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.

What kind of alternating activation? In regards to double turn it is as simple as putting objective control to the end of the round then alternating turns.

Double turn isn't simple, its infuriating. Its you standing there for two turns doing nothing but removing models. It is the single worst mechanic I have ever encountered in wargaming ever.

Alternating action as in the form you don't like much. We voted on keeping turns the AOS way (double turn), alternating phases, or alternating action on a unit (unit completely activates from hero phase down to end of combat phase) and then roll off to see who activates next unit (so kind of double turn but not an entire turn)

The unit activation won by a landslide. When I finish the campaign packet I'll post it, you can check it out. I know you aren't a fan of that but it'll explain better.

Have used it now two years in a row and I find it works great. The game is a lot of fun and it even handles the alpha strike love that GW has by lessening its impact (since you aren't standing there with your hand on your **** watching as you are getting uppercut by a unit you can't do anything about since it just showed up and charged wherever it wanted)

Sorry I meant fixing it is as simple as...

And I really cannot imagine how alternate unit activation works without changing the game completely. For example, how would you deal with any.of the examples I gave?

It doesn't change the game at all other than the flow.

You activate the unit. It does its hero phase. It does its movement phase. it does its shooting phase. It charges in. It fights.

Your units can respond to one charge per turn to fight back (allowing them to both charge and counter fight, essentially fighting twice in a turn just like normal AOS).

After that is done you roll to see who activates again. Then that continues.

At the end of it all you do one battleshock instead of two. Thats the primary difference.

It does make it a different game. For us - a vastly more desirable game that is more than just overwhelming someone else with math and mortal wounds. It play similarly to bolt action and warlords and battletech which have similar structures.

I only bring it up because someone brought up alternate activation, its not a balance thing. Its a gameflow thing that is much more engaging. No one stands there for an hour getting double turned.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is true that you don't get your 100% steady line of troops moving together and guaranteed synergized together. But thats intentional and intended. It introduces risks that you have to decide are worth it or not instead of knowing it will always work how you want it.

Ah, I see. That makes much more sense. For me personally, and my community, that would change the dynamic more than we like, but there is no wrong way to play things.

No one here likes the double turn, but that is generally fixed by simply not using it (usually do it WHFB style where you roll off at the start, person who finished first gets +1, then alternate turns from there). That does give an advantage to the player who goes first but it is a pittance compared to what the double does.

Come to think of it the only time I use normal AoS initiative is if it is a tourney/league where that is the rule. Even in PtG we push the first initiative roll to round 3 when doing 1v1s (more players than that we go by phase).

Come to think further I have never met someone in person who actually likes the double turn mechanic. Encountered a handful online but that is it.

I hate when I go second, win initiative round 2, and the rest of the game becomes a formality.

It is a different form of the game using alt activation. Thats why I put it to a vote. It actually wasn't my idea to do it this year, I was just going to go with a traditional IGO-UGO with no double turn but it was asked to put to a vote.

I’ve come to hate the double turn with a passion. It’s cost me dozens of games. I really don’t need the whole game going down the toilet for me just because I rolled poorly on a single dice roll. And I always roll poorly.

Also, Alternative unit activation would be a massive upheaval to the game at every level. I kinda regret mentioning it because it’s so huge it really is a whole other discussion. I’m just curious if the game can be balanced in its current form. Except for double turns. I’d get rid of that and use 40k’s system if I could.

One other thing; how do people feel about jacking up the cost of god teir characters like Morathi, Nagash etc. so that they don’t fit comfortably into a 1k list and aren’t an auto include in 2k lists either. I just think that there’s so many horribly undercosted units in the game, and it’s a good starting point to fix that.

The game can absolutely be balanced as is, provided the double turn is not in play. The fan comps did it, and did it well. I did work point costing battalions for some time so when a battletome comes out I can go through and pretty consistently get things right on which battalions are bad, decent, overpowered. Auticus can do the same for units. There are others out there who can do similar. The point being not only can AoS be balanced in its current state, but it is not even very hard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
One other thing; how do people feel about jacking up the cost of god teir characters like Morathi, Nagash etc. so that they don’t fit comfortably into a 1k list and aren’t an auto include in 2k lists either. I just think that there’s so many horribly undercosted units in the game, and it’s a good starting point to fix that.

There are a lot of undercosted units in the game. Some of the god tier options are in there, some are not. Stardrakes have a godlike statline but do not get abused because they are pointed like they have a godlike statline. Sequitors are a battleline option but so extremely undercosted they are the only battleline to show up in SCE tourney lists. OP units come from all walks of life!

I have run something in 40k with alternate unit activation, coming from some guys that mixed konflikt 47 with 40k.

They used tokens in a bag, if one of your tokens gets pulled, you get to go with a unit, a hero activates 2 non hero units with it at the same time (if i remember correctly)

It is way better then the original. But the big problem comes that it is time consuming . Games take twice as long especially when playing against someone that likes to think things over before he does something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
these were the rules in question:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11YBeUrlhDRehsGc43W8jpdygPMlEeWVW/view

Thats how bolt action works, also how warlords works. I did timing tests a couple years ago because that was a common complaint. That it appeared to take longer.

