How do we FIX Secondary Objectives in AoS - Warhammer Weekly 10042023
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 май 2024
- Join us for another week of news, rumors and all things warhammering! This week, we are digging into secondary objectives and battle tactics and talking about where they fail, and how we can make the system better!
#warhammer #ageofsigmar
0:00 News
18:15 Pick of the Week
24:30 Hobby Time
32:45 Secondary Objectives
1:27:15 Problems
1:49:15 Question
2:30:00 Ideas
Hobby Supplies
Winsor & Newton Brush (Amazon): amzn.to/495WKel
Synthetic Brush Set (Amazon): amzn.to/3Q4np2u
Plastic Well Palette (Amazon): amzn.to/491FOFA
Multi-Pack Well Palette (Amazon): amzn.to/40cD04z
Exacto Blade Pack (Amazon): amzn.to/3Qduk9x
Rubber Cutting Mat (Amazon): amzn.to/47blpMP
My Games (w/Uncle Adam)
Majestic 13 Game: tinyurl.com/3yx5bbp2
Space Station Zero Game: tinyurl.com/54jbx5vr
Reign in Hell Game: tinyurl.com/nhdwp8tv
Support us on Patreon: / vincentrventurella
Merch Store: vince-venturella-shop.fourthw...
Monument Hobbies Pro Acryl: (paint, primer, basing paste, etc.):
monumenthobbies.com/?ref=VinceV
10% off your total order! Enter COUPON CODE: VinceV
Element Games - (ALL your hobby needs, UK based, ships WORLDWIDE):
elementgames.co.uk/?d=10829
Use Referral Code: VIN0010 for DOUBLE STORE CREDIT CRYSTALS on your first purchase!
Social Media
Twitter: @warhammerweekly
Instagram: VincentVenturella
Email: WarhammerWeeklyQuestions@gmail.com
RPG Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Trapped Under Plastic - • Rules STICKLERS In Gam...
Dragon Fall: www.dragon-fall.com/ 
Игры
Warhammer weekly is my favorite magic the gathering podcast
Heywoah should be a regular guest.
I love the idea of a trophy to every 5-0 player. Feels like the Capital Palette scoring where everyone who is playing up to a certain level gets rewarded for their accomplishment.
Funny, made that comment when HeyWoah first said the idea, and Vince made the point much better eventually. And to comment on the thought that many players don't tweak rules. I'd do that if I had a well established group of friends, but for the foreseeable future I'm going to be playing strangers, so I've skipped 3e. Warhammer is also in a unique space because the predictable edition changes make it a lot safer to just take a couple of years off.
Not at all thought through, but I like the idea of each Battleplan containing really specific battle tactics (fitting the flavour of the Battleplan) that each player can attempt to achieve throughout the game.
I think one BIG and healthy change that 40k did, other than giving a player the ability to pick between Fixed and Tactical Secondaries, is that they removed Faction secondaries. It's an amazing idea, but those things ruled the game at the top. And it's seemingly that way with AoS, perhaps more so because the GHB ones are so painfully restrictive and specific in certain cases.
Coming from warmachine, if you can make a game fast enough to play within 2h, the problem about finding a winner goes away magically. I'd never heard of 5-0 until I got here ...
Hey Vince, for the love of all that is something, you can say that you paint minis well without a caveat. Cheers!
My experience is that battle tactics are only necessary for the top 20% of tournament players, to really separate who won more or less. But for the game to be fun and engaging, I would say that grand strategies could go down to two points, and then just use the scenario rules to score. There’s already so many scenarios with extra scoring besides holding points, and we really don’t need to track four separate scoring possibilities!
I held a beginners tourney in the summer and we used tactics and grand strats from the core rules only but I really don’t think they added anything, and I picked scenarios from all AoS 3 GHBs that were simple and easy and had limited extra rules, printed all that on one simple sheet and we all had a great and smooth tournament with pure beginners who could actually concentrate on their army’s rules instead of all the extra bloat. 😊
Make a list of more generic battle tactics (take an objective, destroy a unit, hold the center, etc.). The person going second in the round gets to pick the battle tactic that applies for that round for both players.
When Battle Tactics were introduced and we were in the GHB 2021, I actually really liked Battle Tactics. I thought they were interesting and really brought something interesting to AoS. The free bonus points for doing them all with Monsters was a bit excessive. But in spite of that, I think GHB 2021's BTs were the best out of all the "Seasonal" BTs. From the first GHB 2022 onward, BTs quickly devolved into a slog of unfun and unnecessary bookkeeping.
