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.

I think people got used to FEC being easy mode and now that they have been reduced to the dreaded purgatory of -not winning tournaments- they must suck and need a boost. I find it absurd for an army that has so many points-efficient options, free models, and powerful allegiance abilities.

If an army/army build wins tournaments (beyond a fluke here or there) it. Is. Overpowered. Just like how an unskilled player with a meta list rarely wins, even a skilled player with a balanced army rarely wins. Because they both lose to players who bring skills & meta together.

I think at the end of the day this particular thing gets on my nerves because there are so many armies working with such massively weaker options than FEC, and have been for some time. To me I clearly see FEC being at worst on par with mid-tier armies yet those armies get nothing because they weren't hot cheese for two years.

The only 3rd edition house rule I have implemented has been no unique models >300 points in 1000 point games. Basic logic being to keep stuff like Morathi and Gotrek from being the whole game.

 Equinox wrote:
The only 3rd edition house rule I have implemented has been no unique models >300 points in 1000 point games. Basic logic being to keep stuff like Morathi and Gotrek from being the whole game.

Matched play rules already prevent you from taking a model which is more than %50 of the game size, so your house rule is basically part of the game already.

 jaredb wrote:

Matched play rules already prevent you from taking a model which is more than %50 of the game size, so your house rule is basically part of the game already.

Similar, but 50% only really addresses a few characters like Nagash and Teclis at 1000 points. 300+ helps to remove other unique characters <500 points (Gotrek, Kairos, etc...) who can be a drag on games at that size.

 Equinox wrote:

 jaredb wrote:

Matched play rules already prevent you from taking a model which is more than %50 of the game size, so your house rule is basically part of the game already.

Similar, but 50% only really addresses a few characters like Nagash and Teclis at 1000 points. 300+ helps to remove other unique characters <500 points (Gotrek, Kairos, etc...) who can be a drag on games at that size.

That was a big complaint in my campaigns as well. People would drop Gotrek in at 1000 points and then lol while he pinballed the game by himself.

 auticus wrote:

 Equinox wrote:

 jaredb wrote:

Matched play rules already prevent you from taking a model which is more than %50 of the game size, so your house rule is basically part of the game already.

Similar, but 50% only really addresses a few characters like Nagash and Teclis at 1000 points. 300+ helps to remove other unique characters <500 points (Gotrek, Kairos, etc...) who can be a drag on games at that size.

That was a big complaint in my campaigns as well. People would drop Gotrek in at 1000 points and then lol while he pinballed the game by himself.

Same for casual pick-up games by me. Gotrek isn't the only problem unique at 1000 points, but he kind of became the poster child for them.

ccs wrote:

My circle hasn't really done much with Sigmar.3 yet. The tp 3 changes we'll make will be;

2) We'll very likely add the Grand Alliance features back in.

I wish GW would have kept the ability to create a Grand Alliance army as they didn't hurt anything and made expanding an army easier. My thought being that if you only get access to the basic enhancements from the core rules and loss 99% of the synergies that come with being a single faction, what is the harm?

Yep. It was a common feature on our tables to have big point heroes dominating the table with small games.

Which is why no one wanted to do small games where I was. Because "its not balanced for small games".

Remove the big point heroes from the equation and I think the games played just fine (other problems with AOS not withstanding).

Tbf Gotrek is a problem at 2000 points as well.

Ive seen some KO players roll an ironclad at a thousand points which does feel a bit abusive. The 30% cap on a single model is a good idea at 1k. 50% at 2k feels okay as you start to get enough things on the table to answer big guys like nagash.

Overall for the turns, I think Im okay with the priority roll each turn. Gives you a few more things to consider with your placements and how far you will extend your force.

One issue I do have is the speed of things. A lot of units can really rip across the table. Granted I play KO so we're one faction with very high mobility but we also want to stay out of melee. I find many times in deployment the best option is to castle in a corner then fly high the following turns. Its not something I could easily see being house ruled as its across such a diverse range of units but I would like it if things were in general slowed down a bit.

Thinking on it its probably also a factor of the faction I play which skews my view on this. Maybe KO just need some units that can take a hit or two.