However from my tests the time during a whole round was pretty similar.

Average AOS turn (core rules) turn 1 and turn 2 (the longest turns) averaged out at 48 minutes for a complete turn (both players) and turn 3 and on averaged out at 37 minutes.

Alt activation turn 1 and 2 averaged out at 51 minutes and turn 3 and on averaged out at 40 minutes.

Those are from my playtest notes from two years ago where we timed turns to check durations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Caveat it will always depend on your game group. That was with mine and the time difference was negligible. I feel that it feels faster when you are doing your whole turn because you are engaged your entire turn so it seems to go faster.

Just like when you are sitting htere waiting a turn it is slow and sucks, and double turn is literally almost an hour of sitting there doing nothing but scooping models of the table and congratulating your opponent on his tactical mastery.

I wonder, if someone just went through available batreps and checked only win-loss and round 1-2 initiative, what is the % win rate of players who get a round 1-2 double?

"Win 75% of your games with one weird trick!"

In my experience its a solid 35% of games that end in turn 2 due to that.

I was once tabled in 20 minutes by a double turn. I went first, moved my KO ships into position, fired off a couple of rounds, dropped a few stormcast, then I just had to watch as my opponent double turned me to annihilation. And this was after they said they’d go easy because it was a supposedly friendly game. I haven’t played against them since...I think they know they fethed up too.

The way I see it, there will always be people who will play to break the game because they have to win at all costs, and as quickly as possible. The ones who don’t have a power army, and who actually want to play the game for at least a few turns, won’t stand a chance unless the very worst excesses of the game are reigned in.

Let’s get rid of the double turn for starters. I know that’s luck not skill, but when people are spamming teleporting mortal wound tossing units, it’s just too unfair.

One other thing; how do people feel about jacking up the cost of god teir characters like Morathi, Nagash etc. so that they don’t fit comfortably into a 1k list and aren’t an auto include in 2k lists either. I just think that there’s so many horribly undercosted units in the game, and it’s a good starting point to fix that.

Depends on the god tier unit in question really. Morathi is taken less and less these days which kinda indicates she is more appropriately costed than many other god tier units. To be fair I don't see many god tier units on the table except Nagash superheroes these days.

Most of the big models like nagash, and archaon... are costed close to the bell curve. Which is why you also dont' really see them taken very often. At least I don't ever and I don't read about them much either.

Nagash is appropriately costed if realm rules are not in play. Once he has the extra spells to draw from he becomes totally OP.

Morathi is still a staple of DoK tourney lists. They are showing up less but that is hardly a good measure overall. Either way the balance between her regular and monster form is poor (she is always transformed immediately).

That’s a good point actually. Every time I’ve seen Morathi deployed, she immediately goes into snake mode. I don’t know what should be done about that though...or if anything even should be done about it really.

If Morathi is at the right cost, what about other DoK units? They definitely seem undercosted on account of the amount I see crammed into a typical list.

I think Morathi's point cost should go up and her normal form buffed, or her cost should go down and the snake form nerfed.

In other news I played against a proper tourney FEC list today. He got turn choice, went second, doubled, and I was tabled round two.

Can you see my shocked face to gauge just how shocked I am?

I had a good time of it. I knew going in I was going to get tabled (played with this guy tons, he was good with FEC back when they weren't) but there was entertainment value in seeing how quickly it would happen. I think I would have held out to round four before getting tabled, or round three if he had doubled then.

I don't know if it has been mentioned before, but in the latest White Dwarf there is an article with Jervis where he goes into his process for assigning point costs.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I wonder, if someone just went through available batreps and checked only win-loss and round 1-2 initiative, what is the % win rate of players who get a round 1-2 double?

"Win 75% of your games with one weird trick!"

still better then 40k that had (before last CA, don't know about after have not played the game since) 90% game wins on players that got to go first. due to alpha strike, and heavy shooting capable of taking out enough to not worry to much of the counter attack


Automatically Appended Next Post:

auticus wrote:
Thats how bolt action works, also how warlords works. I did timing tests a couple years ago because that was a common complaint. That it appeared to take longer.

However from my tests the time during a whole round was pretty similar.

Average AOS turn (core rules) turn 1 and turn 2 (the longest turns) averaged out at 48 minutes for a complete turn (both players) and turn 3 and on averaged out at 37 minutes.

Alt activation turn 1 and 2 averaged out at 51 minutes and turn 3 and on averaged out at 40 minutes.

Those are from my playtest notes from two years ago where we timed turns to check durations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Caveat it will always depend on your game group. That was with mine and the time difference was negligible. I feel that it feels faster when you are doing your whole turn because you are engaged your entire turn so it seems to go faster.

Just like when you are sitting htere waiting a turn it is slow and sucks, and double turn is literally almost an hour of sitting there doing nothing but scooping models of the table and congratulating your opponent on his tactical mastery.