In the 2022 seasons, I felt like I was forced to spend close to 5 minutes every turn just deliberating on what BT to pick. So now most of my casual games with friends have either abandoned BTs, or we've used the 2021 BTs without the bonus points.
Also, to Tyler's point at around 1:41:24, it's not as "anecdotal" as you might think. I feel like *my* ability to position well, stand on circles and anticipate my opponents next move have all been hampered because BTs are a cognitive millstone on my neck.
Me and my mate did battle tactics wrong for a while. We both picked them at the start of each round not each turn. And we ended up loving that way more since it gave us each a turn to both try achieve a tactic or stop the other persons. Keeping in mind it was the general battle tactics not the book ones. But it felt way more engaging at the time
but this gives bottom of turn player a hefty disadvantage
As usual Vince and Hey Woah just solved my problem with tournaments. Win vs loss just makes the most sense. Differential scoring should be shoved into the trash. I absolutely hate have to see how much I lost by at the end of the game. I have never 1 time used anything outside my record to let people know how I did at a tournament.
I'm still pretty enamored with the idea of battle tactics being something that you clamor over and each side picks from the same pool and once one player has picked it, it's not available for either. So blocking becomes a big part of play as well, "yeah I can achieve this one easily' but that leaves open this other one that he can achieve very easily and even though it will be harder, I should pick this other one so that way he doesn't get a chance to use it."
I also think it would be interesting if book/ army-based battle tactics were instead of being for you. They were for your opponent. They were specific downsides to your force.
Like right now, stormcast have ones where it's like a dragon has to get a kill this turn. I would much rather that be my opponent can choose it and kill a dragon this turn.
Perhaps have them be selected based off of what your force contains or based off of the grand strategy you choose or your general or whatever. Maybe that's too complicated, but I think it could be a lot more interesting than what we have right now which is just. "I have all of these as well"
We just don’t bother playing secondary objectives. There’s enough to keep track of already and they seem to be unbalanced between different armies.
let's hope they make them more like 10th secondaries that you draw
I really like the idea of each battle pack (except for the separate beginner pack) coming with their own set of 6-8 "battle strategies". Each player picks or draws 3 at the start of the battle and has until the end of the game to complete as many of them as possible. Would be much quicker than deliberating every turn over your battle tactic. Also, no army specific ones, of course.
As an aside: If those "battle strategies" are picked openly, they could be picked as "drops". Meaning once an army has deployed all their units, the player must spend their next three drops choosing "battle strategies" (in place of deploying units). So the lower drop army has to pick first, giving the higher drop army the ability to pick their ones in response. Thus being a new balancing factor to keep the allure of low drop armies in check.
Okay so I'm not all of the way through this yet but here is my proposed solution:
Each battleplan has 3 "battle tactics". In a turn a player may attempt to complete one "battle tactic". Each "battle tactic" can be completed once per battle. A completed "battle tactic" gives you 2 VP. There are no book or general battlepack battle tactics. This system can kinda take or leave Grand Strats, but I don't think they add much in their current form.
Battles are reported with Win/Loss and # of "battle tactics" completed, but without VP counts. To determine a tournament winner, in the case of a tie, whoever completed more "battle tactics" throughout the tourney is considered the winner. Since there are 3 you can also use this for per-battle ties.
Battleplans still require some overall balancing, I wouldn't want to do this with the exact pack we have right now.
On the competitive side I can see a ratio based system working. CP including grand strat plus bonus for win/turns played. Accumulate this through out games for winner and looser. You can maximise your ratio by ending games with max points quicker, it's worth throwing in the towel if your being crushed, and if it's close its worth playing on for the bonus for winning
1:20:00 This was a really interesting point - perhaps an easier way to think about this is that for every 32 players (2^5) there can be at most 2 undefeated players in a 5 round tournament. This is probably useful but I have to go stand in the shower to figure that out...
Joe: "I propose a simpler, fairer, more balanced system."
Thanos:
Fun:
Could have a further escalation on heywo’s system and score it like rugby does: so 4 points for a win, 2 for a draw (which are rare), 1 bonus point for scoring a decent amount of points in game ( that both teams can get), and a bonus point that the losing team can get if the match is close (ie. Finish within a certain amount of points of the winner). This system might differentiate winners slightly more and also give incentives for losing players to keep playing as they can potentially get 2 bonus points
Battle tactics get looked over field objectives because they individually have more weight. Each objective is one point, but a battle tactic is two. So if you lose one objective that's one point. But if you lose the battle tactic, that's two points.
