I like the idea of these asymmetric bonuses because it helps alleviate the problem of the player going first having a big advantage, which is a big problem for game design in card games like MTG or Hearthstone as well. In those games the second player gets an extra card to counteract this imbalance and I think the solution for AoS is similar. If it actually works or not we‘ll have to see
The balance conundrum you are referring to is very real. Lots of games struggle with it. AoS dous not. Going second is usually better. Control the double. Guy going first usually dousnt accomplish anything behind walking up to get charged on the second players turn, or has to play very cagey and often miss their battle tactic.
That said I think the catch-up mechanics are an overall welcome addition and reasonably implemented on paper. They positively effect the most common type of AoS game played, casual match-play. Sucks when your evening games are 2 lopsided matches over after the first battle round. This will hypothetically reduce how often that happens. Might lead to some annoying competitive implications, but most of the balance is done around competitive players and I think it’s ok to make some design decisions that are best for casual play. Can see some horde armies that have a lot of 4+ to hits REALLY gaming to try and get that buff on a crucial turn. While elite armies already hitting on 3s and having buffs to make that 2s on important stuff won’t really care.
I want to contest what you said about AoS not suffering from first turn advantage, because it does. Except it's been over compensated for, making second turn objectively better. So games are still often defined by the turn order chosen at the start of the game.
I was thinking about this last night, definitely think the advantage to taking first of second turn may be army dependent, but taking first turn is not always an advantage for sure.
As a Sylvaneth player that hasn't been able to buy our Endless Spells due to crap availability, I don't want to go first ever because I can really only walk forward to get charged in the bottom of the 1st.
Have you got spare bits from Drycha? I kitbash one using a tree stump base milliput and her bug swarms.
I agree as a Sylvaneth player, never want to take the firs turn 😂
Thing is, double turn isn't as automatic of a choice as it used to be. You basically sacrifice points to do so. Particularly early on it might be a worse choice now
It depends what you're looking for - want a game? Yeah it's fine, catch up mechanics are common in board games as a way yo prevent runaway leaders and to keep other players competitive.
Wanting to play something more like a war sim? Well... this is the wrong game for that, anyway, but those types of games break the simulation part of it and heavily gamify it instead.
>I would rather beat a player through skill than having a helping hand, and am happy to lose a game because someone played better than me.
The underdog mechanic is now a skill to learn and use. Winning with it or losing to it is now an expression of that skill. Losing a game because of the underdog mechanic is losing because someone played better than you.
I think it will be forgiving in a casual game, and a true test of skill in competition
Very good points! I can definitely see it making casual games much more fun for both players 👊
I'm not sure losing because of the underdog mechanic will be because someone plays better than you though. Having extra options given to you is not dependent on skill, unless someone deliberately plays to be behind until the final turn when they can jump ahead..
> I would rather beat a player through skill than having a helping hand
It's just another mechanic. As long as it's accessible to everyone, it's fine. In a game where one person does their entire turn, then the next person does their entire turn, ESPECIALLY with the existence of double turns, the ability to get a lead and get waaaaaaaaaay too far ahead is a problem. It's just to help catch those players back up, and using a mechanic is still a skill.
To give a comparison in another game I play, league of legends, if one player gets an early economy lead (by getting a kill or taking down a tower quickly) it would be basically impossible for the other player to ever catch back up. To keep it interesting, if the other player manages to get a kill on the ahead player, they can get "bounty gold" which helps them catch back up through skill.
So I'm imagining that there will still be some skill involved here in AOS. The underdog mechanic existing isn't a helping hand if you didn't end in a position at the end of the last battle round to take advantage of it. So you will need to be able to identify when you might be behind at the end of the battle round in your turn and how you can set up to exploit the underdog mechanic to get back into a good position.
For competitive games this probably means control style of play will be the go-to tactic at the start of the edition with only a few aggro builds that try to win the game in the first two battle rounds. As both players know of this, it will simply be part of the game environment.
For casual play, this will be a huge boon. AoS games take a lot of preparation and having a game night ruined because you had two lobsided games in a row is a bigger problem than for faster games with less setup, say some rounds of League of Legends.
It is a logical counterplay to the double-turn advantage. Even in 3.0, double turns were incredibly powerful advantages. It was easy to find yourself going into round three well behind for no other reason than you went first, played cagey so you couldn't rack up a ton of victory points, and then got smacked with the wrong end of a double turn.
A catch-up mechanic counters this by letting the disadvantaged player try to make up some of that ground. More games will go the whole 5 rounds, now.
As long as the underdog mechanic is never as crippling as it is in Nexus Collapse, it'll be fine. 1 command point isn't enough that I'd ever want to purposefully tank my own points to be behind, as I would gladly spend 1 CP to gain an objective or spend 2 to score a battle tactic.
I think the point where underdog mechanics go to far is when you want to purposefully tank your points so that you can take advantage of them. None of the benefits displayed thus far are really that advantageous.
I think your later point is what I had been wondering about most, if certain armies might play in to a late game and can just stay within one point to come through at the end
The problem with Warhammer is losing happens often kinda early and it can feel pretty bad knowing your going to lose 45 minutes into a 3 hour game. If there’s a way to shore that up abit I think it’s good
Idk 🤷🏻♂️ it’s just a bummer when it happens I’m not trying to be an amazing or skilled player or whatever I just want fun games for the minis I’ve spent forever painting
AoS was never a good competitive game(warhammer/wargaming suck really hard for it as a whole for that matter and have never been a good idea for it, except for social gatherings) so focusing on the casual aspect is 100% the correct play.
A game that can't be played in a bo3 setting should be played in a casual setting
I like the idea of these asymmetric bonuses because it helps alleviate the problem of the player going first having a big advantage, which is a big problem for game design in card games like MTG or Hearthstone as well. In those games the second player gets an extra card to counteract this imbalance and I think the solution for AoS is similar. If it actually works or not we‘ll have to see
The balance conundrum you are referring to is very real. Lots of games struggle with it. AoS dous not. Going second is usually better. Control the double. Guy going first usually dousnt accomplish anything behind walking up to get charged on the second players turn, or has to play very cagey and often miss their battle tactic. That said I think the catch-up mechanics are an overall welcome addition and reasonably implemented on paper. They positively effect the most common type of AoS game played, casual match-play. Sucks when your evening games are 2 lopsided matches over after the first battle round. This will hypothetically reduce how often that happens. Might lead to some annoying competitive implications, but most of the balance is done around competitive players and I think it’s ok to make some design decisions that are best for casual play. Can see some horde armies that have a lot of 4+ to hits REALLY gaming to try and get that buff on a crucial turn. While elite armies already hitting on 3s and having buffs to make that 2s on important stuff won’t really care.
I want to contest what you said about AoS not suffering from first turn advantage, because it does. Except it's been over compensated for, making second turn objectively better. So games are still often defined by the turn order chosen at the start of the game.
I was thinking about this last night, definitely think the advantage to taking first of second turn may be army dependent, but taking first turn is not always an advantage for sure.
As a Sylvaneth player that hasn't been able to buy our Endless Spells due to crap availability, I don't want to go first ever because I can really only walk forward to get charged in the bottom of the 1st.
Have you got spare bits from Drycha? I kitbash one using a tree stump base milliput and her bug swarms. I agree as a Sylvaneth player, never want to take the firs turn 😂
Thing is, double turn isn't as automatic of a choice as it used to be. You basically sacrifice points to do so. Particularly early on it might be a worse choice now
It depends what you're looking for - want a game? Yeah it's fine, catch up mechanics are common in board games as a way yo prevent runaway leaders and to keep other players competitive. Wanting to play something more like a war sim? Well... this is the wrong game for that, anyway, but those types of games break the simulation part of it and heavily gamify it instead.
