Switch Theme:

is "First player scores at the beginning, second player scores at the end" a solution?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






Note: "Just remake the entire game to be alternating activation" is explicitly off-topic for this thread. The subject of this thread is for slight modifications to 9th edition gameplay to improve one particular problem aspect widely perceived by players, not just another thread for mindless 'DAE THINK 9TH BAD' posts.

The recent FAQ to allow the second player to score at the end in the fifth battle round appears, by the competitive play numbers, to have had almost no effect on the difference in winrate between the first player and the second player, which tends to hover round about 55%.

Something I've tried in my own custom missions recently, which I'd like to get some opinions on, is 'First player always scores (primary points, if applicable) at the beginning of their turn, second player always scores at the end of their turn.'

I've got a fairly low sample size for this setup, with four games played in which 2 times the first player won, and 2 times the second player won, but in all 4 of those games, the first player was greatly ahead in terms of the 'killing models' game throughout the game, and all 4 of those games were extremely narrow wins for either side. But in all four games the distinction in scoring at the beginning/scoring at the end was keenly felt, with the second player able to score and deny points and swing the margin by flinging suicidal obsec troops onto objectives to snag them away.

so I have conflicted thoughts about this. On one hand, close games good! on the other hand, how commonly should the side losing the 'killing models' game be able to pull out a win before you consider the advantage granted in scoring to be 'unfair'?

In your estimation how commonly does the second player start to pull away from the first player in the 'killing enemy models' aspect of the game?

"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





I don't think I can really answer that; it's very game-by-game dependent. In a game with high LoS availability, the player with the "really killy shooty" list that goes first will pull away from the 2nd player very quickly. In a game with low LoS availability, the player with the "really killy close combat-y" list will probably pull away more if they're going 2nd...


I don't think scoring for going 2nd always at the end of your turn is the right solution. Rather, I think a simple solution is to make a third of the missions be "Tag N, Tag N+1, Tag more" - that is to say, you score at the end of your turn instead of the start, but this applies to both players.

Just the reality of that being the case for some games means a unit's role in your list will change in those games; as the "get stuck on an objective" role is just not as important temporarily stealing it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/14 14:34:13


 Galef wrote:
If you refuse to use rock, you will never beat scissors.
 
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




I think a more varied mission pack over-all would make a difference. It used to be that (for the GW missions anyway) we basically had ONE of almost every mission type. Now we have all the different variations of a SINGLE mission type. Better balance would help a lot.

That said, our group has played a lot with the new FAQ style since it came out and, anecdotally, we have found it to improve the situation without unduly harming anything else.

@the_scotsman - We had been experimenting with the system you describe as well. We found it to be similar to your findings. It worked better than the original 9th ed rules where Player 1 had a clear, distinct advantage, and all the games felt really close, but some of them, in retrospect, were not actually as close as they felt.

Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






It's basically end of battle round scoring and it's a no-brainer. ITC had hold more and kill more at the end of the battle round, while control 1 and kill 1 was at the end of the player turn.

Pulling ahead on the killing aspect of game is totally possible for the player going second, it depends on the lists, but I'd say 40% of the time it happens. I just had a game today where my opponent killed nothing turn 1 and 2, I killed about 0 and then 400 points turn 2, getting me ahead. My opponent pulled back ahead by killing 500 pts on his third turn, 800 turn 4 and 400 turn 5 while I only managed to kill 200 points per turn.

My opponent went first but I was able to hide everything which shows that going first doesn't always let you deal the first blow. I dealt the first strike and my opponent was able to weather it and beat me in the killing game, that shows that even dealing the first blow does not put you ahead in the killing game for the rest of the game.

It seemed like my opponent was stacking buffs all the way to the ceiling, but I've been told that's impossible and nobody ever puts multiple buffs on a unit so I am a bit perplexed at what exactly happened

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/06/14 14:55:53


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Cynically feel it should be quite overpowering from player 2. Which might be mitigated by the fact more models die - but... hmmm. Think it might be too much.

Really I feel the ability to play out to fully deny your opponent's turn 5, then max out your own points is very powerful. But it is unsurprisingly only effecting maybe 5% of games and so only narrowing things by say 1% - because if either player is out of sight by say the close of turn 3 (or you've effectively been tabled), it doesn't matter. It would be interesting to do some hard count of how many games are close at the close of the first player's turn 4 (I feel some of the goonhammer stats came close on this) - but I feel its not all that many.

But if it were every turn I feel player 2 could very easily set themselves up to deny player 1's go while scoring each turn. Especially with fast armies (such as DE, Harlequins etc). That's sort of what they do anyway (hence the very strong going second results compared with slow factions) - but would now have even more control.
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






From a personal experience, the last turn scoring has mattered surprisingly often in close games. There were situations where I could easily score 20+ VP in turn 5 because I could just take objectives, drive into table quarters and raise banners without any care in the world. When going first, I had to prepare unit blocks and take every possible VP in T5 so my opponent couldn't hit the jackpot uninterrupted.