Woooo! Full pixel Vince!
Conducting the one last hurrah in every game that I'm losing is the skaven playstyle. The only secondary system that I need is tabling myself before my opponent can.
On another note, I was expecting some discussion on the lack of counterplay to a lot of battle tactics, just by the very nature of getting to complete them the turn you choose them. Certainly this is part of whether we should even have them every turn.
Is there a way to incentivise different directions in the list building process? E.g champion - go 5-0. Warlord - score the most points. Steward - concede the fewest points. General - best point aggregate…
If I could suggest a better secondary system; you make cards of all battletactics in the current battle pack, and then you can if you want replace up to three with tactics from you own book, and then at the start of the round you both draw two cards at random from your own deck and have to accomplish one of them in your turn. That way the book tactics don’t supersede the ones in the GHB, and there’s a fun listbulding aspect before the game, but at the game you only have to choose between two cards instead of all the ones in the GHB and all the books, and your opponent has some way to play around what might come!
I will try this out in my local group as a way to make the game quicker and more dramatic as you can’t know for sure which tactic might be drawn.
And today we learned that Vince may need some therapy to work out some issues related to his grandmother
I’m fine with everything as long as everybody is playing the same secondary. No army/battletome specific secondaries pleeeeease. The differences in how easy they are to achieve is just too stark. And I for one don’t trust them to get any better at this even with a different secondary system.
I would propose axing the battle tactic in the first turn. It serves no purpose other than forcing you to build the list/deploy in a specific way, just to jump through that predetermined hoop. Instead, at the start of your first turn, you select your grand strategy for the battle. Axe all the book ones and make like 5-6, moderately challenging, grand strategies that are compelling in the right battleplan/match up, and make it worth 4 or 5 points to make up for the one fewer battle tactic. Overshadow, Tame the Land, and Barren Icescape seem like appropriately difficult.
For the remaining battle tactics, blast all these dumb hyper-specific/highly unlikely ones and the book tactics into the sun. Replace them with 8 or 9 slightly situational but straightforward tactics, with that catch that you and your opponent share them (i.e. once one player has selected a tactic, neither player can select that tactic for the rest of the game). This makes each game more unique, as you can't just perform the same 5 tactics in the same order every game. As the game goes on, you can force your opponent into tougher situations by denying them the tactics that would be easier for their army to complete.
LOL! I just found HeyWoah today! I appreciate the content from you all!
Our pleasure!
I am a bit confused on how the scores work with AOS events. There isn't a big scene where I currently live unfortunately so I don't get the chance to play often at all (lucky if I play once per 3-4 months) but came up 1st or second place at most events I showed up. Here are 2 situations that came up:
1- Small event where players don't have time to play out the 5 rounds (2h games, myself and many other players being slow) where I was ahead by 1-2 points by the end of round 2 or 3 but then the 2h was over so we had to stop. The opponent said that he was scoring his Grand Strategy arguing that it triggers when the game ends and the game ended on round 3 while I was nor scoring mine (I would have for sure if we played the 5 rounds) so I lost that game, I really thought Grand Strategies were only calculated at the end of round 5 (so either full 5 rounds played or talked out). I asked online afterwards if this was common practice and I think people replied that it is correct but what I find very odd with this is that some Grand Strategies cannot be completed if 4-5 rounds are not played and some of them are very easy to score if the game ends on round 2-3 (like it was the case at that moment). This imbalances them wildly and makes me reconsider some of them and straight up not want to pick some Grand Strategies anymore knowing they are bad or uncompletable if the timer runs out before 5 rounds.
2- At a larger event, I was the only player being 4-0 going into round 5 but then lost the last game by 1-2 points (I didn't realize the score was that close, I would have tried harder to tie it if I realized that). With BCP app, it showed me as the winner (no one ended up 5-0), I think because I was constantly facing the stronger players until the end but the way things ended up being calculated, I ended up with 2nd place (1st place had lost his 2nd game out of 5). It doesn't quite seem like it was necessarily based off the amount of points cummulated either. It would have felt weird to win the tournament over the guy that defeated me on my last game anyways but the whole system is very confusing to me.
I had fun at both events, which is what matters most anyways but I wish rules would be clearer on how things are calculated (some people talk it out until round 5, some don't, hidden points calculations to break ties, grand strategies based off 5 rounds but games not all reaching round 5, etc.).