Overall for the turns, I think Im okay with the priority roll each turn. Gives you a few more things to consider with your placements and how far you will extend your force.

It doesn't, not really. On a surface level it looks like it does, but it doesn't.

So youve never considered what to do to mitigate a double turn against you or take advantage of one you may get?

 rahxephon wrote:
So youve never considered what to do to mitigate a double turn against you or take advantage of one you may get?

I have, and then through said analysis I realized that positioning myself to "defend" against a double turn more often put me in a disadvantageous position. Why would I purposefully put myself into a disadvantageous position the majority of the time to protect against something that will happen the minority of the time? And if I truly did set myself up so that my opponent would be at a disadvantage for taking the double turn... he can just... elect not to... forcing me to work around my own self-imposed disadvantage!

And if I was in position to take the double turn, setting myself up to take maximum advantage of the double turn (if I would ever take it, which I do not) is the optimal move in every situation, because it would be such an overwhelming advantage.

"Playing around the double turn" just means purposefully putting yourself into disadvantageous positions.

It usually is advantageous to take it but not always, there were some times in 2nd were it was better not to take it but those were the minority. With changes to 3rd with reactive command abilities, particularly like redeploy I see this being more common than it had been. But 3 is still new and game experience limited.

As far as how you setup to respond to it, thats the point. Its a risk analysis weighing up the potential pros and cons.

Just like a normal attack your weigh up the likelihood of your attack succeeding and doing sufficient damage versus them saving against it.

The dice probability is usually more normal in attacks as theres multiple die involved vs the 1 in priority roll. But thats not the total probability as theres other factors at play.

If the game system was changed to fixed alternating activations it wouldnt fix game balance at all I think. You can just be less risk averse or more opportunistic in your gameplay depending on your style.

If the game system was changed to fixed alternating activations it wouldnt fix game balance at all I think.

Its not really a discussion on balance.

Its about how double turn is hugely swingy and often games can be won simply on who wins the double turn which feels hollow to the victor and awful to the loser - it distills the game down into an expensive dice game with models.

The balance is god-awful with or without the double turn because the point system is implemented in a way that is not remotely accurate - and force multipliers are not paid for appropriately.

This is also an intentional thing I believe because it allows them to rotate power builds annually which keeps sales going.

There's an overwhelming amount of evidence to show that any 'rotation' is based simply on random reallocation of awful balance rather than any sort of intelligent design. It is a plausible argument that GW does not make an effort to fix that due to the (short term) sales it generates but intentional ineptitude is definitely different from customized imbalance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rihgu wrote:

 rahxephon wrote:
So youve never considered what to do to mitigate a double turn against you or take advantage of one you may get?

I have, and then through said analysis I realized that positioning myself to "defend" against a double turn more often put me in a disadvantageous position. Why would I purposefully put myself into a disadvantageous position the majority of the time to protect against something that will happen the minority of the time? And if I truly did set myself up so that my opponent would be at a disadvantage for taking the double turn... he can just... elect not to... forcing me to work around my own self-imposed disadvantage!

Yup. It makes more strategic sense to plan for the double not occurring by default.

Wait a minute guys. Why didn't you just prepare for a double turn against tzeentch seraphon lumineth, ironjawz, sob, and all the other fast moving, hard hitting and shooting armies in the game?

 Thadin wrote:
Wait a minute guys. Why didn't you just prepare for a double turn against tzeentch seraphon lumineth, ironjawz, sob, and all the other fast moving, hard hitting and shooting armies in the game?

Thats one of my main gripes. I think the turn style as it is is workable, the new reactive command abilities give some more options. But the blitzing armies are another issue.

I think they call that issue "cinematic and exciting" lol.

Wargaming was forever about three phases of a game - the begin phase where you move your forces into position - the middle phase where the bulk of the combat ensues, and the end game where the crucial final battle happens or the mop up occurs.

AOS designers got rid of the begin phase and from turn 1 start you right in the middle phase. This is where I say the game is a lot like a CCG. You can just tap units and engage them out of the gate like in a CCG, no need to really position them - because a lot of armies have this blitzkrieg ability to just go full bore across the table on turn 1 and get right at you.