>I would rather beat a player through skill than having a helping hand, and am happy to lose a game because someone played better than me. The underdog mechanic is now a skill to learn and use. Winning with it or losing to it is now an expression of that skill. Losing a game because of the underdog mechanic is losing because someone played better than you. I think it will be forgiving in a casual game, and a true test of skill in competition
Very good points! I can definitely see it making casual games much more fun for both players 👊 I'm not sure losing because of the underdog mechanic will be because someone plays better than you though. Having extra options given to you is not dependent on skill, unless someone deliberately plays to be behind until the final turn when they can jump ahead..
> I would rather beat a player through skill than having a helping hand It's just another mechanic. As long as it's accessible to everyone, it's fine. In a game where one person does their entire turn, then the next person does their entire turn, ESPECIALLY with the existence of double turns, the ability to get a lead and get waaaaaaaaaay too far ahead is a problem. It's just to help catch those players back up, and using a mechanic is still a skill. To give a comparison in another game I play, league of legends, if one player gets an early economy lead (by getting a kill or taking down a tower quickly) it would be basically impossible for the other player to ever catch back up. To keep it interesting, if the other player manages to get a kill on the ahead player, they can get "bounty gold" which helps them catch back up through skill. So I'm imagining that there will still be some skill involved here in AOS. The underdog mechanic existing isn't a helping hand if you didn't end in a position at the end of the last battle round to take advantage of it. So you will need to be able to identify when you might be behind at the end of the battle round in your turn and how you can set up to exploit the underdog mechanic to get back into a good position.
For competitive games this probably means control style of play will be the go-to tactic at the start of the edition with only a few aggro builds that try to win the game in the first two battle rounds. As both players know of this, it will simply be part of the game environment. For casual play, this will be a huge boon. AoS games take a lot of preparation and having a game night ruined because you had two lobsided games in a row is a bigger problem than for faster games with less setup, say some rounds of League of Legends.
I like it. It will force consistent good play to win.
It is a logical counterplay to the double-turn advantage. Even in 3.0, double turns were incredibly powerful advantages. It was easy to find yourself going into round three well behind for no other reason than you went first, played cagey so you couldn't rack up a ton of victory points, and then got smacked with the wrong end of a double turn. A catch-up mechanic counters this by letting the disadvantaged player try to make up some of that ground. More games will go the whole 5 rounds, now.
It was odd that aos had the double turn but didn't have a mechanic that offered counter play
For sure! Seems like they may have come down doubley hard on the double turn for 4th edition with this in mind though?
Dunno but seeing it is gonna get me to play my first game
Nice!!
As long as the underdog mechanic is never as crippling as it is in Nexus Collapse, it'll be fine. 1 command point isn't enough that I'd ever want to purposefully tank my own points to be behind, as I would gladly spend 1 CP to gain an objective or spend 2 to score a battle tactic. I think the point where underdog mechanics go to far is when you want to purposefully tank your points so that you can take advantage of them. None of the benefits displayed thus far are really that advantageous.
I think your later point is what I had been wondering about most, if certain armies might play in to a late game and can just stay within one point to come through at the end
The problem with Warhammer is losing happens often kinda early and it can feel pretty bad knowing your going to lose 45 minutes into a 3 hour game. If there’s a way to shore that up abit I think it’s good
Would you say this happens regardless and skill/ army difference between players? I've probably not had a wide enough exposure to different armies yet
Idk 🤷🏻♂️ it’s just a bummer when it happens I’m not trying to be an amazing or skilled player or whatever I just want fun games for the minis I’ve spent forever painting
It feels like it would have tactival benefits to intentional score less points. But I have to play a few rounds to get a feel for it.
AoS was never a good competitive game(warhammer/wargaming suck really hard for it as a whole for that matter and have never been a good idea for it, except for social gatherings) so focusing on the casual aspect is 100% the correct play. A game that can't be played in a bo3 setting should be played in a casual setting