There may not be any Tom but that didnt stop you from making this video BIG.
Yooo heywoah on the stream heck yeah
An example is if a player knows they may have lost and say kill another unit in the enemy army then in the next battle that unit starts with less wounds on 1 less model..ect...or whatever you want to apply. I know people will say this is not fair but I feel that a 5 game tournament show be like a campaign as your usally playing the same list or close to it...choices made in other games should reflect this
Maybe I missed it, but is there any obvious disadvantage to just removing the "choose one at the beginning of your turn" part of the current BTs? Like you just check at the end of your turn and if you met conditions for one of the ones allowes in the battlepack, then you score it and cant score it again ? I guess there are some that may not work, that require a chosen unit, so obviously those would need to be removed re-written. But the problem with them i have and have heard from others, is i dont like having to choose and then not have the option to try again if i fail, or i failed what i chose but could have scored another.
Yes, a big downside, immense decision paralysis, they would have to keep all 8 (or 14 in their head) be able to plan accordingly, and then see what happened. The time increase and decision paralysis would dramatically increase. People wouldn't just "let it rip and see what happens" - they would still plan for one, then also try to have a back-up and maybe a third, so it would be even more time consuming.
@@VinceVenturella ah, OK fair nuff
the monologue at 35-37 minutes was really quite something
I think the main reason the teams format is so much more exhausting (and required so much more time) than singles is that you cannot really concede l. You are fighting for every point to get that differential up and it takes a lot out of you
I like many of the ideas thrown here about the secondary, the current one is a system I don't particularly like. However, the differential scoring to me is extremely important especially in those cases where there's no chess clock (is not there in all tournaments in Europe). Losing by 1 point at the end of the second round because the opponent took too long when you have almost your entire army on the field but you didn't take 1 objective in your first round because you have 4" move and getting 0 point in the tournament sucks.
In a hypothetical world with games all ending at the end of the 5th round, a loss is a loss, but at the bottom of 2 or even 3, a point difference should matter in the overall ranking for both players. Just my 2 cents.
What about just dropping the random thing, picking 2-3 in list construction or at the start of the game (maybe a deck to random them at the player's discretion).
Structure them like grand strats. Ones that allow lots of interaction like "keep your general alive" can stay easy, and then we can get ones that are completable but tough like "destroy a unit with a foot hero" or "control a contested objective in your opponents turn with all contesting units being in combat"
Why wouldn't I just pick the easiest ones then?
@@VinceVenturella you might. But I'm imagining them written in a way that the ones you need to be active to achieve being difficult, with the easy ones being easy to deny.
Really good trio in this episode
Big guest!! ❤
Ohhh my god, Vince got so excited about magic that he swore!!
Ahh, darn it. :)
In short I think matched play should be used for casual players as they are more in line with wanting all to be equal. Tournament play should be " HARD MODE" and not all is perfectly equal to show skill.
I see redeploy has cost Tyler some games :D :D
Genuine question, if secondaries provide engagement when the primary isn't engaging or allow an army to compete when they cannot on the primary isn't the issue the primaries are bad?
To me secondaries belong where multiple games are linked, and the secondary allows overall progression even against a lost. In a stand along game I don't see the use personally
Not necessarily, there is value to multiple orthagonal goals being simultaneously pursued in a game.
If I had to choose between AoS battle tactics and 40k Secondaries, its BT's every day. I'm definitely in the camp of thinking that they aren't too bad.
Is that including the current 10th ed system, I know many people are fairly praising of the current system.
I really hope the poisonous mushroom was a Mario reference otherwise im way off 😅
You are correct. :)
A simple suggestion would be to devalue battle tactics. Make them 1VP. Im sure we need other design changes but I’m interested to see the impact such a simple change as making games 23 not 28
Hey - if you limit the number of casualties that players can recover between games, then you can fit a lot more games in. Just saying....
... (chuckles in tzeentchian)
Also you have pretty easy secondary to score - the number of points of models still standing at the end of 5 games.
For secondary objectives. I like the idea of 6 core secondaries 2 map based secondary and one faction based secondary. You always have the faction secondary. The others get shuffled into a deck each player gets dealt 4 cards, they select one then hand the remaining cards to the other player. at the end of this each player should have a deck of 5 cards in front of them. Each player selects one card from that deck and places it face down on the table, this is the active secondary and is the only one you can score. You can remove this card at any time by revealing it then discarding it and replacing it with another face down objective. Should actually score a secondary - you reveal it and place it in the "victory display" and replace it.