You know that is a slim minority of games. Alpha strike in particular is not viable unless done well--there is very little ground between success and failure. It is a high risk tactic that only a fraction of armies can even attempt. Combat on round 1 generally happens on the second turn, because the player going first moved forward far enough to be engaged. There are tactical choices being made both in movement and in deployment to begin with.

AoS certainly scaled back the importance of movement. WHFB was won and lost in the movement phase and AoS shifted the focus away from that, which is fine. There are a huge amount of choices to be made in combat that in WHFB were largely determined by how the movement played out. That isn't good or bad, just different.

I have to agree with alpha strike being high risk in AoS. I've gotten hit with deja vu multiple times playing my Skaven against the two Ironjawz players in my group. They take first turn, they charge in to my lines using their alpha-strike lists, they don't hit hard enough to take out my killing power, and I hit back with everything I've got that's now in range. Double turn or not, it sometimes feels like the game is just over and I get the feeling that I've played this game before, again and again.

You know that is a slim minority of games.

If it was the slim minority of my games I wouldn't reference it. It was not the slim minority of my games in AOS OR 40k. It was 50-60% of every game I played involved it and as such colors my experience and opinion thusly.

50-60% of every game I played in both systems were revolved around the alpha strike or setting up the alpha strike / defending bubble wrapping against the alpha strike.

Definitely way more than a slim minority.

Walking through Adepticon in 2019 - I'd say a large chunk of the armies there were built around alpha striking. It was certainly more common than a slim minority.

I have to agree with alpha strike being high risk in AoS.

I dont know what AOS or 40k is like these days having completely been out of AOS since fall of 2019 and 40k since 2017, but I didn't see the high risk then. It was the go-to for a lot of people.

Now against an army crafted specifically to counter alpha-strike, it could definitely be more risky. In a for-fun campaign environment it certainly was not risky, it was often highly effective and combined with a double-turn it was game-over by end of Turn 2.

Alpha striking is a design hallmark of Games Workshop systems, love it or hate it.

Woa there, let's not mix 40k into this because that changes things significantly. In AoS only very specific armies can ranged alpha strike (quite predictably they are a problem and always have been) verses 40k where that's just the norm. Going all in on turn 1 offense at range is much, much different than doing it in melee. And even in melee 40k is far more favorable to that approach since all charging units swing before the defender.

At any rate, you have expressed in the past that your local WH community is all-competitive all the time. I have gotten the impression average play you see is more representative of tourney play than the norm of the AoS community as a whole. With that lens it does make sense that so many games go in that direction, but runs into the issue where your personal experience is on the further end of the bell curve.

As a sidenote, alpha-strike definitely took a large hit in AoS 3rd. It can still be done but the number of builds that can pull it off is smaller, the margin for error slimmer, and every army now has some means to counter-play via command abilities from the core rules.

The redeploy is pretty good. Need to get a bit more practice in maximising it. Particularly like how its at the end of movement, not after a charge is declared so it doesnt tie you to a specific unit lime unleash hell (which is appropriate in that case).

I expect over the course of its life cycle, a few additional reactive command abilities will be added in 3rd through GHBs or campaign books etc. I do hope though that they dont turn into strategems like in 40k as there's way too many of them and each army book has pages of their own. Sometimes my opponent goes so this unit can do x or y with this strategem, and I just think yeah probably right. There's probably some strat in there that allows it haha.

It is funny because there are so many terms expressing similar or identical rules in AoS/40k; run vs advance, battleshock vs morale, rend vs AP, and so on. It would be easier for everyone involved for such terms to have the same name in both systems but they don't.

Yet command points have the same term despite their functionality being totally different

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It is funny because there are so many terms expressing similar or identical rules in AoS/40k; run vs advance, battleshock vs morale, rend vs AP, and so on. It would be easier for everyone involved for such terms to have the same name in both systems but they don't.

Yet command points have the same term despite their functionality being totally different

I super hate that they can’t even count wounds the same way. One system tracks wounds taken, while the other tracks wounds remaining.

Rihgu wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Ignoring random initiative / double turn was probably the very best house rule we had in place as well.

Certainly makes for quick games. Look at army lists, know who goes first, then can simply figure out who wins. Just like in 40k.

Can play 100 games in hour that way!

Not all of us are blessed with the ability to predict dice rolls. But then again, since you can, wouldn't you also be able to predict the double turns? So I don't understand your complaint.

Dice rolls are largely irrelevant unless the game is extremely close already. The number of games that are decided by single die rolls or even general dice trends are vanishingly rare (although inflated in our minds because of how memorable they are.)

Tneva is suggesting that you can just Excel spreadsheet out which army does more damage and that will determine the victor if the double turn is excluded. It's hyperbole but it's no less close to reality than 'win roll, win game' opinion of the doubleturn a lot of people have.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:

You know that is a slim minority of games.

If it was the slim minority of my games I wouldn't reference it. It was not the slim minority of my games in AOS OR 40k. It was 50-60% of every game I played involved it and as such colors my experience and opinion thusly.

50-60% of every game I played in both systems were revolved around the alpha strike or setting up the alpha strike / defending bubble wrapping against the alpha strike.

Definitely way more than a slim minority.

Walking through Adepticon in 2019 - I'd say a large chunk of the armies there were built around alpha striking. It was certainly more common than a slim minority.

I have to agree with alpha strike being high risk in AoS.

I dont know what AOS or 40k is like these days having completely been out of AOS since fall of 2019 and 40k since 2017, but I didn't see the high risk then. It was the go-to for a lot of people.

Now against an army crafted specifically to counter alpha-strike, it could definitely be more risky. In a for-fun campaign environment it certainly was not risky, it was often highly effective and combined with a double-turn it was game-over by end of Turn 2.

Alpha striking is a design hallmark of Games Workshop systems, love it or hate it.

And like most posts from you in the past few years, it is immediately clear that you either A. Don't actually play very much or B. Are horrendously terrible at it. Similar to your local environment of middle of the pack tryhards who win a couple locals with all-in killpoints only lists and then are shocked when they go 2-2 at a large tournament with people who don't immediately crumble to hyperaggression.

Well comparing lists to determine the victor is only valid when there is a large gap in the power level of the lists at hand or the skill level of the players. Inversely, a round 1-2 double is a victory guarantee unless there is a large gap in list potency or player skill. They are very much mirrors in that regard. The difference is comparing lists is only valid in extreme cases whereas a 1-2 double is valid except in extreme cases and so is far more of an issue for the average player.

And for good measure; the argument that is commonly thrown out 'only bad players lose to a double turn' is backwards. The reality is only bad players fail to win with a 1-2 double. If I get one and lose that is on me. Does it mean my opponent played well? Absolutely, but it means I gave them the opportunity to take things back. Their path to victory only opened when I made a mistake.

A. Don't actually play very much or B. Are horrendously terrible at it.

I'd challenge anyone on here to go forth and take a casual for fun campaign list and put them up against adepticon style lists and do well with them.

Because thats where almost all of my posts come from - the balance disparity in the game and having to either chase around the power meta or get destroyed.

It takes about 2 brain cells to build an AOS meta list. Those brain cells are used in posting on a forum requesting said meta build which someone usually always delivers.

So if you have actual rebuttal to counter the post I made other than the typical chest-beating drivel "git gud" - please post it. You won't because ... you never do when you've been asked.

He could flatten our arguments by proving to us the list-compare approach works. Surely we all have games we can remember where a double hasn't happened, we could post the lists used and he could predict who won (or even post lists we will use in upcoming games and come back to say who wins). It would be pretty difficult to provide a convincing counter-argument if there was a method to consistently predict the winner of alternating-turn games just by list alone. Obviously a meta list will crush a casual one, everyone knows that, but what about for lists where the outcome is not immediately obvious?

Let's give it a shot, huh? 1500pt lists

Lumineth vs Kruleboyz. Lumineth took first turn. No doubles.


Kruleboyz list