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.

Alternate-by-phase I have and do use for AoS, quite a lot of fun.

Alternate-by-unit would require a complete edition rewrite; just putting it into AoS as things stand would open more exploits than it closed. Not to mention the massive number of warscroll updates it would require. The amount of changes needed makes it difficult for me to imagine what the game would look like, since how those changes are (or aren't) tackled is a determining factor.

Narratively speaking I personally have a strong distaste for the entire battlefield standing around while one squad or character does everything they are going to do. Then that squad freezes and the next does its whole turn. And so on. With Igougo I can visualize the 'tides of battle' pushing one way or another, especially with both sides fighting in the combat phase (though I would still prefer a style where everyone attacks THEN everyone removes casualties, divided into different initiative steps where appropriate).

I'm going to second what Ninth said. Alternating activations leads to unforeseen consequences since the game isn't designed around it. I wouldn't mind it if we had a new edition build around alternating activations, but for now, I don't like using it. I've had a lot of success with alternating phases, though. I'll also say that to me, alternating activations always feels like a very "gamey" mechanic. It feels like both armies are just standing around watching as one unit moves, shoots, attacks, etc.

That is a criticism I have never heard before. But you don't find it gamey that one army sits and waits for the other to do all it's stuff? I feel like the gamey-ness increases without alternating activations. For example, shooting armies just get to wipe out a portion of the opposing force before it gets to do anything.

I mean, fair enough. I have heard that people did not like alternating activations before without reasons, and having heard your reasons I can reflect on them, so thanks for sharing, genuinely. Different strokes for different folks I suppose. I was happy with IGOUGO until I played alternating activation and since then I have little interest in going back to it. Certainly not if it also includes double turns which amplify everything I dislike about IGOUGO.

I never said that. IGOUGO does feel very gamey as well, I can just rationalize it better than alternating activations. When playing a game with alternating activations, I just picture the giant game of Wizards' Chess from Harry Potter. That's why I prefer alternating phases. In fact, I've played around with only removing casualties at the end of the phase, and it works out pretty well, too. It really neuters Alpha Strike. As far as shooting armies having an advantage, well just look at my armies in my signature. Only one of the three armies have any shooting to speak of. I consider it a tradeoff. It was my choice to play an army that risks getting reduced to irrelevance before I get in range, but that's part of the challenge of playing a melee-heavy army. If I really want to take some shooty units to even the playing field, I have the Ally mechanic to help. Auticus likes to talk about the game being decided at the list building phase, and I agree that it is to some degree, but I consider list building to be part of the strategy of a wargame.

 Da Boss wrote:
That is a criticism I have never heard before. But you don't find it gamey that one army sits and waits for the other to do all it's stuff? I feel like the gamey-ness increases without alternating activations. For example, shooting armies just get to wipe out a portion of the opposing force before it gets to do anything.

I mean, fair enough. I have heard that people did not like alternating activations before without reasons, and having heard your reasons I can reflect on them, so thanks for sharing, genuinely. Different strokes for different folks I suppose. I was happy with IGOUGO until I played alternating activation and since then I have little interest in going back to it. Certainly not if it also includes double turns which amplify everything I dislike about IGOUGO.

Igougo is gamey, but I find it less so as I can envision the metaphorical tides of battle shifting one way or another. It also in my eyes better plays out an army working together as a whole with the different units acting together simultaneously. That a shooting army can wipe out a portion of the enemy force without them doing anything makes sense to some degree, because it is the nature of conflict that shooting will take out melee troops as they advance in. What gets weird is in the combat phase where units will just stand there and get butchered without raising a finger because it isn't their turn yet. But amplifying that to every phase via activation-by-unit just makes things worse to me, even if it is more balanced in a mechanical sense.

But to turn towards things that GW might actually do in the foreseeable future, I could see a move towards casualties happening at the end of phase. Afaik Apocalypse works like that (maybe someone more learned on the 40k side of things can elaborate).

Yeah after playing APoc, it is truly a better system for 40k. I have played it even at smaller levels, The fact that its at the end, and also has ant- infantry/heavy damaging rolls.

I love it, i really hope its the way forward (mainly for 40k, i like were AOS is at right now, but if they decide to do it for aos thats fine).

The problem with Apoc tho, it is too streamlined, its for sure a beta game.

Apoc needs to be streamlined though. It's a system designed to put insane numbers of models on the table. It's far better to be streamlined and simple because depth just isn't really part of it. Heck most Apoc tables are two big battlelines that face-off against each other; take a weekend to play and still don't finish.


