Priority Role - Potential Comp

[Jack Armstrong]

Hi all,

I thought I would start this as I posted it on twitter and most people didn't seem to understand what I was proposing and why and it's quite hard to get across in limited character tweets.  If you are going to reply please actually read what I am saying and why first and not just put that you think that the priority role adds an element of risk management, playing to offset losing it, core mechanic, etc, etc - as I agree with all of those things!

My suggestion is to simply add +1 to your dice roll on the priority if you lost the previous roll, potentially cumulatively.  This would mean that statistically you are much less likely to not win a turn roll during the course of the game, but still means it is possible.  The reasons why I think this is necessary:

- the priority roll concept is a really key mechanic to the game and adds some interesting tactical dimensions to the game.  Having to 'play for' the double turn or to mitigate against it is a core part of AoS and not something I think should be taken away.

- The win or loss of one priority roll should not win/lose you the game if you are playing correctly with a well constructed army, however losing all of the 4 turn rolls could have that effect.  Contrary to some peoples opinions I don't think if you go second and lose each turn roll the game becomes a each of you taking concurrent turns, as it is definitely not always beneficial to go first if you win the roll - if at all possible you should always go second as it then gives you the opportunity of the double if you then need it.  

- Winning the priority roll is ALWAYS better than losing it, no matter how much you play for it, how much you prepare for it, how much you can mitigate it - you then have the control of whether you take it or give it.  Having this option for 4 turns is always going to put you in a stronger position.

- By having the +1, one person can still win all the turn rolls but it makes it more likely that it will become more balanced between both players - meaning you still have to plan/play for the risk of losing it (the mechanic which everyone likes) but that over the course of the game it's more likely that the turn rolls won will be more even and thus the game more likely to be won by player skill (something everyone should also like).

Sensible replies appreciated!

Jack

[Mark wildman]

I agree with your sentiments Jack. I've played some games where I've lost every priority roll and it's a really hard game. 

I also agree that I'm finding too many games are won or lost on one dice roll. I played one game at the club recently and we where able to play the last turn twice to see how the priority roll impacted on the game. In a nut shell, who ever won the last roll off, won the game. So the entire game was just based upon one dice roll..

however, how is that any difference from having a vampire Lord sniped out of a unit from a cannon. 7th/8th ed..

 

My biggest bug with it this. Playing against a large army who double turns you. An example of this is vs Moonclan. At clash, I got double turned first turn. My turn one, I didn't really do much, as I had to snipe out the bolt throwers. My turn took me all of 5 minutes. I then got double turned and my opponent played for 45/50 minutes and I sat and watched. Now this wasn't even someone so playing. (Far from it) 

can you imagine the likes of Nick Pym double turning you? It's not very fun or engaging. 

[Skeekrit]

I like the War and Conquest approach (with due credit to Rob Broom who wrote the book). There is a role at the beginning of the turn much like AOS, but you can have a number of dice at the beginning of the game to affect this role. So on the key turn you can roll 2 (or even more) dice, and take the highest. It means you can increase the chances, but still no guarantee it.

It's the one bit of AOS which I think could do with a tweek as well. At Clash (5 games, so 20 rolls for priority) I won 5! It did get a little frustrating at the end of the tourni.

- Declan

[The Jabber Tzeentch]

I like the idea of your general being able to affect the roll somehow, perhaps with command abilities or traits. 

A command ability anyone can use which gives you a reroll or +1 to your next priority roll would be a welcome addition. Potentially with a counter ability the opposing general could use. 

[Ollie Grimwood]

I'm not that keen it would mean that players who won the priority are just going to choose to go second.  There's no way anyone is going to gift there opponent such an opportunity to gain a double turn.  

The arguement provided could be extended to any dice rolls in the game, making rolls makes it more likely that you'll win . It is very unlikely that one will loose every priority roll on that there opponent will make the most correct tactical choice (they don't know what the roll will be either). 

The priority roll as is for me an intrinsic part of how AoS plays and mucking about with changes the character of the game dramatically, certainly if it allows one player a great chance of gaining the priority. The Everchosen battalion that allows one player to know the next priority roll advance is bad enough and at least them you can try and guess what it is from their actions.  

Usual AoS caveat applies House rule however you suits you and your opponents if they prefer it but it's not for me. 

[Sutek]

It's a nice idea but I don't personally think the priority role is that big a decider.  In my last two games I lost every priority role and won both games comfortably.

[Sleboda]

I have a thought or two about the "one roll decides the game" mentality. Before I share it, though, I want to be clear that this is not a blast against anyone here or anything personal.  It's just that I'm fascinated by human thinking quirks and I see one here that I've seen for decades, and not just in gaming.  So, yeah.