That said, it only matters in close games. Most tournament games don't seem to be close by any measure, so just like Tyel said, those games are rarely affected by the change.

I don't think that making all turns score at the end is the solution, it might fix the averages, but create even less close games. Essentially we need to fix people running away with the game and tabling, neither really is connected to when you score but by you ability to flip objectives, kill units and reliably score secondaries.

7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. 
   
Made in us
Wicked Ghast




my experience echoes the anecdotes that many others are expressing: scoring on the bottom of five does make a pretty significant difference in the games I have played.

It's won me a game or two and lost me a game or two, but it seems to make a difference in either direction it moves in.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




I think the better solution to alpha striking is just to make it, so, well, you can't alpha strike.

On T1 (both halves), the battlefield is covered in the Fog of War, and units cannot shoot or cast psychic powers at units fully within the opposing player's deployment zone unless they are within 12" of the unit they are shooting.

Boom (ha, ha). Suddenly alpha striking your opponent off the table doesn't work any more except for the fastest of models, and the player who goes first has a big disadvantage because they need to move up, thereby meaning that less of their army will be covered by the debuff when it comes to their opponent's turn. This compensates for the advantage they get by getting the first chance to get onto objectives and establish board control.

I honestly think that one change would probably be enough that you could get rid of the advantages they tried to put in for the player going second. You could tweak the precise parameters obviously, but as a general idea, I think it's better to just correct the actual advantage going first gives re: tabling your opponent, instead of trying to compensate for it with some bonus at the end of the game if you don't get tabled.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/15 02:30:28


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

I don't know about that specific 'fog of war' concept Yukishiro1 proposed, but I agree with the idea- the problem is that going first enables you to both seize objectives and perform an alpha strike, giving you an advantageous position and rendering your opponent weaker and less able to contest your position.

Better to mitigate the dominance of alpha strikes to start with, rather than give the going-second player a leg up if they make it to the end without being tabled and if the scores are close enough that it can make the difference.

Tweaking Yukishiro's idea a bit- maybe have all units (on both sides) start the game 'hidden' and not targetable unless the enemy is within 12", but lose the 'hidden' state as soon as they move or shoot. That adds more of a decision-making element (since you'll actively lose your own protection by choosing to shoot), and gives Infiltrators and other units that can forward-deploy a better chance of surviving to be useful.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Yeah, that'd be an option too, though I think you'd probably need to have the camo fade after the end of the first turn to avoid certain types of abuse - it is problematic to have stuff you can't shoot at that can also be scoring at the same time. Or else say that anyone within range of an objective doesn't even get it in the first place.

The point isn't the particular, it's the idea that the way you counter alpha strike advantage is by giving direct protection from the alpha strike, not by trying to set up some compensation on the back end.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/15 03:06:23


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

yukishiro1 wrote:
Yeah, that'd be an option too, though I think you'd probably need to have the camo fade after the end of the first turn to avoid certain types of abuse - it is problematic to have stuff you can't shoot at that can also be scoring at the same time. Or else say that anyone within range of an objective doesn't even get it in the first place.

The point isn't the particular, it's the idea that the way you counter alpha strike advantage is by giving direct protection from the alpha strike, not by trying to set up some compensation on the back end.


Fair enough about potential for abuse, but I should point out that if it only lasts the first battle round, then the mechanic functionally wouldn't apply to the going-second player. Maybe say that a unit has to 'reveal' itself in order to count a scoring? I emphatically agree on that last sentence though. Basically I would like solution which neuters alpha striking and forces the going-first player to decide between seizing objectives and thus becoming vulnerable to retaliation, or playing it more conservatively and thus opening up the possibility for the going-second player to seize the momentum.

   
Made in us
Hacking Interventor





Didn't get to play much 8th; What happened with the Prepared Positions stratagem? Did it help, or was it too good, or too bad, or is everyone still just head-scratching over why it was dropped in 9th?

"All you 40k people out there have managed to more or less do something that I did some time ago, and some of my friends did before me, and some of their friends did before them: When you saw the water getting gakky, you decided to, well, get out of the pool, rather than say 'I guess this is water now.'"

-Tex Talks Battletech on GW 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




The latter. If anything, it was overcosted and didn't do enough.
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 CEO Kasen wrote:
Didn't get to play much 8th; What happened with the Prepared Positions stratagem? Did it help, or was it too good, or too bad, or is everyone still just head-scratching over why it was dropped in 9th?


It's rather easy to get cover or obscuring for infantry now, so it wouldn't do that much anymore. It also did very little if your army had bad armor saves/invuls or the opponent had high AP.

IMO the big difference to 8th is that shooting first is important, but moving first to get objectives and block secondaries is what make it so much more likely to win. For example, drukhari have a secondary where they score points for every table quarter the opponent isn't in - if they go first they just drive everything right in your face, blocking you from ever getting out of your deployment zone, yielding them 4VP per turn. If they go second, I can spread my army out before that happens and they have to actually kill stuff to get me out of table quarters.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/15 07:06:26


7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. 
   