That said I do agree that it has some neat ideas like equal exchange of damage at the end of a turn not as you go and things like that. Certainly 40K's alternate full turns has resulted in the game getting more and more alpha-strike focused. Esp with how strong shooting is resulting in GW introducing more and more methods to get into combat first turn with large portions of a close combat army.

Dumb question: would people feel that something like “summoning capped to 1/4 value of your army roster be favorable? Like in a 2k game you’re not allowed to summon more than 500pts.

Listbuilding is of course a strategy in a wargame.

It being the PRIMARY strategy in gw games is my problem with it.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Dumb question: would people feel that something like “summoning capped to 1/4 value of your army roster be favorable? Like in a 2k game you’re not allowed to summon more than 500pts.

I'm in favour of caps or at least controls on them.

Eg for Slaanesh I've oft said a good way to balance them is to impose a depravity generation limit per turn and from there re-work the costs to summon. This essentially gives the army a maximum value they can generate and also means that you can balance the summoning costs to be "fairer" much like you suggest. Though for Slaanesh I'd also like to see troops generate depravity too as right now there's only one reason to take or summon troops - for battle-line requirements. A huge shame because it basically pushes out really cool things like fiends.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Dumb question: would people feel that something like “summoning capped to 1/4 value of your army roster be favorable? Like in a 2k game you’re not allowed to summon more than 500pts.

Nah b.c summoning is becoming more and more of an optional to an army and at high cost, its only been 2 armies summoning that is a problem and both are now 100% gutted. Why gut it even more now that it is finally pretty balanced? Slaanesh is almost not a summoning army anymore lol, and Seraphon you either get army traits or you can summon but not both. And DoT summoning isn't a problem at all, its they go first unless you also have a 1 drop and can out damage you fast enough for their glass cannon damaging units to out live you.

Many armies that do summon don't get as many benefits as other armies, look at CoS, FS, IDK for good examples, they have way more rules and higher power level of units in general b.c they don't have summoning.


Summoning at this point in the game is a new player problem with lack of knowledge than an actual problem. Just like a new player don't have the understanding to fight a good Orruk player, they are not summoning but 1 wrong MW spell, or 1 wrong shooting attack and they over run you.

PS: everyone at my local would rather have me play any other army than my CoS, even my HoS BoC version (which is a better HoS army).

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Dumb question: would people feel that something like “summoning capped to 1/4 value of your army roster be favorable? Like in a 2k game you’re not allowed to summon more than 500pts.

I think free extra points should always be very limited.

auticus wrote:Listbuilding is of course a strategy in a wargame.

It being the PRIMARY strategy in gw games is my problem with it.

And this is where you and I differ. If both players are approaching the game the same way (i.e. both players brought a casual list or both players brought a competitive list), list building is only one factor in the outcome.

timetowaste85 wrote:Dumb question: would people feel that something like “summoning capped to 1/4 value of your army roster be favorable? Like in a 2k game you’re not allowed to summon more than 500pts.

I'm going to say no, but only because not all summoning is created equal. The balance of summoning definitely needs to be better, but a points cap is kind of like trying to use a screw driver when you should be looking for a crescent wrench. Each army's method of summoning is so different that they pretty much all need an equally different method of adjusting their power. In the mean time, I think auticus is on the right track with his Sudden Death houserule.

And this is where you and I differ. If both players are approaching the game the same way (i.e. both players brought a casual list or both players brought a competitive list), list building is only one factor in the outcome.

What does and does not count as casual vs competitive is always also going to be subjective.

it is true if BOTH players have equivalent lists that that then negates the list building part. The thing is that people look for points to be a determent of if two lists are equal, and currently and has been the case for quite some time now, the points don't reflect that at all.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Dumb question: would people feel that something like “summoning capped to 1/4 value of your army roster be favorable? Like in a 2k game you’re not allowed to summon more than 500pts.

No thank you.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Dumb question: would people feel that something like “summoning capped to 1/4 value of your army roster be favorable? Like in a 2k game you’re not allowed to summon more than 500pts.

Nah b.c summoning is becoming more and more of an optional to an army and at high cost, its only been 2 armies summoning that is a problem and both are now 100% gutted. Why gut it even more now that it is finally pretty balanced? Slaanesh is almost not a summoning army anymore lol

Stop you right there. The Slaanesh army that won LVO summoning over a thousand points of free stuff suggests otherwise. Syll'Eske Host exists and is legal in matched play. But even without that the argument that Slaanesh is "almost not a summoning army" is objectively untrue.

And LVO was pre faq and pre new DoT/KO books, so you can't really use that as new data.

