AoS - But with alternating activations

[Beliman]

53 minutes ago, GunslingerOy said:

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.

[Offtopic]

Take in mind that it's a core mechanic that all armies, units, points, abilities and the whole balance of the game are build around it.  Look at it as a feature.
For anyone that don't know, Conquest games start with no units on the table, and each turn, your active unit need to rolls a dice and see if it can enter the battlefield. Not all units can enter at the same time, some units are "light" and can enter in early turns (1-3), others are "meddium" and can only enter in the mid turns (2-4) and last ones are "heavy" and can only enter in the last turns of the game (3-5). That mechanic is linked with the set-up too,, your units can only enter from your side of the map, but if your units advance and secure a part of the table, you will unlock more zones to enter. 

But the best thing is that all armies are build around this mechanic, even the feeling of their gameplay reflects that. Just to name a few example:

• Dweghoms (dwarfs) are slow, so they only have a few but really strong "Light" units, more as a necessity of the army. Like burning berzerks, that can chop-chop any other "light regiment"  or Crossbross that can secure an area from a ranged position. Both are expensive, but that's the whole point of playing Dwarfs.Take in mind that their medium and heavy units are really scary, but slow.
• Hundred Kingdoms (humans) are experts in everything. You have everything in each phase: light ambushes, archers, melee units, defensive units, etc... to secure the battlefield earlier in the game, and look for turn 2-3 for "meddium units" for that definitive charge (aka, CAVALRY!!!) or if you want to go elite, for a lategame push (turn 4-5) with units like HEAVY CAVALRY! That's their whole point, they have everything (appart from big scary monsters) to play, and it's up to you to know were to put the points. Cavalry is scary because they have enough movement that a bad early game doens't mean a lot to them.
• Nords (my favorite army until Cities) are fast, and that means that they want to run for the enemy, even if the enemy is not on the table. Abilities that treat your Meddium units as Light units, abilitites that stop enemy medium units to enter the battlefield, or units that can outflank (cheat their roll to enter the battlefield) are their bread and butter. They need to take objectives earlier, cleave ligth enemies in two and crossfigners to survive midd game until their big monsters enter play to end the slaughter.

As you can see, don't expect to Dweghoms to make an "alpha strike", but their units are scary. If you play agaisnt them don't expect to win with just brute force, they are elite and their hammer units will probably arrive in turn 3+. Nords can't take a hit, their medium units die as fast as their light units. So play with that in mind, raid as fast as you can before enemy units can counter-charge your punch, take objectives and cut enemies advance before turn 3-4 to secure a lead and stop them to enter the battlefield srom any strategic position. Even if the enemy can stop your early push, you still have monsters that are going to enter the battlefield before the opponents big hiters!

[GunslingerOy]

12 minutes ago, Beliman said:

[Offtopic]

Take in mind that it's a core mechanic that all armies, units, points, abilities and the whole balance of the game are build around it.  Look at it as a feature.
For anyone that don't know, Conquest games start with no units on the table, and each turn, your active unit need to rolls a dice and see if it can enter the battlefield. Not all units can enter at the same time, some units are "light" and can enter in early turns (1-3), others are "meddium" and can only enter in the mid turns (2-4) and last ones are "heavy" and can only 

For whatever reason I find this mechanic immersion breaking. I don't know why this is the line I draw but army showing up to the battle in spurts and waves with a bunch of stragglers coming on late seems weird. 

The reality is if anyone played it in my area (looking at you south metro MN USA) I would give it a try.

 

Back to the point. My main AOS opponent and I are hopeful to try AA in AOS sometime but we play maybe once a month and that makes it difficult to arrange.

[NinthMusketeer]

Edit--double posted

Edited July 18, 2022 by NinthMusketeer

[NinthMusketeer]

15 hours ago, GunslingerOy said:

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.

To go with a few examples:

Some exploits are borderline; ttaking a bunch of small chaff units to bleed opponent activations, allowing your valuable units to act unopposed. To a certain (subjective) extent that's a valid strategy but it can go overboard. For example, many factions have no problem getting large numbers of cheap units with the speed to charge the most valuable enemy thing, forcing that enemy to essentially waste its turn killing an expendable unit unless it is cleared by another before that. In igougo a unit that charged in like that would be obliterated in the subsequent combat phase, meaning that to obstruct movement it would need to form a line 3" away--which leaves ample room for counterplay. But say the chaff is killed by a different enemy, opening up the elite unit again? The next chaff unit runs in. Unlike in igougo the other expendables don't have to move up at the same time in order to be obstructive; it creates a situation of needing to destroy them piecemeal, and even after that the majority of the chaff player's army still gets to go, only now they do it largely unopposed.