Made in us
Wicked Ghast




yukishiro1 wrote:
I think the better solution to alpha striking is just to make it, so, well, you can't alpha strike.

On T1 (both halves), the battlefield is covered in the Fog of War, and units cannot shoot or cast psychic powers at units fully within the opposing player's deployment zone unless they are within 12" of the unit they are shooting.

Boom (ha, ha). Suddenly alpha striking your opponent off the table doesn't work any more except for the fastest of models, and the player who goes first has a big disadvantage because they need to move up, thereby meaning that less of their army will be covered by the debuff when it comes to their opponent's turn. This compensates for the advantage they get by getting the first chance to get onto objectives and establish board control.

I honestly think that one change would probably be enough that you could get rid of the advantages they tried to put in for the player going second. You could tweak the precise parameters obviously, but as a general idea, I think it's better to just correct the actual advantage going first gives re: tabling your opponent, instead of trying to compensate for it with some bonus at the end of the game if you don't get tabled.


Wouldnt that just make DE that much better though?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/15 07:16:29


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

My Slaanesh salivate at the Fog of War thought, because my alpha-strike comes in the form of first turn charges, not shooting.

And that's a consequence of game design in general. Board edges, movement speed, ground scale, all sorts of wonkiness.

It's a game where a 4" move Deathshroud Terminator squad and a 14" move + run + advance + movement buffs available Keeper of Secrets are both melee units...
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






I guess it's a good thing that Deathshroud Terminators don't move 4" then.

7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

You know what I meant Jidmah.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





According to ITC BA data ( very noisy ) the last round primary scoring for the second player before the change was ~4.4 -- after it was 5.6. Pretty small overall. Though I doubt everyone remembers or makes the best use of it.
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You know what I meant Jidmah.


Not really, actually. Deathshrouds are a great melee unit currently, even though they only have a 5" move and the only thing able to speed them up being command re-rolls used on their advance dice. Despite their speed people (including me) forgo their ability to deep strike for free and start them on the table and they have absolutely no issues getting into combat.
Of course, if you are one of those people who insist that 6x4 boards are the best thing ever, you can hardly blame GW for choosing to add an additional 6" or more to the board that can't ever be reached by a slow melee unit.

It is also worth noting that turn one charges are not some insane game-winning shenanigans that only happen because GW messed up. They are a regular part of the game that most armies can pull off in one way or another and there are strategies that can mitigate that kind of thing. Orks have no issues throwing a unit of 30 boyz in your face with da jump and back it up by some warp-tunneling buggies, a nitro-fuled wartrike and a gorkanaut at ramming speed. However, you don't see that kind of play because it's super easy to counter and doesn't actually do that much.
And in all honesty, what are slanesh daemons supposed to do? Walk into rapid fire range, wait there for an entire turn and then try to charge with what's left of their army? There is a reason why we slanesh daemons are working well while khorne or nurgle daemons are not. An army with no real shooting capabilities has every right to start causing casualties turn 1.
The actual problem with fast armies like slanesh daemons, harlequins or drukhari is not first turn charges. It's their ability to grab all the objectives before the enemy moves and then dictate the game from there, forcing the opponent to do nothing but react. I know, because my ork speed freaks do the very same thing. They just don't appear in tournament spotlights because they go poof if the opponent brought enough hard-hitters.

So in the end, your small error perfectly displays the whole problem of all the threads on the 9th edition core rules here at dakka. You didn't even know about the single most important change to one of the best units of an army that is played my many people currently, and has even raked in quite some tournament wins. And yet you are making broad sweeping statements about what the problems of 9th are, despite clearly having no real experience with an edition that is being played regularly by many people here for almost a year now.
Much of 7th edition's and 8th edition's conventional wisdom simply doesn't apply anymore. For anyone who has seriously played 9th, it's blatantly obvious who is playing the game and who is just trying to apply old knowledge and stuff they picked up on the internet.

7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

You know, I had a whole response typed up to your assertion, but I will say:

I play 40k. I play 9th edition. I'm in 3 separate Crusade campaigns.

I think our major disconnect is I play narratively and you play competitively. Because in Crusade, being able to "run up and hold all the objectives before the enemy moves and dictate the game from there" isn't a thing. Most of the time I don't even need the victory, because the victory gain is like "+2 RP instead of +1" when I'm already at the cap of 5, or "+1 relic on a character who doesn't already have one" when I have characters who have maxed out their relics. Or "add a character to your roster if you have the space" when I don't have the space.

So I play for agendas. To get my units XP, so they can become even killier, and to write cool narratives for my units (whether or not they win by some abstract VP counting is irrelevant generally, especially for an army like Daemons).

In that context, the ability to absolutely blitz the enemy army with 1st turn charges from a bazillion inches away makes me feel bad, and gives the spectators watching the game (f.e. a Death Guard player) the feel bad as well. They're NPEs in a narrative game setting, whether or not the "win ratings" or whatever competitive determinator you actually care about says it's good or not.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: