Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 DarkBlack wrote:

 Sal4m4nd3r wrote:
Should the GHII make a rule or suggestion about how many pieces of terrain should be on the board for matched play? Like 6+ d6 or 6+d3??

The core rules has a recommended random terrain allocation. Should give 1 or 2 pieces per 2x2 section, have not crunched the numbers, but looks like 7 or 8 pieces per table.

Edit: I would recommend more though.

Basic rules have d3 per 2x2 section, meaning an average of 12. You can get away with 7-8 though, but if Sylvaneth are around then its important to actually get the full allotment as Wyldwoods suddenly become massively OP when there's tons of space.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Basic rules have d3 per 2x2 section.

Where you find this? Only thing I've found is the 2d6 table in the 4 page rules.

The basic rules have a 2d6 chart that tells you how many pieces to place per two foot square. You're likely to get 2 pieces per square and there are six squares on a standard 6x4 table - so you will have on average twelve pieces of terrain.

 auticus wrote:
The basic rules have a 2d6 chart that tells you how many pieces to place per two foot square. You're likely to get 2 pieces per square and there are six squares on a standard 6x4 table - so you will have on average twelve pieces of terrain.

Ninth stated d3 per 2x2 so was trying to see where he found that. I'm aware of the 2d6 table.

Apologies, I was mixing up the basic rules with how we do it at my flgs. Suffice it to say we find d3 per section a bit more straightforward.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Apologies, I was mixing up the basic rules with how we do it at my flgs. Suffice it to say we find d3 per section a bit more straightforward.

I just wanted to make sure I wasnt crazy. I might adapt that rule as well.

Being a bit unit specific here, but I'd like to see Varanguard with reduced points, and the ability to field them with an assigned mark without having to have Archaon around.

As it stands, Varanguard just aren't very good for their points cost while also having an absolutely massive tax attached to them if you want to actually run an army dedicated to any one part of Chaos.

I second this. Maybe 240 would be a better point and allow them to have their own mark separately, though I'm not seeing them changing this until the new battletome. Points yes, which would help a lot with the tax.

I'd like to see GH2 matched play do away with first player to end setting up deciding who'll have first turn. It's weird as it favours armies with battalions and off table deployment.

Waaargh wrote:
I'd like to see GH2 matched play do away with first player to end setting up deciding who'll have first turn. It's weird as it favours armies with battalions and off table deployment.

We immediately houseruled that ability to set up battalions as one unit. It basically meant that whoever had the most units in a single battalion always had choice of first turn.

I like the current deployment/first turn rule. I get see where my entire opponents army goes and then my opponent decides to go first or second. I vastly prefer it to the 40k system of rolling off. This way you can play to your strengths and it's another layer of complexity.

This is why we use Alternate Activation instead who goes first is not as big a thing, nor are double turns.

 auticus wrote:
This is why we use Alternate Activation instead who goes first is not as big a thing, nor are double turns.

Very interesting. Did you have to adjust anything else to accommodate that change?

Waaargh wrote:
I'd like to see GH2 matched play do away with first player to end setting up deciding who'll have first turn. It's weird as it favors armies with battalions and off table deployment.

But off-table deployment still counts as a drop. It would be pretty cheesy if my 2 runesmiters and the 2 units they tunnel would be zero as opposed to 4 drops.

 auticus wrote:
This is why we use Alternate Activation instead who goes first is not as big a thing, nor are double turns.

Seems like it would favor huge blobs, of shooters in particular. Do you find that an issue?

I really like the less-drops-chooses-first-turn rule in theory, and loved it up till the Sylvaneth book, but now we have 1 drop armies. I would rather battalions had to be deployed piecemeal so there was a bit more strategy once more in managing your drops.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 auticus wrote:
This is why we use Alternate Activation instead who goes first is not as big a thing, nor are double turns.

Seems like it would favor huge blobs, of shooters in particular. Do you find that an issue?

I havent found it an issue at all because every unit activates the same amount in a turn that they would in normal AOS. It also means you get to respond with each unit at least once before that super blob fires again.

If a blob of 50 archers goes first, fires at you, and then gets double turn and fires at you again it hurts a lot more than alt activation. The reason being is that that archer unit cannot fire at you twice while you take it in the face for an hour removing models like in pure RAW AOS. With alt activation, that unit fires once, and your entire force will have activated before that archer unit fires again.

Now yes the bigger units are going to largely be what you activate first since you'll get more volume of shots out, but that plays into the game of keep out of range at first.

Exponentially more tactical and engaging. So much more satisfying than sitting there for an hour doing nothing but removing models waiting for your turn. IMO. YMMV.

Honestly I think they should have gone with alternate activations instead of turns from the start. I get why they didn't, but it's super annoying as you said auticus when your opponent gets a double turn and you sit there unable to do anything but maybe roll saves and remove models. I think that could even help 40k where a similar problem exists (albeit no double turn, but enough firepower where someone's turn can take a long time and results in one player doing nothing but removing models). I recall reading once about a situation where someone spent more time deploying their force than playng, because all they ended up doing was removing swathes of models during their opponent's turn.

