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 recently went to my local FLGS and we did a pretty small 3 vs 3 game where we each had 850 points; so it was really a very small game.

However it very quickly became a complete nightmare as we had to keep wrangling over which unit should attack first and this really slowed the game down. There were quite a few cases where I was sat waiting around 20 minutes until I got to attack with my Kurnoth hunters who had just tanked their combat and were waiting to strike back. I mean that game lasted five and a half hours even though it was less than 3k, on a small board, only lasted 3 turns with combat from turn 1 and had to be called short.

I think when GW wrote these rules they envisaged this as just a simple back and forth that would simplify the game. However, this ignores human nature because gamers simply try to be gamey with this mechanic and in a multiplayer match it degenerates into a petty wrangling as its a group decision. I can't just focus on what my units are doing, I have to confer with everyone else and keep track of four separate armies without much knowledge about how they all play and what should go first. Which is very confusing and slows the game down as they have to explain why their unit should go first.

So I think they should bring back initiative or FAQ the rules so that your movement or some other stat is used to measure who goes first in combat. It should be something arbitrary and should force it to be on a combat by combat basis. There shouldn't be that decision making process because I don't think they ever intended there to be a decision making process involved. You shouldn't have to consider the whole army and situation every time the close combat phase starts and then go to committee in a multiplayer match. If the rules are supposed to be casual and easy to understand then this mechanic runs counter to that because it introduces a convoluted layer of decision making to an otherwise straight forward game.

That would totally invalidate the concept of their combat now, which is a very simple you choose a unit then I choose a unit then you choose a unit etc.

This has been one of the easiest rules that we've had to deal with, and we do a lot of 4 person Triumph and Treachery battles at our campaign days.

We're you doing one unit at a time? In the battles my flgs has always done one unit per player. So it would be three units going on your side, then three on the other, etc.

personaly I like the way the combat works. It adds some more tactical dept to the game. It realy matters who you pick to fight first

auticus wrote:That would totally invalidate the concept of their combat now, which is a very simple you choose a unit then I choose a unit then you choose a unit etc.

This has been one of the easiest rules that we've had to deal with, and we do a lot of 4 person Triumph and Treachery battles at our campaign days.

It isn't simple. People don't treat this as a simple back and forth with no thought given to it. People that I saw actively tried to gain an advantage by selecting units that would cause the most damage and deciding which combats they could afford to go last in. That's bad enough. But its a nightmare when you have four people who don't understand each others armies and have to committee every unit they pick. It takes 5, sometimes ten minutes for people to decide this and it just grinds the combat to a halt; even when functionally the combats only involved a handful of units and models. It also means the other members of the team aren't involved in the game when they could be resolving their own combats. For me, I had two units on the board and had to wait half an hour for my turn to actually attack stuff after I'd already tanked all the stuff he could throw at me. Instead I had to waste time listening to an Empire player prattle on about why he should go first in a combat that was miles away from my army and while everyone is saying going "just do it" it still grinds on because he needs us all to okay it before he rolls any dice.

NinthMusketeer wrote:We're you doing one unit at a time? In the battles my flgs has always done one unit per player. So it would be three units going on your side, then three on the other, etc.

Because the rules as written state that its one unit per army.

Sucks that you have people that take a long time I suppose.

I'm more of the opinion that the less stats that there are, the less min/maxing can be done. Initiative coming back would mean another way to min/max and stack units that had the highest initiative.

Its an age-old bugbear that grinds my gears with 40k.

I also prefer the tactical choice it brings as to what I should swing with next instead of just getting to max out on all the highest initiative items that I can, and then rolling forward.

Thats just me though. I wouldn't count on initiative coming back anytime soon though when new 40k comes out in the next couple of months with its streamlined system you could possibly look at lifting it (chargers go first in that system) for your AOS games.

 auticus wrote:
Sucks that you have people that take a long time I suppose.

I'm more of the opinion that the less stats that there are, the less min/maxing can be done. Initiative coming back would mean another way to min/max and stack units that had the highest initiative.

Its an age-old bugbear that grinds my gears with 40k.

I also prefer the tactical choice it brings as to what I should swing with next instead of just getting to max out on all the highest initiative items that I can, and then rolling forward.

Thats just me though. I wouldn't count on initiative coming back anytime soon though when new 40k comes out in the next couple of months with its streamlined system you could possibly look at lifting it (chargers go first in that system) for your AOS games.

Well from memory this is what each side had:

Order

Alarielle
Kurnoth hunter unit with scythes

One guy with Sigmarine starter force

Another Sigmarine with 5 glaives, 10 sisters of thorn, the hero archer, Lord Castelant, two glaive drakoths

Empire player with 15 greatswords, 15 swordsmen, 20 handgunners, cannon and lord on horse.

Chaos

Herald of Nurgle
10 Blightkings
6 of those fly drones
Nurglings bases

Manticore Lord
Changling
10 bloodletters
3 flamers of T

4 Slannesh chariots. One a hero.
Blob of 25 daemonettes.
15 Marauders
Herald on Demonic Mount

The game was essentially we just crashed together in the middle and everything died. I pushed forward on the left and they caved in the Sigmarine starter army. Then we brought our guns and magic to smash their remaining units as they swung around. To me, I don't see why this game took five and a half hours. It should have been 2 at most.

Also Alarielle actually performed for once. She got 2 chariots, the blob of daemonettes, the Manticore lord, the marauders and popped off a Treelord.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

auticus wrote:That would totally invalidate the concept of their combat now, which is a very simple you choose a unit then I choose a unit then you choose a unit etc.

This has been one of the easiest rules that we've had to deal with, and we do a lot of 4 person Triumph and Treachery battles at our campaign days.

It isn't simple. People don't treat this as a simple back and forth with no thought given to it. People that I saw actively tried to gain an advantage by selecting units that would cause the most damage and deciding which combats they could afford to go last in.

Um... yes, of course they do. That's part of the game's strategy.

NinthMusketeer wrote:We're you doing one unit at a time? In the battles my flgs has always done one unit per player. So it would be three units going on your side, then three on the other, etc.

Because the rules as written state that its one unit per army.

I like the idea of whoever charges gets to attack first and then initiative comes into play. Maybe, they could add a rule to if you had spears and you where charged by cavalry, you could get a "overwatch" attack etc...

 ArchonofCorinth wrote:
I like the idea of whoever charges gets to attack first and then initiative comes into play. Maybe, they could add a rule to if you had spears and you where charged by cavalry, you could get a "overwatch" attack etc...

I would be down with something like this; the player who's turn it is can pick any number of units that charged the previous phase as their first pick. If the player wants a unit that didn't charge to swing first then they lose this bonus, adding a tactical element to the choice.

No, sigmars combat system is the best thing about the game as is, the initiative system is CRAZY boring and turns combat from tactics to filling in a spreadsheet.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

Because the rules as written state that its one unit per army.

But each person brought an Army that was part of an Army? No, the GHB calls it' a coalition. They are treated as a combined force despite the armies belonging to individual players. Pg 14.

Also, Houserules are really common and can streamline games fairly quickly. Musketeer's houserule is fairly common I hear.

3v3 games naturally bog down unless all the players are focused, and reminding each other to stay focused.

I do not see a problem with combat order as it is.

The best choices become more obvious with experience so I would recommend playing more games with the same people if you want the game to speed up.

No, I love the way combat works. It's one of the best aspects of the game.

It sounds to me the fact that it was a 3v3 is where your game got bogged down. Why not have an order of rotation for each team member, so you still get the back and forth between the 2 teams each unit as per the rules but rather than having a lengthy negotiations on who the pick the choice cycles through the 3 players i.e.

Team 1 Player 1
Team 2 Player 1
Team 1 Player 2
Team 2 Player 2
Etc etc

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

auticus wrote:That would totally invalidate the concept of their combat now, which is a very simple you choose a unit then I choose a unit then you choose a unit etc.

This has been one of the easiest rules that we've had to deal with, and we do a lot of 4 person Triumph and Treachery battles at our campaign days.

It isn't simple. People don't treat this as a simple back and forth with no thought given to it. People that I saw actively tried to gain an advantage by selecting units that would cause the most damage and deciding which combats they could afford to go last in.

Um... yes, of course they do. That's part of the game's strategy.

NinthMusketeer wrote:We're you doing one unit at a time? In the battles my flgs has always done one unit per player. So it would be three units going on your side, then three on the other, etc.

Because the rules as written state that its one unit per army.

Do you measure model-to-model or base-to-base?

TO be fair your basic problem seems more in the 3 man team thing not working rather than a specific initiatie issue.

Your entire issue sounds like a player problem. The way initiative works in age of sigmar is great, it allows the player who charged to feel like their unit gets a chance in combat even if it's just grots. The you go I go back and forth system adds some choices that can really be deep and sway the game quickly which I find awesome.

It sounds like though is you got a bunch of people together, went one at a time during initiative because none of you thought of a decent way to maybe resolve two or even three combats at the same time. Then no one was thinking on who they would attack with first or second before combat in the first place.

The way initiative works is fine, people like it. If you don't, house rule it. If you are a person who doesn't like to house rule things well your SoL because I don't think they will change it and a lot of people seem to like it.

No game should take 5 hours and only get to turn 3, that's frustrating as hell. Although when you add people you add time. Play 40k or old fantasy 3v3, make sure everyone does their combat 1 at a time and see what turn you get to. I have a hunch it will be the same results.

 Solosam47 wrote:
Your entire issue sounds like a player problem. The way initiative works in age of sigmar is great, it allows the player who charged to feel like their unit gets a chance in combat even if it's just grots. The you go I go back and forth system adds some choices that can really be deep and sway the game quickly which I find awesome.

It sounds like though is you got a bunch of people together, went one at a time during initiative because none of you thought of a decent way to maybe resolve two or even three combats at the same time. Then no one was thinking on who they would attack with first or second before combat in the first place.

The way initiative works is fine, people like it. If you don't, house rule it. If you are a person who doesn't like to house rule things well your SoL because I don't think they will change it and a lot of people seem to like it.

No game should take 5 hours and only get to turn 3, that's frustrating as hell. Although when you add people you add time. Play 40k or old fantasy 3v3, make sure everyone does their combat 1 at a time and see what turn you get to. I have a hunch it will be the same results.

You can't resolve two or three combats at once without breaking the rules. They say that the player who has priority picks a unit to go first and then it goes to the next and so on. It presumes that there are only two players involved and aren't four other people standing around doing nothing. Unless you are in a situation where I have one unit left and everything that can possibly attack has attacked then its reasonable. But then you have to not only tell your own team and the enemy team and then get them all to agree that "am I alright just to roll Alarielle's attacks even though this is out of order?" Because if I just start rolling dice then "that guy" will always be there to argue that I am usurping the turn order and so the unit that needs to attack shouldn't get to attack. So functionally I have to wait unless its half four and the players simply don't care anymore. Altering the rules in a game with strangers risks an argument that one player is claiming some advantage so it isn't done.

Oh it was so stupid. It was a small map, we were pretty much fully engaged from turn 1 and it was just asinine how long it took to resolve straight forward combats involving a handful of units. Especially since I only had two units on the board and one of them didn't get involved until turn 2.

Yeah but my point is that those games allowed you to resolve more than one combat and so made multiplayer games possible and didn't over complicate the initiative step by giving people a window to game which units should go first. Getting three other people to decide who to attack is a nightmare, even when the attitude is "just do it" and "it doesn't matter".

I mean for comparison I can have a 4K game of heresy with over a hundred models over in less than 3 hours. Probably even less if we had started that close and within charge range. I mean this was not a big game by any stretch of the imagination. Plus I am not standing around not playing the game waiting for other people to stop fussing over whether their sole Liberator gets to attack or the Lord Relicator should hit the Changling.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
I recently went to my local FLGS and we did a pretty small 3 vs 3 game where we each had 850 points; so it was really a very small game.

However it very quickly became a complete nightmare as we had to keep wrangling over which unit should attack first and this really slowed the game down. There were quite a few cases where I was sat waiting around 20 minutes until I got to attack with my Kurnoth hunters who had just tanked their combat and were waiting to strike back. I mean that game lasted five and a half hours even though it was less than 3k, on a small board, only lasted 3 turns with combat from turn 1 and had to be called short.

Here is the thing...

With only 3 players having 850 points each, there is no way the game should have lasted five and a half hours. You should have been done in one - one and a half tops.

What I am saying is, it might not be the fault of the game

Were the other players unusually argumentative, would you say?

Having six people playing a two person games will take significantly longer. Problem solved.

MongooseMatt wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
I recently went to my local FLGS and we did a pretty small 3 vs 3 game where we each had 850 points; so it was really a very small game.

However it very quickly became a complete nightmare as we had to keep wrangling over which unit should attack first and this really slowed the game down. There were quite a few cases where I was sat waiting around 20 minutes until I got to attack with my Kurnoth hunters who had just tanked their combat and were waiting to strike back. I mean that game lasted five and a half hours even though it was less than 3k, on a small board, only lasted 3 turns with combat from turn 1 and had to be called short.

Here is the thing...

With only 3 players having 850 points each, there is no way the game should have lasted five and a half hours. You should have been done in one - one and a half tops.

What I am saying is, it might not be the fault of the game

Were the other players unusually argumentative, would you say?

I wouldn't even have said argumentative as almost none of the combats concerned me since basically Alarielle/Kurnoth tanked everything so other combats got resolved; so I was basically like "can I attack back now?". There was only one time where the Empire player was being extremely awkward and accusing us of ignoring him since his unit of greatswords had to attack. But beyond that it was just this endless micromanaging debate over who should strike and I couldn't care less.

Beyond that, taking time referring to Warscrolls and such I honestly don't get where the time went. My window into the battle was Alarielle crashed into the Slannesh like Leeroy with some Drakoths, Kurnoth, Fulminators and Sisters of Silence. Killed everything on that flank in two turns. BTW forgot the Slannesh guy had a Keeper of Secrets which I think got finished by Alarielle. They then noticed ten blightkings who killed the Fulminators and then we proceeded to shoot/magic them with everything. A Manticore tried to KO Alarielle in one round. He failed and Alarielle killed him.

Pretty sure it was just a 6 by 4 board

BTW Blight Kings are over powered. 2 of them took 6 wounds off a treelord.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Furious241 wrote:
Having six people playing a two person games will take significantly longer. Problem solved.

I've tried looking for 1 vs 1 games. The problem is that people with AoS armies tend to only ever show if there is a big event and this means multiplayer battles. Theres been loads of times I have rocked up and had to go home because theres either nobody with an army or they only have a handful of models. I mean I think I played the same unpainted Daemons/Dwarfs army at my FLGS five times apiece. It gets boring and especially if you want to play bigger battles and get to use Alarielle and such.

So to get a good game I have to go to the events and that means dealing with multiplayer battles.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

MongooseMatt wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
I recently went to my local FLGS and we did a pretty small 3 vs 3 game where we each had 850 points; so it was really a very small game.

However it very quickly became a complete nightmare as we had to keep wrangling over which unit should attack first and this really slowed the game down. There were quite a few cases where I was sat waiting around 20 minutes until I got to attack with my Kurnoth hunters who had just tanked their combat and were waiting to strike back. I mean that game lasted five and a half hours even though it was less than 3k, on a small board, only lasted 3 turns with combat from turn 1 and had to be called short.

Here is the thing...

With only 3 players having 850 points each, there is no way the game should have lasted five and a half hours. You should have been done in one - one and a half tops.

What I am saying is, it might not be the fault of the game

Were the other players unusually argumentative, would you say?

I wouldn't even have said argumentative as almost none of the combats concerned me since basically Alarielle/Kurnoth tanked everything so other combats got resolved; so I was basically like "can I attack back now?". There was only one time where the Empire player was being extremely awkward and accusing us of ignoring him since his unit of greatswords had to attack. But beyond that it was just this endless micromanaging debate over who should strike and I couldn't care less.

Beyond that, taking time referring to Warscrolls and such I honestly don't get where the time went. My window into the battle was Alarielle crashed into the Slannesh like Leeroy with some Drakoths, Kurnoth, Fulminators and Sisters of Silence. Killed everything on that flank in two turns. BTW forgot the Slannesh guy had a Keeper of Secrets which I think got finished by Alarielle. They then noticed ten blightkings who killed the Fulminators and then we proceeded to shoot/magic them with everything. A Manticore tried to KO Alarielle in one round. He failed and Alarielle killed him.

Pretty sure it was just a 6 by 4 board

BTW Blight Kings are over powered. 2 of them took 6 wounds off a treelord.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Furious241 wrote:
Having six people playing a two person games will take significantly longer. Problem solved.

I've tried looking for 1 vs 1 games. The problem is that people with AoS armies tend to only ever show if there is a big event and this means multiplayer battles. Theres been loads of times I have rocked up and had to go home because theres either nobody with an army or they only have a handful of models. I mean I think I played the same unpainted Daemons/Dwarfs army at my FLGS five times apiece. It gets boring and especially if you want to play bigger battles and get to use Alarielle and such.

So to get a good game I have to go to the events and that means dealing with multiplayer battles.