Our playtests were 2h -3h30 for 2000 pts regular, 2h30-5 h for alternate unit activation. we have a few players that start rethinking there entire strategy each time they get an activation token where in regular 40k they would only do it at the start of there turn. These are the slow players in regular 40k and really become slowpokes in this konflikt version...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I had a good time of it. I knew going in I was going to get tabled (played with this guy tons, he was good with FEC back when they weren't) but there was entertainment value in seeing how quickly it would happen. I think I would have held out to round four before getting tabled, or round three if he had doubled then.

Seeing these FEC rules i really think next GHB will seriously nerf summoning. These is running up to the next ghb period making you crave for it and making everyone say they made good decisions. they do this trick every time.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I don't know if it has been mentioned before, but in the latest White Dwarf there is an article with Jervis where he goes into his process for assigning point costs.

Boy oh boy. I definitely need to get this issue. I want to know what he says. I've always liked Jervis' approach to the game, but damn if it didn't piss a lot of people off when he dared to say that you don't need points to have an enjoyable game.

I'm curious if there's actual math behind it or just sort of random guessing. Because if there are math and actual formulae, it sure doesn't seem like it although they said once on a cast or WHTV or something that they did have formulas.

Ive seen the jervis article. Its now being used as proof by the aos super fans that balance is impossible because jervis said it was.

Now i agree with some of his points such as things like terrain change the value of a unit etc but again they can get infinitely more closer than their “attempt” today.

auticus wrote:
Ive seen the jervis article. Its now being used as proof by the aos super fans that balance is impossible because jervis said it was.

Now i agree with some of his points such as things like terrain change the value of a unit etc but again they can get infinitely more closer than their “attempt” today.

What I found most amusing was they had an article around when AOS 2.0 first came out that said the weird realmscape rules that everyone was slagging as being "not fair" was intended to be used for all levels of games including Matched Play as units were costed with them being in use in mind. This was summarily said to be total nonsense and those rules are horrible and have no place in matched play (despite the studio saying they were) and that nobody would ever bother to use them because they screw over certain armies. Lo and behold, you don't see those used.

So basically, the AOS "Super Fans" will cherry pick things that fit their narrative. Otherwise, they should all be using the realmscape rules because the studio said that's considered a core part of AOS and something they expect to be used and that point costs reflect those being in use.

Yeah. Thats people in general unfortunately.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The positive I'm seeing is that less and less people are saying the game is perfectly fine from a balanced state. They are just saying the game is perfectly fine as an unbalanced game. So the illusion that its balanced has largely worn off or that matched play, despite what gw says, is a balanced form of the game.

Minus a couple guys that are adamant that you just need to git gud. But when pressed on how factions like mortal khorne or slaves to darkness or high elves or kharadron overlords are supposed to git gud the typical response is no response or "don't play that faction".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A fun straw poll would be to query the community on how many care about balance and how many are fine with bad balance and just rotate armies to stay on top of the meta, and how many are fine with bad balance and don't mind getting their teeth kicked in and just want to lolz and throw dice.

I really am interested in that, but I don't think a dakka poll would serve very well because there are like eight of us that post and that seems to be a 4-4 split.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Balancing poll:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772628.page

The realmscape abilities and spells were a great idea on paper, but they went overboard and knocked everything out of porportion. I’ve got a particular beef with the Chamon ones; Steel Rain once cost me a game (destroyed a vital objective holding unit) and that other ability that cancels rend? Nerfed my overlords. And if there’s one army that doesn’t need a nerfing, it’s them.

@ auticus

That irks me, when people say just don’t play that faction. It’s like an insult. FYI, the people who argue against my suggestions for fixes to these factions are the same people who do not play them at all and who posess the broken ones. Unpainted armies bought on eBay btw. It just smacks of ‘protectionism’.

I know I sound quite bitter, but when GW almost deliberately makes a faction unplayable, it’s like they’re conning the people unfortunate enough to play them. That’s just how it feels.

Based on the input I have been getting in regards to balance, the community's stance on balance has not changed since I started posting questions and polls regarding balance in 2016.

That being: a huge chunk of the overall community likes some balance but its not a deal breaker for them. I know from having attended dozens of game dev convention/discussions over the past twenty odd years that single player games are definitely written imbalanced for the player. Most pvp style games (computer) they take balance seriously. The tabletop world, definitely not so much if at all.

Which explains the reactions you can get in balance discussions as well as how GW is making mad profit even though their system is so on its head.

Based off of concurrent results for the past three years that have more or less been identical, I feel that balance discussions are probably better left off dead or in game design forums.

Speaking of balance, or lack thereof, new Khorne is showcased and their version of endless spells aren't spells (because Khorne) so can't be dispelled at all and one can seemingly make wizards forget spells.

Seems totally fair and balanced to have hard counters and things that work similar but better.

Wayniac wrote:
Speaking of balance, or lack thereof, new Khorne is showcased and their version of endless spells aren't spells (because Khorne) so can't be dispelled at all and one can seemingly make wizards forget spells.

Seems totally fair and balanced to have hard counters and things that work similar but better.

Factions that only had priets before couldn't dispell endless spells either. Khorne, Fyreslayers, etc... so having factions WITHOUT priest not being able to dispell SOME "not-endless spells" isn't unfair if they are priced correctly.

Honestly I am fine with some magic hate being tossed around since it is so dominant right now.