Which leads into another exploit that is an acceptable strategy pushed too far; high value units. A unit that costs a third of the army's points means that army can have a third of itself act in one go--a powerful advantage especially with magic/missile units which can destroy multiple smaller enemies if needed. Combines especially well with reserves or the above tactic, meaning the value unit can go after the opponent has used most/all of their activations then activate first in the subsequent round for a guaranteed 'mini double turn' which is no major issue when its one guy in a skirmish battle but very different when that one unit represents a third of the army.

A more basic exploit it simply range bias; units with ranged offense are inherently more valuable because they can more reliably target whichever enemy units have not activated yet in a turn. Many AoS AA systems I have seen proposed nerf melee units further by only giving them one combat per round instead of two.

Exploits like the above are not always game-breaking mechanics, but they add up and in many cases compound on each other. A system doesn't need to deal with every factor but it does need to manage them.

[Beliman]

Maybe I'm wrong, but @NinthMusketeer list is not an exploit, but a feature. The main problem is when the game is not build with all of this in mind:

4 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

taking a bunch of small chaff units to bleed opponent activations, allowing your valuable units to act unopposed.

Imho, that's a good (and fair) strategy. Elite units need to do a lot of work to confront early "chaff" activations. Going first with high quality units is another strategy, focusing big units that are not even activated and removing them before they are activated (AA "Alpha").

Problem: Of course, if the game was not build with that in mind, it will be teddious and one sided, unless both armies are going to take a bunch of units just to stop this tactics.
Solution: Activation tokens, Chain-activations, more actions per phase for elite units, etc... there are a lot of solutions.

4 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

A unit that costs a third of the army's points means that army can have a third of itself act in one go--a powerful advantage especially with magic/missile units which can destroy multiple smaller enemies if needed.

That's is a classic a IGYG problem. 40% of your points in one model that can be killed without being even played, or worst, this unit can end the game on turn 2. I don't like this kind of designs, and I don't think it's healthy for any game.

Problem: It's a big problem, you destroy an entire army, or you lose 40% of your points in one go. Doesn't matter if you play IGYG or AA, it will never be a good experience for any player.
Solution: This isn't an easy fix. High points, giving them more activations or tokens to make them relevant, no spread-damage, etc... are a good start. A good example could be Conquest. Their big dudes are not going to die until turn 3 (and it's really hard to kill them in the same turn that they arrive, so more about turn 4 or 5), and will never kill half an army in the first turn (because they are not going to be in the table).

4 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

A more basic exploit it simply range bias; units with ranged offense are inherently more valuable because they can more reliably target whichever enemy units have not activated yet in a turn.

IGYG with double-turn has a worst experience with this mechanic. I would say that AA have an edge because you can activate another ranged unit to return fire, or activate faster dudes to zone the enemy and have more space to do whatever you want in (shooting usually is an action, so in games like Conquest, you can't TP+shoot as easy as IGYG because you are limited)
Problem and Solution: It's more about the game than the system. Having one unit shoot one of your units is not the same as having 4 units and an artillery deleting 5 of your units. But still, it can happen and it's all about the developers of the game.

Edited July 18, 2022 by Beliman

[pnkdth]

3 hours ago, Beliman said:

Maybe I'm wrong, but @NinthMusketeer list is not an exploit, but a feature. The main problem is when the game is not build with all of this in mind:

Imho, that's a good (and fair) strategy. Elite units need to do a lot of work to confront early "chaff" activations. Going first with high quality units is another strategy, focusing big units that are not even activated and removing them before they are activated (AA "Alpha").

Problem: Of course, if the game was not build with that in mind, it will be teddious and one sided unless both armies are going to take meh units just to stop this tactics.
Solution: Activation tokens, Chain-activations, more actions per phase for elite units, etc...

That's is exactly a IGYG problem. 40% of your points in one model that can be killed without being played, or worst, it can  end the game on turn 2. I don't like this kind of designs, and I don't think they healthy for any game.

Problem: It's a big problem, you destroy an entire army, or you lose 40% of your points in one go. Doens't matter if you play IGYG or AA, it will never bea  good experience.
Solution: This isn't an easy fix. High points, giving them more activations or tokens to make them relevant, no spread-damage, etc... are a good start.   E.g: Conquest big dudes are not going to die until turn 3 (even if you play as bad as you can), and will never kill half an army in the first turn (because they are not going to be in the table).

That's worst in IGYG with double-turn. I would say that AA have an edge because you can activate another ranged unit to return fire, or activate faster dudes to zone the enemy and have more space to do wahtever you want (shooting usually is an action, so in games like Conquest, you can't TP+shoot as easy as IGYG)
Problem and Solution: It's more about the game than the system. Having one unit shoot one of your units is not the same as having 4 units and an artillery deleting 5 of your units. But still, it can happen and it's all about the developers of the game.

And for abilities such as Morathi's double shoot (double fight or other big abilities) you could just count them as combat actions if it becomes an issue of big alpha strikes. That's one of the advantages of AA, you can create units with flexibility and flavour without it meaning they can do everything in a single activation.

[Gitzdee]

Would it be a terrible idea to give activation tokens based on point cost? (or unit size)
It could fix elite armies being out-activated.
It could make reinforced units worth their cost.
It makes your big model feel like a boss.

I could see a few things going wrong too but i think its worth mentioning.
 

Edited July 18, 2022 by Gitzdee

[Beliman]

6 hours ago, pnkdth said:

And for abilities such as Morathi's double shoot (double fight or other big abilities) you could just count them as combat actions if it becomes an issue of big alpha strikes. That's one of the advantages of AA, you can create units with flexibility and flavour without it meaning they can do everything in a single activation.

Yes! Exactly that! 

Morathi is a good example: If you want to shoot two times with the snake-ladies, you need first to activate snakes, use one of their actions to shoot, then the enemy can counter-shoot you in their activation, then activate Morathi and spend one of their actions for the snake-ladies to shoot again.

That's a lot going on, actions are resources, activation priority is like a mini-game, combos are still there, but the enemy can interact without feeling bad.

 

5 hours ago, Gitzdee said:

Would it be a terrible idea to give activation tokens based on point cost?

Not sure what do you mean. Can you elavorate a bit?

Edited July 18, 2022 by Beliman

[Gitzdee]

1 hour ago, Beliman said:

Not sure what do you mean. Can you elavorate a bit?

Just using random points costs and activations for this example.

Units with points costs:
0-100 = 1 activation
100-250 = 2 activations
250- 400 = 3 activations
400 or more = 4 activations

Edit: Could also give heroes +1 activation to make them stand out more from regular units.

This would make a cheap chaff unit less impactfull as bigger/ more elite units etc.

Edited July 18, 2022 by Gitzdee

[pnkdth]

20 minutes ago, Gitzdee said:

Just using random points costs and activations for this example.

Units with points costs:
0-100 = 1 activation
100-250 = 2 activations
250- 400 = 3 activations
400 or more = 4 activations

This would make a cheap chaff unit less impactfull as bigger/ more elite units etc.

It makes sense for some units having more actions per activations to justify points cost. Especially since AoS has some really expensive pieces.

I think Malifaux solves it really well with 'pass token' which allow the elite army to pass on an activation to activate later. For each unit more the opponent has the other player gains a pass token. This allows the more elite armies to anticipate and react rather than being surrounded and outmanoeuvred since the opponent now has to show their hand, so to speak.

Multiple activations for elite armies means they get as many activations yet of much higher quality (and some seriously punishing alpha strikes). Because while chaff means more activations they're also a lower quality activation. That said, I think certain unit types deserve more actions per activation because as you rightly point out there's a rather extreme range between the cost of units.

[NinthMusketeer]

I feel like I went out of my way to point out that these are features which become exploits when pushed to extremes, and are factors to be managed rather than 'solved' then that was immediately ignored in favor of treating my good faith attempt at explanation as some sort of attack on the concept.

[Ganigumo]

On 7/17/2022 at 12:26 PM, GunslingerOy said:

For whatever reason I find this mechanic immersion breaking. I don't know why this is the line I draw but army showing up to the battle in spurts and waves with a bunch of stragglers coming on late seems weird. 

The reality is if anyone played it in my area (looking at you south metro MN USA) I would give it a try.

 

Back to the point. My main AOS opponent and I are hopeful to try AA in AOS sometime but we play maybe once a month and that makes it difficult to arrange.

I've never played conquest, but this can make sense narratively. You generally don't want fragile pieces in the front, and want to save heavy hitters to turn the tides when things start to get messy. Deploying them in the wrong spot could be worse than not deploying them at all.

Travel speed can be a factor too, Cavalry and infantry travel speeds are roughly the same. Cavalry could be faster over a short distance at an unsustainable pace, but infantry could outpace cavalry over very long distances, but proper logistics is a big factor here too. There's also organization and muster speed to consider, if they're caught off guard the heavier units will probably take longer to get prepared to fight.

[Beliman]

11 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

I feel like I went out of my way to point out that these are features which become exploits when pushed to extremes, and are factors to be managed rather than 'solved' then that was immediately ignored in favor of treating my good faith attempt at explanation as some sort of attack on the concept.

No problem!
It's not about attacking one system, because 2 out of the 3 exploits are a lot easier to be abused in IGYG than AA systems. I just pointed out that every game developer needs to know the main issues that a system has, and write their game accordingly.

My Problems/Solutions list is based on other games that their developers saw this possible outcomes and what they did to try to mitigate this issues. Call it solution or call it a polished mechanic that can manage some of this exploits.

Edited July 19, 2022 by Beliman

[Gitzdee]

I also dont really think its the fault of the game designer that things are being exploited. They are always things that works better in a certain meta or favor some style of play at a certain version of the rules. Its how u deal with such things when they arise that prove if u are good at supporting the system u put out. But thats a totally different discussion imho. That being said i think its good to think about possible exploits. Than again sometimes i think something can be exploited when in reality it doesnt, it all depends on the user in the end. But i think u need a solid base for a game so it can be expanded upon if needed. Sorry for me rambling. 

[Beliman]

@Gitzdee

I'm not sure if it's their "fault" or not. But designers are the ones that need to know all the flaws of the system they are going to use and what can break their own game.

Imagine a spell that if it has been cast, it wins you the game. You put a CV of 13 because you think it's fun and logically nobody can reach a roll of  13 with 2D6. But you didn't remember that there is a synergy that allows you to change the result of a roll to any other number of your choice and there isn't a limith to your casting rolls.

Designers don't want to end a game with just one roll, they want you to play the game, tell stories, have fun with your friends, etc... 
Of course, not all of them are like the Dreaded 13th spell, and a lot of them are fixe'd or doesn't break the game for a 1-day fix.

 

[JackStreicher]

1 hour ago, Beliman said:

@Gitzdee

I'm not sure if it's their "fault" or not. But designers are the ones that need to know all the flaws of the system they are going to use and what can break their own game.

Imagine a spell that if it has been cast, it wins you the game. You put a CV of 13 because you think it's fun and logically nobody can reach a roll of  13 with 2D6. But you didn't remember that there is a synergy that allows you to change the result of a roll to any other number of your choice and there isn't a limith to your casting rolls.

Designers don't want to end a game with just one roll, they want you to play the game, tell stories, have fun with your friends, etc... 
Of course, not all of them are like the Dreaded 13th spell, and a lot of them are fixe'd or doesn't break the game for a 1-day fix.

 

This happened with Warhammer Fantasy a lot, though it wasn't a good system because that happened quite often.
However due to the way wounding, fighting etc. worked we'd regularly have heroic duels with absurd ends (a Priest of Sigmar slaying a Vampire Lord, or a Unit Champion killing Sigvald. A Vampire Lord being killed by the Sking-Crew of a Stegadon... good times!).

I haven't had that in AoS at all to be honest. Everything simply dies (usually overkilled) or becomes the immortal overlord (save stacking). Though I like AoS (in general) more than the old WHF I have to admit that it lacks memorable games. It's all become quite fugacious.

Edited July 19, 2022 by JackStreicher

[acr0ssth3p0nd]

One of the immediate issues with AA in AoS is that each unit will only be fighting once per round, instead of potentially twice. Thus, the ratio of shooting-to-fighting that units do is effectively doubled! Limiting units to specific actions might solve this - charging and Fighting helps you cover more ground than moving normally and then Shooting, for example. This is one instance where you might want to draw on OPR's core structure more-heavily.

That's not to dismiss what you're doing here, mind. The additional complexity in AoS's mechanics and unit stats have their place in a game separate from OPR, and "why not just use OPR" doesn't take this into account. It's like comparing Rainbow Six Siege and Call of Duty - even though R6 has shifted from its traditional 3rd-person gameplay to 1st-person, it's still a different beast from CoD.