Recruitment is your best tool! I would suggest if dont already have at least 2 armies at 2000 points. This way you can snare in new plays (want to give it a try? I have an army right here!) have them do a 500 pt game and then a few 1000pt games till they get the hang of it. Remind them that most armies are dirt cheap to start with Start Collecting and Ebay (theres a lot of old cheap stuff out there if they like the older armies like Aelfs or Skaven!). Also point out how the rules for all armies are pretty much free and can be had in seconds with the App, so the initial investment is even cheaper. I would suggest targeting 40k players who, like me, are completely disillusioned with how ridiculous the game has become and show them one that is much much easier to play and dosen't have the same broken crap.

Ya sadly I find a lot of AoS boils down to.

Turn 1 people are happy,
Turn 2 double turns or some Crap latter " ya go for it, I do not even care anymore". Or ya sure sounds like something.
Turn 3 someone is checking their tablet or phone while the other guy is wondering when is this over.
Turn 4 no idea never made it this far, we usually quit by then.

A lot of the rules are if you like it do it why not. Shoot into combat sure. Want to run then want another turn to attack sure.
Want to have a pre made army list sure why not.
Want to kill things with the other guy scratching his arse sure we removed his rolls anyways.

I actually have a hard time trying to stay focused during their turn or double turn. You do nothing but watch them roll dice and count to 3 for rendering.

Also ya trying to find anyone who plays aos is a task and a half in a town or non city. People got th concept of it is a small game, then want to use 6 models...... It is basically a heroic last stand or hey these epic warriors walk around alone a lot for reasons.

Yeah yeah Chubbs, everyone just fights in the center and does nothing else for the entire match while not even sure of the proper rules.


I don't think initiative should return, at least not like it formerly was.

OgreChubbs wrote:
Ya sadly I find a lot of AoS boils down to.

Turn 1 people are happy,
Turn 2 double turns or some Crap latter " ya go for it, I do not even care anymore". Or ya sure sounds like something.
Turn 3 someone is checking their tablet or phone while the other guy is wondering when is this over.
Turn 4 no idea never made it this far, we usually quit by then.

A lot of the rules are if you like it do it why not. Shoot into combat sure. Want to run then want another turn to attack sure.
Want to have a pre made army list sure why not.
Want to kill things with the other guy scratching his arse sure we removed his rolls anyways.

I actually have a hard time trying to stay focused during their turn or double turn. You do nothing but watch them roll dice and count to 3 for rendering.

Also ya trying to find anyone who plays aos is a task and a half in a town or non city. People got th concept of it is a small game, then want to use 6 models...... It is basically a heroic last stand or hey these epic warriors walk around alone a lot for reasons.

Playing the mission types makes a HUGE difference on how the game plays. This was how the game played before the Generals Handbook, if you havent gotten it I would strongly suggest you do so. Having to try to take objectives, cuonting other players claim on objectives, or targeting heroes to prevent them from claiming in other missions adds a real level of tactics to the game.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Yeah yeah Chubbs, everyone just fights in the center and does nothing else for the entire match while not even sure of the proper rules.


I don't think initiative should return, at least not like it formerly was.

I like things like they are. Just let him moan.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Yeah yeah Chubbs, everyone just fights in the center and does nothing else for the entire match while not even sure of the proper rules.


I don't think initiative should return, at least not like it formerly was.

Here are some examples.


20 min all center https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bcjrL4L5O2g
25 min https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pyuvG_BnK0w
1 step forward everyone fights https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7r_PmdR9wK4

It didn't take long for me to notice that the first game is already doing the rules wrong given that he doesn't have proper battleline for the Flesh Eaters (He needed a Crypt Haunter as his general)

But I'll give these a watch thanks, I'm curious to see if they are playing to objectives or just wanting to fight.

OgreChubbs wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Yeah yeah Chubbs, everyone just fights in the center and does nothing else for the entire match while not even sure of the proper rules.


I don't think initiative should return, at least not like it formerly was.

Here are some examples.


20 min all center https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bcjrL4L5O2g
25 min https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pyuvG_BnK0w
1 step forward everyone fights https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7r_PmdR9wK4

The moment I saw the logo you lost all credibility. I just needed ten minutes to recover from my laughter when I saw his face. You REALLY thought bringing Miniwargaming Two-wound lootas Quirk as an example was actually a valid point? Well, miniwargaming as a whole when it comes to AoS, guys can't make a battlereport that doesn't stink.

Guy can't even remember properly the rules of a two units list. I don't expect him to do anything more complex.

Couldn't tell ya typed in aos battle reports and these are the only ones dumb enough to try in with a camera on.

Had to scroll a while but here

21 min all centre https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=euoum_IOjAs
23 min atleast fast forwarded and they are all bottom right https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h7yCKI5UF2U