 

One roll (and it's "roll" not "role") does not win a game or lose it, and not even replaying the event with the roll going the other way is proof that it does. The only time a single roll determines the complete outcome is when the "game" is that roll - as in "Do we get cheeseburges or fish for dinner tonight?  Roll a die, 4+ it's fish."  Then a single roll determines the outcome.

In other cases, there is a whole string of rolls and, more importantly, tactical choices, that determine the outcome.  It's just not our nature to see that.  We want to have single event we can point to as the reason.  We also find it difficult to accept that we might have been a factor in the loss.

Sure, the roll is a dramatic, important moment in the game.  There are other moments too, but perhaps they are less dramatic or perhaps they happened early in the game so you have the time to absorb their impact and lose sight of how they changed things.  The proverbial cannon shot that takes out your general in turn 2, the failed charge that exposed your unit to harm you didn't expect, the failed dispel roll on turn 3 that made you lose an important unit...there are dozens of rolls in most games that affect the outcome, it's just that so much happens afterward, and so many elements go into those moments, that they stand out much less than a lull between turns where one single die gets rolled.

We focus on that one, single moment and, in our minds, it "decides the game" when the truth is that a hundred other choices and a thousand other die rolls lead to a point where that one roll seemed to matter so much.

 

I said it is more than gaming, too, and it is.

 

Ask Scott Norwood.  He didn't "lose" the game.  He missed a field goal.  What about all the other times in the game when his team missed catches, missed open passes, ran the wrong route, failed to block a defender...  

The field goal stands out just like the Priority Roll because it's an easy, isolated, highly visible, exceptional moment, but it's not really any more important than when the running back zigged when he should have zagged and got tackled for a loss instead of converting the first down.

 

Anyway, let's try to actively fight our human nature. Let's accept our faults and own our decisions. Changing the rules is not the answer.  Being aware an making better choices. That's the right thing.  

[Stevewren]

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

Ask Scott Norwood.  He didn't "lose" the game.  He missed a field goal.  What about all the other times in the game when his team missed catches, missed open passes, ran the wrong route, failed to block a defender...  

The field goal stands out just like the Priority Roll because it's an easy, isolated, highly visible, exceptional moment, but it's not really any more important than when the running back zigged when he should have zagged and got tackled for a loss instead of converting the first down.

Kickers....

[Nico]

Quote

The Everchosen battalion that allows one player to know the next priority roll advance is bad enough and at least them you can try and guess what it is from their actions.  

You mean the one that costs so much and is so meh, that no-one has taken it to a significant tournament in the UK for the last 6 months? 

Jack's suggestion is certainly a lot better than scrapping the initiative roll entirely (which no doubt some pew pew players want to happen). I still think (a) it's too early for major surgery to be made to the post-GH game; (b) there are a whole range of viable strategies and counters - most armies are rock paper scissors; (c) all four Grand Alliances are competitive - so I'm pretty pleased with balance all round. Multiple Thunderturds paired with battleline Moonclan Grots with netters and bravery 7 are probably the only thing that drives me up the wall as being wildly undercosted.

[Ollie Grimwood]

10 minutes ago, Nico said:

You mean the one that costs so much and is so meh, that no-one has taken it to a significant tournament in the UK for the last 6 months? 

 

It's an awesome ability, it's  lack of use is probably more to do with having to take Archaon more than anything else. 

[Nico]

To clarify - the 1400 point formation is meh - not the ability.

[Ollie Grimwood]

24 minutes ago, Nico said:

To clarify - the 1400 point formation is meh - not the ability.

Ah got ya fair enough. I reckon the cost of Archaon and the Varanguard may be something gets changed if they review the GHB. Especially considering they're supposed to be marquee status

[hobgoblinclub]

5 hours ago, The Jabber Tzeentch said:

I like the idea of your general being able to affect the roll somehow, perhaps with command abilities or traits. 

A command ability anyone can use which gives you a reroll or +1 to your next priority roll would be a welcome addition. Potentially with a counter ability the opposing general could use. 

Now this I prefer. That way it's a tactical decision to go for it, rather than an arbitrary +1 if you lost before. Giving all generals the ability to add +1, in addition to inspiring presence might work.

[The Jabber Tzeentch]

30 minutes ago, hobgoblinclub said:

Now this I prefer. That way it's a tactical decision to go for it, rather than an arbitrary +1 if you lost before. Giving all generals the ability to add +1, in addition to inspiring presence might work.

Yeah I feel they missed an opportunity with the command abilities they could've had made it a real tactical part of gameplay. 

I find I just automatically use the generals CA all game with a minimal effect. 

[Nico]

Quote

Especially considering they're supposed to be marquee status

Biggest fail of all the releases from a gaming perspective - obviously models are amazing.

Really surprising as almost no-one was using them under SCGT, even after their cost was reduced and when you could use them in units of one model.