feature of the game. A lot of (weak) number of units vs small (strong) number of units.

Edited July 14, 2022 by Beliman

[NinthMusketeer]

AA isn't inherently better or worse than Igougo, it is just different. It is easy to look at the problems with the reality of igougo and compare them to an idealized concept of AA, overlooking the drawbacks which come with such a system. A great example would be the sheer amount of extra time games take; I'd put an (albeit very rough) estimate at 50% more time spent. Another example would be coordination, where igougo allows armies to behave in a cohesive manner; I can have multiple front line units advance side by side whereas with AA an opponent could jam a fast chaff unit into the gap between my activations.

Understanding the inherent drawbacks and working around them is essential for making an AA system work. Those who seek to rely on the concept that AA is inherently better are ultimately doomed, as they are building on a foundation which falls apart in the face of actual gameplay. The concept has been around for ages, if it was really that easy to make AA work for Warhammer the community would have figured it out a long time ago!

[Beliman]

2 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

AA isn't inherently better or worse than Igougo, it is just different. It is easy to look at the problems with the reality of igougo and compare them to an idealized concept of AA, overlooking the drawbacks which come with such a system.

Agree, AA is just diferent.

But in my case, I'm not looking to AA from far away because I'm just playing some AA games (Asoaif, Conquest, Warcry and Malifaux) andit feels perfect for AoS. Everything that AoS is build on seems to scream AA:

• Mid range of units on the game (4-15 units).
• Wants to be dinamic with commands, abilities, endless spells, etc... on enemy phase
• Wants to be cinematic with big monsters, overbuffed Terminator-like units, Gods, Heroes, etc... (1-6 Heroes compared to 0-4 Artillery, that means what AoS wants to do).
• Dinamic Victory Points: Battleplans with effects every turn (or two turns) and tactics for each turn
• Small tables, high movement, small handicaps for ranged units, mid terrain features (8), etc...
• Double-turn

I know that I'm a bit biased, but the main features of AoS screams AA. And AA games are not that longe, Malifaux games can be longer than AoS with less minaitures, but Asoiaf and Conquest are shorter to play than AoS with same miniatures.... it's all about the complexity behind rules and how deep the designers want to go.

2 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

The concept has been around for ages, if it was really that easy to make AA work for Warhammer the community would have figured it out a long time ago!

That's the problem, it's not easy.  You need to create a new game, and that's why some designers are in high demand for this companies.

[NinthMusketeer]

I disagree. AA AoS is something I would like to see the community have as a resource but I do not feel it is something that fits it well at all. The very fact that it is so difficult to actually write a rule system for is precisely because AoS was written from the ground up to be igouo and has a large number of integral mechanics that need to be reworked. You even phrase it as creating a new game; if AoS really was well suited for AA it would not need to be. Conquest makes for a great compare/contrast because it is a wargame (as opposed to skirmish) which is written from the ground up with AA in mind. Having no wound rolls, for example, is a HUGE time saver, while the activation card mechanic eliminates a lot of exploitative gameplay maneuvers which can crop up in AA. How fundamentally different the two games are speaks to how deep the design elements need to be to support a certain turn mechanic.

Ultimately I see many propose AA for AoS as if it can be an easy set of house rules slapped on, a far fewer number put backing to their words in making honest attempts. But I am not sure I have witnessed anyone make an attempt with a full understanding of what they are getting into, because every time I have seen an attempt made it petered out once it became clear how much effort is involved and how much clunkier the reality is to the ideal. Though I still would like to see someone come up with such a system and for the community to have a viable AA system available, which is why I am here in the first place and why I am so specific and exhaustive with pointing out things which need to be addressed.

[Beliman]

8 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

The very fact that it is so difficult to actually write a rule system for is precisely because AoS was written from the ground up to be igouo and has a large number of integral mechanics that need to be reworked. You even phrase it as creating a new game; if AoS really was well suited for AA it would not need to be.

I think that we are talking about diferent things here. I'm not saying that AoS can be tweaked to be a AA game.

If you are working on a game, and you don't have anything written, you probably will start with a brainstorming of what you want to accomplish. I'm not talking about To Hit and To Wound rolls and anything like that, I'm talking about the list form my previous post.

All this points are perfectly suited for an AA, but instead, GW worked on IGYG (nothing wrong with that btw). That's why is not that easy to turn AoS in to an AA game, because everything needs to be rewriten.

That's what I'm trying to say.

8 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

Having no wound rolls, for example, is a HUGE time saver, while the activation card mechanic eliminates a lot of exploitative gameplay maneuvers which can crop up in AA.

Counter-argument, Malifaux only has two "rolls" (flip a card) for attack and defense with a lot less units on the table. 2-3hours for a game, exactly the same as AoS.

It's not that easy to create a game from scratch, and as you said, AoS was made as an IGYG and that's the main mechanics that we need to deal with.