There should be a mix of objectives with easy counterplay worth more points and harder to counter objectives worth only a few points.
Know it's not the point of the video and it's a minor issue but I keep hearing how NH got a buff with Fright or Flight. It's not... it's a nerf... because we obviously need them. Anyway, I'm just a bitter NH player wallowing in grief. Love the show! Highlight of my viewing week!
Link to vinces aos edh cards?
THey were Hey_Woah's and I am very excited to do a show about them in the future.
Hey Vince is there a resorce for pepile who want to TO to learn how to set it up? Other than youtube?
That's oen of the best, but botht the Texas Weirdnobz and Old Town Throwdown have some TO resources as well on the net.
in a game about war things like points don't matter if you destroyed your opponent completely
This is a ✨️BIG✨️ episode
Great show! Sorry I missed the live stream. I know my opinion might not be popular but I feel that games should be linked in matched play. So that choices or consequences made are reflected in later battles. A matched play event if a fresh start every new game where everything is equal again. I disagree with this approach
But to be honest changes here would change the whole system into a new way. 😊
I think win loss should be looked at differently but I don't think the community will adopt it...winning or losing should both have some type of effect for both players
Uncky HeyWoah put down the magic cards to talk about AoS! (And magic)
I see HeyWoah I instantly smash big like. Big.
Comming from a competitive CCG environment the fact that "tiebreakers" exist that are not Strength of Schedule has always been strange. The AoS tiebreakers that are currently used should, at best occur after Strength of Schedule as a third tier of winner determination.
It is also nice to see some of the most heard voices in AoS talking about the fact that events are too short to properly determine a winner. It is important to remember this when discussing the state of the game. The difference to win rates adding 1-3 rounds to many events that are ran would make is potentially significant. Especially for the higher and lower performing factions.
Finally on the subject of hobby - I really like what you said about "bashing your head against the wall until the wall crumbles" (or similar). This is actually exactly why I don't persue a higher standard of painting than I currently have - I found a level that allowed me to relax and paint and get things done to a standard I am happy with (and lets face it people oooh and aaah over), but its a long way short of high quality painting. Its a hobby, the key is finding the level where you are happy to make camp and hanging out there - you don't have to climb Everest, but you certainly can if you want to.
Having to get your own guys killed for a Battle Tactic always felt really silly to me. It really sucks when it comes down to it and you roll too good and your opponent too poorly to get it. I don't think you should be punished for playing well or rolling well.
My Like this week goes to: the crow in the pencil skirt.
secondary like for the reference to the failed Haitian presidential candidate.
I haven't heard your system yet but I'm already on board with it. I freaking hate battle tactics they're just the worst
I don't have a friend group with which to play at home. So house rules are not much of an option
NasCon always rocks.
If you do not have something to keep the player in the game, players will stop playing.
If folks show up dropping 300 bucks to play and are tabled in turn 2, four times, they will not be coming back.
HeyWoah?!!!!!!!
Yeeeeehaaaaw!
👍👍
Me watching this video who plays age of sigmar 4 times a year and who will never play a tournament “here is my extremely uninformed opinion having only played against three different players”
My dearest Vincenzo, I hope this letter finds you well. Your mic is a little too low relative to the others.
Tyler, why is your camera not in front of you?
It really is odd to not see your face, after all you outshine the others in that category by a good amount of shine.
He has a more dramatic angle. :)
Could you try and tone down the MTG references? For those of us who have absolutely no clue about that game its very hard to understand what you're talking about.
It was a magic heavy episode. I will endeavour to vary the references.
What is the BIG. I don’t know…
It's a catch phrase from Hey Woah's channel.
Can I please get the gloom spite gitz mtg cards?
big
Not hot dogging, more ass holing.
The players control the time playing, so end of game stuff can be controlled by a player, a bit dragging feet here and there means extra points.
Perhaps secondary's should not be used after turn 3 or turn 4?
Would that help balance it a bit.
If you use clocks, time should be based on number of models in the force to a point, a base number plus +x per extra 10 models or something.
A secondary like having to grab an object, and carry it back off your side of the board, or even roll a die and that shows where it has to go.
OR
Get to a location, look at the card, shows the color that goes there, now you have to find that gem and take to that area.
May have to make it that only Infantry can move them but any can look?
For a Tourney how about Two standings or tracks, one for Primaries One for Secondarys.
So a player can win on either perhaps.