I have friends going to adepticon that i play against frequently, the summon if for sure cut by a large amount. The army relays on its powerful heroes not its summoning. Take out the heroes or feed them 1 wound models and they don't summon. Look at events after the updates, not before b.c i'm talking about after the update.

PS: Given the new Seraphon ways to summon, HoS nerf, it is clear they are trying to balance it better.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
And LVO was pre faq and pre new DoT/KO books, so you can't really use that as new data.

I have friends going to adepticon that i play against frequently, the summon if for sure cut by a large amount. The army relays on its powerful heroes not its summoning. Take out the heroes or feed them 1 wound models and they don't summon. Look at events after the updates, not before b.c i'm talking about after the update.

PS: Given the new Seraphon ways to summon, HoS nerf, it is clear they are trying to balance it better.

Are you sure about LVO using pre-faq(Dec 2019) rules?
The LVO 2020 AoS Champions Tourney Pack stated that
"Any rules out three weeks before the event are usable at the event. Any FAQ posted 2 days before the event are in effect unless it changes point values, in which case it must be posted 2 days before lists are due."
(https://docs.google.com/document/d/1r9DHQQhwgwn93FQSU6qyvjZU7haFHgj3_rpODjbzc7k/edit)

Dec 2019 faq would belong to an FAQ with changed points values, which in order to be effective in LVO 2020 should be posted 2 days before the lists are due.
Since LVO 2020 AoS lists are due 13th of Jan 2020, I see no reason why Dec 2019 faq were not in effect at LVO 2020, unless I have missed other changes to Tourney Pack.

And regardless of the effectiveness of Dec 2019 faq on LVO 2020, I think the new Seraphon updates only worsens balance issues.
I agree that the new Seraphon summoning seems tame, but they have so many powerful additions that summoning pales in comparison.
The new Coalesced Battle trait, Thunder Lizards sub-faction traits, new rules for Kroak, bastiladons, salamanders, wizards and spells seem plenty enough to make Seraphon "OP".
And that is before taking into account the combination of new command abilities and warscroll battalions.

P.S. I should first admit that the data I have had access to might be limited.
But after seeing Honest Wargamer's compilation of post-faq results, I do not think balance issues were properly addressed .
HoS, DoK are still boasting win rate above 55%. And even FeC, IDK with past points nerfs on key units are doing well with respective win rate of 53% and 51%.
Although I must admit that once powerful Skaven are showing surprisingly low performance(44.7%), the factions which I deem to be the underdogs(SCE, sylvaneth, Nightnhaunt, Beasts of Chaos) seem to be doing even worse as their win rate is 40% or below.

You also have to bear in mind that if you're just going off of tournament results, which the Honest Wargamer is only tournament results, that those results exasperate themselves.

The balance / game issues become blown wide open when you start collecting data down at the FLGS levels.

Sagittarii Orientalis wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
And LVO was pre faq and pre new DoT/KO books, so you can't really use that as new data.

I have friends going to adepticon that i play against frequently, the summon if for sure cut by a large amount. The army relays on its powerful heroes not its summoning. Take out the heroes or feed them 1 wound models and they don't summon. Look at events after the updates, not before b.c i'm talking about after the update.

PS: Given the new Seraphon ways to summon, HoS nerf, it is clear they are trying to balance it better.

Are you sure about LVO using pre-faq(Dec 2019) rules?
The LVO 2020 AoS Champions Tourney Pack stated that
"Any rules out three weeks before the event are usable at the event. Any FAQ posted 2 days before the event are in effect unless it changes point values, in which case it must be posted 2 days before lists are due."
(https://docs.google.com/document/d/1r9DHQQhwgwn93FQSU6qyvjZU7haFHgj3_rpODjbzc7k/edit)

Dec 2019 faq would belong to an FAQ with changed points values, which in order to be effective in LVO 2020 should be posted 2 days before the lists are due.
Since LVO 2020 AoS lists are due 13th of Jan 2020, I see no reason why Dec 2019 faq were not in effect at LVO 2020, unless I have missed other changes to Tourney Pack.

And regardless of the effectiveness of Dec 2019 faq on LVO 2020, I think the new Seraphon updates only worsens balance issues.
I agree that the new Seraphon summoning seems tame, but they have so many powerful additions that summoning pales in comparison.
The new Coalesced Battle trait, Thunder Lizards sub-faction traits, new rules for Kroak, bastiladons, salamanders, wizards and spells seem plenty enough to make Seraphon "OP".
And that is before taking into account the combination of new command abilities and warscroll battalions.

P.S. I should first admit that the data I have had access to might be limited.
But after seeing Honest Wargamer's compilation of post-faq results, I do not think balance issues were properly addressed .
HoS, DoK are still boasting win rate above 55%. And even FeC, IDK with past points nerfs on key units are doing well with respective win rate of 53% and 51%.
Although I must admit that once powerful Skaven are showing surprisingly low performance(44.7%), the factions which I deem to be the underdogs(SCE, sylvaneth, Nightnhaunt, Beasts of Chaos) seem to be doing even worse as their win rate is 40% or below.

I thought, but that might have been another event around the same time. But i know for 100% that Dot/KO wasn't new rules.

"I agree that the new Seraphon summoning seems tame, but they have so many powerful additions that summoning pales in comparison." Isn't that the point tho? If summoning is weaker isn't that good? Honestly Seraphon already wasn't a top player and a lot of their units were bad, their old summoning is what made them even playable, with the large buffs the summoning had to be toned down.

BoC are low (I heavily watch them and are in many BoC communities) b.c most the players are not taking competitive lists, or are taking what they think are comp that just in practice don't work. They still need some point changes for sure, but its the units most don't take like DO, hounds, etc...

 Amishprn86 wrote:
"I agree that the new Seraphon summoning seems tame, but they have so many powerful additions that summoning pales in comparison." Isn't that the point tho? If summoning is weaker isn't that good? Honestly Seraphon already wasn't a top player and a lot of their units were bad, their old summoning is what made them even playable, with the large buffs the summoning had to be toned down.

I think the new Seraphon update is "out of the frying pan into the fire" for the meta.
The sheer power of the rules and the combinations might make me miss the days of celestial lizard summoning.
Meanwhile the worst offender of summoning, the Slaanesh summoning seems to have taken only mild hit to their performance.

Let's see how the new meta settles down within the next few months and hope I am wrong.

Sagittarii Orientalis wrote:

I think the new Seraphon update is "out of the frying pan into the fire" for the meta.
The sheer power of the rules and the combinations might make me miss the days of celestial lizard summoning.
Meanwhile the worst offender of summoning, the Slaanesh summoning seems to have taken only mild hit to their performance.

Let's see how the new meta settles down within the next few months and hope I am wrong.

What is so op about the new seraphon?

Jorim wrote:

Sagittarii Orientalis wrote:

I think the new Seraphon update is "out of the frying pan into the fire" for the meta.
The sheer power of the rules and the combinations might make me miss the days of celestial lizard summoning.
Meanwhile the worst offender of summoning, the Slaanesh summoning seems to have taken only mild hit to their performance.

Let's see how the new meta settles down within the next few months and hope I am wrong.

What is so op about the new seraphon?

Well -1 damage army wide is pretty rough for some matchups... Ogors come to mind.

I'm sure that alone isnt enough, but I think it's just how everything stacks together it's going to be a bid oppressive for mid tier or lower armies.

So working as intended

The -1 damage is only with one of the two Main Seraphon factions. However, from Rerolling 1's Battle report with the new Seraphon, that faction, the Coalesced, seems to be nasty.

They've got another army-wide ability as Coalesced. Choosing between Savage or Swift for the turn. Swift: Army can Run and Charge OR Run and Shoot. Savage: +1 Attacks of all weapons/Bites specifically (Don't exactly remember.)

I didn't end up watching all of the battlereport, because the Skaven opponent turn-1 charged Thanquol in, solo, to the bulk of the Seraphon army and decided it wasn't going to be worth my time at that point.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
And LVO was pre faq and pre new DoT/KO books, so you can't really use that as new data.

I have friends going to adepticon that i play against frequently, the summon if for sure cut by a large amount. The army relays on its powerful heroes not its summoning. Take out the heroes or feed them 1 wound models and they don't summon. Look at events after the updates, not before b.c i'm talking about after the update.

PS: Given the new Seraphon ways to summon, HoS nerf, it is clear they are trying to balance it better.

No, LVO was post FAQ.

LVO, however, WAS previous to new Tzeentch and KO. New Tzeentch also summons a significant amount and is far worse balanced than it previously was.

I get that things move quickly and it can be hard to grasp where the meta is. But still...

 Stux wrote:

Jorim wrote:

Sagittarii Orientalis wrote:

I think the new Seraphon update is "out of the frying pan into the fire" for the meta.
The sheer power of the rules and the combinations might make me miss the days of celestial lizard summoning.
Meanwhile the worst offender of summoning, the Slaanesh summoning seems to have taken only mild hit to their performance.

Let's see how the new meta settles down within the next few months and hope I am wrong.

What is so op about the new seraphon?

Well -1 damage army wide is pretty rough for some matchups... Ogors come to mind.

I'm sure that alone isnt enough, but I think it's just how everything stacks together it's going to be a bid oppressive for mid tier or lower armies.

IMO its better than what the Monster list was for them before... 3 Behemoths with a re-roll 3++ and a after save.

 Thadin wrote:
The -1 damage is only with one of the two Main Seraphon factions. However, from Rerolling 1's Battle report with the new Seraphon, that faction, the Coalesced, seems to be nasty.

They've got another army-wide ability as Coalesced. Choosing between Savage or Swift for the turn. Swift: Army can Run and Charge OR Run and Shoot. Savage: +1 Attacks of all weapons/Bites specifically (Don't exactly remember.)

I didn't end up watching all of the battlereport, because the Skaven opponent turn-1 charged Thanquol in, solo, to the bulk of the Seraphon army and decided it wasn't going to be worth my time at that point.

That Savage or Swift wasn't an army wide ability. That's the Thunderquake Temple host, and only affects the units within it.

Also, Thunderquake is different in Coalesced and Starborne.
C: Run and shoot/charge.
S: Heal 1 wound per hero phase, D3 if near a Slann.

Coalesced do give all Jaw attacks +1 to their numbwr of attacks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Jorim wrote:

Sagittarii Orientalis wrote:

I think the new Seraphon update is "out of the frying pan into the fire" for the meta.
The sheer power of the rules and the combinations might make me miss the days of celestial lizard summoning.
Meanwhile the worst offender of summoning, the Slaanesh summoning seems to have taken only mild hit to their performance.

Let's see how the new meta settles down within the next few months and hope I am wrong.

What is so op about the new seraphon?

Well -1 damage army wide is pretty rough for some matchups... Ogors come to mind.

I'm sure that alone isnt enough, but I think it's just how everything stacks together it's going to be a bid oppressive for mid tier or lower armies.

IMO its better than what the Monster list was for them before... 3 Behemoths with a re-roll 3++ and a after save.

What was the 3++ from and the Aftersave? I can't recall ever having a behemoth witha ward save or FNP other than the Bastilidon, who only got the after save against MWs, and was immune to rend....
Engine and Trog from that old Thunderquake didn't get the Bastilidon rules.

There was a battlaion that (going off memory called Thunderquake Starhost) that you needed 2 Bastilodons and a Engine of the Gods. They had to be within distance of the Engine, if they were they got basically all re-rolls, saves, hits, wounds, runs, charges, but you had to choose each turn i think? You don't get them all there was a way to pick, and everyone always picked Saves b.c the Bastilodons ignore Rend and you put the Ethereal amulet on the Engine of the Gods. All together it was 900pts i think.


EDIT: OH PS, The Slann heals them D3 i believe too.

Found it

Impervious Defence: When you make save
rolls for a Bastiladon, ignore the attacker’s
Rend characteristic. In addition, roll a dice
whenever it suffers a mortal wound. On a
result of 4 or higher, the wound is ignored.

So the Battalion gave them the Re-rolls, their ability gave them ignore rend with a 4+++ against MW's

 Amishprn86 wrote:
There was a battlaion that (going off memory called Thunderquake Starhost) that you needed 2 Bastilodons and a Engine of the Gods. They had to be within distance of the Engine, if they were they got basically all re-rolls, saves, hits, wounds, runs, charges, but you had to choose each turn i think? You don't get them all there was a way to pick, and everyone always picked Saves b.c the Bastilodons ignore Rend and you put the Ethereal amulet on the Engine of the Gods. All together it was 900pts i think.


EDIT: OH PS, The Slann heals them D3 i believe too.

Found it

Impervious Defence: When you make save
rolls for a Bastiladon, ignore the attacker’s
Rend characteristic. In addition, roll a dice
whenever it suffers a mortal wound. On a
result of 4 or higher, the wound is ignored.

So the Battalion gave them the Re-rolls, their ability gave them ignore rend with a 4+++ against MW's

Correct, but the true strength of picking Savage wasn't just the saves, it was rerolling wounds with Bastilidon lazers or Stegadon melee.

It was an Engine or Trog, then a combination of two Behemoths, either Stegadons or Bastilidons, plus the final component being a Hunting Pack (salamander or Razordon with skink handlers) or Kroxigors.
You chose in the Charge phase, changed to be only your charge phase later.

I played it often. Cheapest was around 680. Most expensive was 940, then the coat of the Thunderquake battalion itself. Around 820-1080. It was an effective way of making an anvil in an army without an Anvil.
I miss it now. But it's still alright. Currently cheapest Thunderquake is 780 plus the battalion cost. Now it does only half of what it used to, depending on what Sub faction you choose.