Edited July 15, 2022 by Beliman

[NinthMusketeer]

I dunno... my experience with alternate-by phase lends itself pretty strongly to the conclusion that full AA would take even longer than that does, and I do not see any reason on paper for why that would not be the case. I suppose if anyone tries it they can come back and tell us.

[JackStreicher]

20 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

AA isn't inherently better or worse than Igougo

This is correct concerning wether a system works or not. However (and this is my opinion) AA offers less downtime and makes the game more engaging. Which is the biggest issue of IGYG Sytems: Waiting until it's finally your turn. I think one could make the argument that super strong combos that feel bad in a IGYG System might feel less bad in a AA system, since the opponent doesn't have to wait a whole turn - unable to act at all - while one deletes their units and pulls off combo XY. - The AoS Game Designers seem to have identified the long waiting as an issue as well, since they added the whole reactions Command Abilities.

However, as I said: This is subjective and only the way I feel about it.

I'll have a game this evening testing the AoS with AA in a 1k match-up. I am looking forward to how it will feel! (Both players having a good time is the goal!)
It would be awesome if someone of you, who plays regularly could test this system as well!

Edited July 15, 2022 by JackStreicher

[Flippy]

56 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

However (and this is my opinion) AA offers less downtime and makes the game more engaging. Which is the biggest issue of IGYG Sytems: Waiting until it's finally your turn.

Funny how different people can feel about this. AoS already requires a lot of cognitive effort; for me, the passive time during the opponent's turn is much appreciated. When do I swallow my beer & pretzel if I have to analyse and react constantly?

[JackStreicher]

1 hour ago, Flippy said:

Funny how different people can feel about this. AoS already requires a lot of cognitive effort; for me, the passive time during the opponent's turn is much appreciated. When do I swallow my beer & pretzel if I have to analyse and react constantly?

Interesting! I get bored during my opponents turn 😅

[Dingding123]

Honestly I'd find it really interesting if even movement without AA happened once per BR and all players moved then.  If movement for both players happened back-to-back in the first turn of each BR, the game could give the player going first the power to choose whether their army's movement phase is before or after the opponent's.  That might be more interactive than each turn being "all my guys move freely about the cabin while yours are sitting ducks", plus being the first turn player would finally have an advantage worth noting in comparison to those for going second.  Basically the first turn player would have a choice between claiming space on the board and positioning around enemy pieces, while the second sets up to counter whatever the opponent is up to alongside the usual double-turn anticipation.

A downside I see is that the game might slow down if the player moving last can simply choose to not fight by positioning everything 13"+ away from enemies.  Still, a BR of peace now and then can't be such a bad thing!  Players can position armies more comfortably close to each other as well instead of there being a sizeable no-man's land, which might make for a nice change of pace.  However it's also worth noting if there are no good charge opportunities for the player stuck going second that can feel really bad as well, so something else might need adding in or tweaking to help compensate.  Finally players would be burdened with remembering everything of the second turn players' that ran in their movement phase in the first turn before the charge phase in the second which might cause some oopsies haha.

[NinthMusketeer]

Alternate-by-phase rules CAN be slapped on top of conventional AoS without needing to alter mechanics or warscrolls. I can say from literally years of experience they work quite well, particularly in FFA battles where the basic AoS system falls through.

Big advantage is that they can be explained in 5 minutes and take up less than a page.

Edited July 15, 2022 by NinthMusketeer

[NinthMusketeer]

6 hours ago, Flippy said:

Funny how different people can feel about this. AoS already requires a lot of cognitive effort; for me, the passive time during the opponent's turn is much appreciated. When do I swallow my beer & pretzel if I have to analyse and react constantly?

I'm a sort of inverse; I enjoy the cognitive application but find the ebb-and-surge of igougo engaging, striking a good balance between needing to plan ahead and being able to react.

AA I've only seen work well in a wargame (as opposed to skirmish) with Conquest. And I think a lot of it is down to what is not seen; many exploitative tactics taking advantage of AA simply don't work and so don't appear in gameplay. Writing AA for AoS would mean dealing with such eventually, another layer on top of basic functionality. Otherwise it would just trade one set of exploits for another, and at that point people overwhelmingly prefer to stick with what they know. Writing fan rules as good as GWs isn't enough; they have to be better to get strong appeal. A lot better. Which isn't fair, but equally isn't something anyone can change.

[GunslingerOy]

On 7/15/2022 at 3:54 PM, NinthMusketeer said:

 

AA I've only seen work well in a wargame (as opposed to skirmish) with Conquest. And I think a lot of it is down to what is not seen; many exploitative tactics taking advantage of AA simply don't work and so don't appear in gameplay. Writing AA for AoS would mean dealing with such eventually, another layer on top of basic functionality. Otherwise it would just trade one set of exploits for another, and at that point people overwhelmingly prefer to stick with what they know. 

I only play skirmish games with AA. Only larger game I play is AOS. What are the exploits you see with AA in a larger scale war game? I cannot think of any off the top of my head. Conquest looks fun and I like the card activation system alot but the units coming on in waves puts me off.