|
Post by Typhus on Oct 25, 2022 23:12:55 GMT -5
The Grand Strategies and Battle Tactics are just slight adaptations based upon GW's rules - mostly from the most recent Pitched Battles set with Galletian Veterans replaced with Battleline, although a few older ones slipped in, with changes to ensure they're not gimmes. I'm quite proud of Reform Ranks, much more of a decision than the old Ferocious Advance.
As per GW's FAQ on Show of Dominance, you can achieve Show of Might with a single unit as long as it's positioned well.
|
|
|
Post by Hi I'm Derek on Oct 25, 2022 23:24:01 GMT -5
Yeah there were almost no bonus point ones - the first one was the cool factor of having a warlord-slays-warlord battle tactic (basically I just wanted to put it in so it's in lol) - Defy the Odds is a bit weird it's basically the same as a vanilla season 1 battle tactic but it's specifically the easiest to accomplish *especially* on turn 1. So to get the bonus point on that one you (most likely) have to hold off on using it turn 1 and specifically it means if the player going first uses it as their easy turn 1 tactic, player two will retain the opportunity to get a fairly safe 3 point tactic later in the game. If that makes sense. Basically it's a very tiny tiny lever to help player two, since without the priority roll going first is significantly safer now. And yes the 'one battleline in the middle' thing works so it's like a sidegrade to keeping three alive. You can theoretically accomplish it with less but it requires more work to position them. Otherwise it would be strictly worse which would be odd. Hold hands and run as a turn 2+ tactic was Typhus' idea, it was originally cut but it's actually a lot more interesting when you can't get it essentially for free as you develop your army at the start of the game- it's still easy but now there's an opportunity cost for doing it!
Edit: ALSO people are free to make suggestions if they see problems or have cool ideas, it's not really 'locked in' until week 1 when we have to start playing games
|
|
|
Post by dave on Oct 26, 2022 4:54:54 GMT -5
I came to the realization about Defy after I made my comment. Was going through the list looking for my turn 1 tactic, and it was pretty clear that was going to be the only real gimmie. Nice use of opportunity cost. The other I'm going to look for (forgot the name) is control terrain in your opponent’s territory. Depending on territory size and deployment, that might be possible with a fast throwaway unit.
I'd definitely rather go second though. Most of these will be much easier to achieve as a counter play, after my opponent has extended themselves. Now that drops don't determine first turn priority, I might have a chance!
|
|
|
Post by medhelm on Oct 26, 2022 8:17:29 GMT -5
AoS priority role is lame af
It's the only GW Warhammer game with a random turn order as I understand it?
Adds nothing beneficial, hopefully they can it
Happy to play without it
|
|
|
Post by DarrenB on Oct 26, 2022 8:38:05 GMT -5
I probably should have been more precise: yes the intention was no faction battle tactics/grand strategies et al. This is, however, something we could easily reverse if there's a plurality that are in favour of keeping them. It was more of an afterthought. I was personally pretty swayed by an article I think it was on goonhammer a while back that was talking about balance concerns surrounding faction battle tactics. Their design fluctuates wildly across the battlepacks since the prevailing thought on how hard tactics should be has changed radically since launch. I would also likely apply this logic to army book core battalions now that giants aren't soft locked from taking the core ones although less of a game changer overall since besides micromanaging drops, core battalions don't seem overly impactful balance-wise (and in our battlepack that battalion does uh... nothing ). I'll clean that up in the next revision so it's clearer, one way or the other. I'm a little confused here. Are you saying no faction specific battalions? Because even with the new book I'm not seeing how gargants can use any of the core battalions. The only things, at least in the app, that they qualify for are their own and no way to get additional artefacts etc without bosses of the stomp.
|
|
|
Post by Hi I'm Derek on Oct 26, 2022 9:11:28 GMT -5
I haven't looked at the new book, I read somewhere that they were going to be able to slot in their units to fill any of the unit types in the core battalions from the core rules (ugh GW stop using the word 'core'). Maybe that's fake news!
Honestly they don't matter that much imo so I'm just going to waffle back and say faction core battalions are cool. I will update the doc with that next revision to make all this more clear.
|
|
|
Post by DarrenB on Oct 26, 2022 9:45:24 GMT -5
Gotcha. Yeah dude it's entirely possible I've missed that too.
Personally I don't have the same issues with faction battalions as I do with faction battle tactics and Grand strategies. For the most part people, other than gargants playerd lol, still seem to be using to battalions from the core book as the faction ones aren't really game breaking in the same way the old warscroll battalions were in 2nd edition.
|
|
|
Post by Yatesie on Oct 26, 2022 15:18:03 GMT -5
Quick update - we have 14 people confirmed for the league. If you know anyone else who may be interested in joining, let me know!
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Oct 27, 2022 9:57:29 GMT -5
have directed two people to send you a message (Justin and Pidgeon) as they were looking at participating as well.
Tried out the battlepack last night. Was very clear and easy to follow. Battle Tactics were achievable. Playing with no priority roll was great (for me at least!)
|
|
|
Post by Hi I'm Derek on Oct 28, 2022 12:22:42 GMT -5
Hmm Typhus and Magnus are playing a game atm and just texted me asking about CP generation, since player 2 is locked in at battle start they've got a guaranteed 5 CP stipend over player 1. I had not really thought about the CP implication for the priority roll but it's probably okay since player 1 should have a notable scoring advantage? But I wanted to ask for input on this.
Did your Wednesday game seem like player 2 was swimming in CP?
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Oct 28, 2022 12:53:25 GMT -5
oh right... yeah never thought about that
I was player one and it felt like just a normal game to me... they had more cp though, that was for certain, but I'm not sure it affected the outcome of the game at all.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Oct 28, 2022 12:57:17 GMT -5
I was going to mention this. I definitely felt a bit starved going first all game, but I have an old book with a bunch of command abilities vying for my limited CP.
I think some armies might not care about this, but between CP and the nature of the battle tactics, I'm not sure I'd ever want to go first in a game.
Since points scored at the end of your turn, I think 2nd often ends up with the scoring advantage, as many of the battle tactics are reactionary.
|
|
|
Post by Hi I'm Derek on Oct 28, 2022 14:32:26 GMT -5
The reason we say 1st has the advantage is because of the ability to stack up all their buffs in the very first hero phase of the game (likely out of deny range for spells for the one and only time all game) then move forward onto completely uncontested midfield objectives for the only guaranteed max score primary of the game. 40k avoids the problem by having you score primary the turn after but Sigmar you immediately collect your points so as player 1 in a close game you should nearly always be ahead in score until the bottom of 5.
Shooting armies also tend to get a very safe unmitigated turn 1 alpha off at this stage but yeah- that's why player 2 gets double turn and extra CP, those seemingly would be massive advantages but last count player 1 still had a higher winrate. Maybe that's changed, it's a delicate balance.
Anyway removing priority does throw a wrench into that logic and we have no playtesting resources really so we have to go with our guts here one way or another. I think you could even out the CP and just kinda... see what happens? Unless someone has a better suggestion. Even if player 1 has an advantage since it's just a coin flip it's not going to break the game.
|
|
|
Post by Typhus on Oct 28, 2022 14:53:53 GMT -5
Didn't feel tremendously impactful one way or the other - I think I like player 2 having the CP advantage for now, but obviously we haven't had a ton of playtesting.
Could do "on a 4+ the player going second receives an extra CP" each battle round, as an option.
|
|
|
Post by distractedcarnifex on Oct 28, 2022 19:26:38 GMT -5
oh right... yeah never thought about that I was player one and it felt like just a normal game to me... they had more cp though, that was for certain, but I'm not sure it affected the outcome of the game at all. I was the opponent. Here are my observations, bearing in mind we played a mission from the new BT Battlepack but ignored all the Galletian Veteran stuff for the missions. I think that the selected League Mission Tactics are good, although I note through 3 rounds that neither of us had any issues achieving them. Not a fair run-through, though, since we didn't get to five rounds (on account of my being out of models...) Its a good point about the player going second getting 5 more CPs through the game. That could have also happened with the baseline mission pack if priority never shifted. I think there is an advantage going first in that you can set the tempo, employ an alpha strike and get on open objectives. At a minimum the player going second should get the extra CP in the first round. I figure leave it the way it is with the player going second getting those extra CP. Looking forward to getting going.
|
|