I've been using alternate activation in 40k since 2013 for my public campaigns and we get vastly much more positive feedback than negative for it.

I still prefer alternating phases to alternating activation. Alternating activation just seems to favor MSU too much.

I think no matter what system you utilize, it will favor a certain style or build.

Alternate phases aren't bad. I like it in LOTR. It can definitely be implemented to AOS as well and while I have no experience yet with trying that (i'm toying with the idea for this summer campaign) I have a feeling it would go off just fine.

THe downside to alternate phases would be that the double tap phase can still happen and you still end up removing a bucket of your models, but at least you are more engaged instead of sitting for an hour waiting for your opponent to do two full turns before you do.

Me and my buds use alternating turns for matched play and find it a lot more fun than random initiative. We roll to see who gets turn choice round 1, with the player who finished first getting +1 (how it worked in WHFB). Abilities that affect initiative rolls can be used on this one.

Yeah. Whatever is fun go for it!

IMO, game round initiative is one of the better elements in AoS that helps lessen the obvious and permanent tempo advantage of going first in an Igo-Ugo system.

I would suggest some tweaks, but the basic idea is better than Igo-Ugo, and essentially as "fair" as a random bag or card deck activation.

Mostly, I think the complaints are a L2P issue, where AoS is doing something different that both players need to learn to work with.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
IMO, game round initiative is one of the better elements in AoS that helps lessen the obvious and permanent tempo advantage of going first in an Igo-Ugo system.

I would suggest some tweaks, but the basic idea is better than Igo-Ugo, and essentially as "fair" as a random bag or card deck activation.

Mostly, I think the complaints are a L2P issue, where AoS is doing something different that both players need to learn to work with.

See I hate rolled initiative specifically because I know how to exploit it. I have won a lot of absolutely crushing victories that would have otherwise been good games had I not gotten a double turn. The example I've started using is chess; it would not be popular with random initiative.

Random initiative has its place (certainly I've had a lot of fun with it), but that place is not matched pay.

Chess is great, if you're playing white.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
IMO, game round initiative is one of the better elements in AoS that helps lessen the obvious and permanent tempo advantage of going first in an Igo-Ugo system.

I would suggest some tweaks, but the basic idea is better than Igo-Ugo, and essentially as "fair" as a random bag or card deck activation.

Mostly, I think the complaints are a L2P issue, where AoS is doing something different that both players need to learn to work with.

See I hate rolled initiative specifically because I know how to exploit it. I have won a lot of absolutely crushing victories that would have otherwise been good games had I not gotten a double turn. The example I've started using is chess; it would not be popular with random initiative.

Random initiative has its place (certainly I've had a lot of fun with it), but that place is not matched pay.

What i dont get is if you know how to exploit it why try and change it? if its because you cheat yourself out of a good game by doing something underhanded then that is on you. I do like the random inititive because then nothing can be certain. granted you can bring the best list out there but if you can plan for the randomness and lose then thats all part of the game. things are going to happen that are out of your control and i think that makes the game that much more fun. You cant predict everything.

If I base my strategy on the assumption that I will get a double turn, then 50℅ of the time I get a massive advantage. The other 50℅ of the time there is little if any penalty to making that gamble. The risk is small, the reward is large, and the game is decided by a single d6 roll. It's hardly underhanded, it's just good tactics. Sure I could handicap myself by using bad tactics but then what's the point? I think some players see random initiative as some sort of evening factor because they can win against a stronger opponent they would normally lose to, but really a win because of a double turn is hardly much of anything because of the advantage it offers, and that's why I dislike it so much; too many times have I been left with a hollow victory because of random initiative. And at my flgs I've found that's the case with others; the players who dislike random initiative the most are also those the best at using it to their advantage.

My wanting alternate activation has nothing to do with not being able to figure out how to "git gud" / L2P Newb, and is more about wanting a more engaging game than IGO UGO offers.

I have a wall of trophies and plaques from over the years, so I already figured out how to "git gud", I just want a more engaging game where one of us isn't sitting there for an hour doing nothing.

Alt activation is currently my favorite implementation of that.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
If I base my strategy on the assumption that I will get a double turn, then 50℅ of the time I get a massive advantage. The other 50℅ of the time there is little if any penalty to making that gamble. The risk is small, the reward is large, and the game is decided by a single d6 roll. It's hardly underhanded, it's just good tactics. Sure I could handicap myself by using bad tactics but then what's the point? I think some players see random initiative as some sort of evening factor because they can win against a stronger opponent they would normally lose to, but really a win because of a double turn is hardly much of anything because of the advantage it offers, and that's why I dislike it so much; too many times have I been left with a hollow victory because of random initiative. And at my flgs I've found that's the case with others; the players who dislike random initiative the most are also those the best at using it to their advantage.

The same argument can be said for the IGOUGO system as well.