As far as timing goes, I think it's important to acknowledge the difference between "time taken" and "pacing". Sure, AA games might take longer, but I've found they're often paced better, with relatively little significant chunks of downtime between players getting to do their cool stuff. It's also worth pointing out that they tend to be more-evenly balance across different game sizes, since you only ever get to do one-unit's worth of "stuff" before your opponent gets to hit back, which makes smaller (and thus faster) games more viable.

Edited July 19, 2022 by acr0ssth3p0nd

[BadDice0809]

13 hours ago, acr0ssth3p0nd said:

 

As far as timing goes, I think it's important to acknowledge the difference between "time taken" and "pacing". Sure, AA games might take longer, but I've found they're often paced better, with relatively little significant chunks of downtime between players getting to do their cool stuff. It's also worth pointing out that they tend to be more-evenly balance across different game sizes, since you only ever get to do one-unit's worth of "stuff" before your opponent gets to hit back, which makes smaller (and thus faster) games more viable.

A 100 times this. The 'it takes so much more time!!' argument is tiresome. This is a wargame. Its not a match on [insert popular online shooter here]. If you are going to play, you set aside a morning, an afternoon or an evening. Taking a bit more time (if it even does, nothing is ever given in support of the claim anyway), one would think, is worth it for better pacing and more engaging game play. The only subset who would care is tournament players (or those claiming to be them). Frankly, tournament players are not the largest portion of the hobby anyway, and there are easy fixes- play smaller games, use movement aids, and frankly adapting, whether by playing faster or building a smaller army. With the way AoS 3.0 books have trended, where armies generally cost more and there are less models, it feels like now is the time to hammer out true AA rules. 

[NinthMusketeer]

I am sure some people have that amount of time to devote but for my local community games are being played in the evening after work by people who still need to get up for work the next day. Starting a game at 6pm and having it go till 10 isn't something we want to play.

Disregarding the value of other people's time is a sure fire way to undermine one's own success.

[JackStreicher]

10 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

I am sure some people have that amount of time to devote but for my local community games are being played in the evening after work by people who still need to get up for work the next day. Starting a game at 6pm and having it go till 10 isn't something we want to play.

Disregarding the value of other people's time is a sure fire way to undermine one's own success.

AA for AoS does not take longer. Both players share the same turn -> equal amount of units acting compared to 2 turns of regular AoS.

The game I played felt very quick at least. (How long do 1k games usually last? Ours took ~ 1 hour)

Edited July 21, 2022 by JackStreicher

[Beliman]

7 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

AA for AoS does not take longer. Both players share the same turn -> equal amount of units acting compared to 2 turns of regular AoS.

The game I played felt very quick at least. (How long do 1k games usually last? Ours took ~ 1 hour)

Can you share a bit more of that game? I'm really interested in this kind of stuff

[Gitzdee]

I am wondering how u all think about a set number of activations per turn that can be used army wide. Would this be broken in any way? Anyone played a game with such a system? Would it work for AoS?

[JackStreicher]

1 hour ago, Gitzdee said:

I am wondering how u all think about a set number of activations per turn that can be used army wide. Would this be broken in any way? Anyone played a game with such a system? Would it work for AoS?

Issues arise when multi-activating powerful models like Archaon etc. You‘d need a way to lower the damage they can do (magic, shooting and melee)

 

@Beliman

I am super busy right now, I‘ll try to write a report this weekend!

[Gitzdee]

9 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

Issues arise when multi-activating powerful models like Archaon etc. You‘d need a way to lower the damage they can do (magic, shooting and melee)

 

@Beliman

I am super busy right now, I‘ll try to write a report this weekend!

Maybe setting a limit of the things a model can do per turn could work? Dont remember exactly but i think Infinity kind of works like this, but it has that reaction system build in to counter things.

Edited July 21, 2022 by Gitzdee

[NinthMusketeer]

On 7/20/2022 at 11:17 PM, JackStreicher said:

AA for AoS does not take longer. Both players share the same turn -> equal amount of units acting compared to 2 turns of regular AoS.

The game I played felt very quick at least. (How long do 1k games usually last? Ours took ~ 1 hour)

Cutting half the combat phases out does speed up gameplay considerably, but that is a feature of your ruleset specifically and not the overall concept.