So fun fact the mean on a dice roll is 3 5 and the standard deviation is 1.71 So it is completely normal to roll below a 2 and above a 5. Meaning the randomness of the dice roll is inherent in priority with the skill being applied is understanding the extra chance of winning ties
I like the idea of more skill in the priority stage but not sure this method works as long games would result in just defaulting back to normal I've suggested before there needs to an extra heroic "heroic hold" which allows a section of ur army to act last
I like mechanics that give a risk/reward aspect in favour of the current random system. I don't think it would take long at all to remember and build into the game and gives a nice bit of bluffing to the game.
While I agree with your analysis (that Priority is very random, and it is not improbable for a side to get an extended run of winning/losing), I am not convinced that this is problematic. I believe a lot of the complaints stem from the belief that Priority should be switching regularly, and not accounting for the fairly likely possibility that it will not. The above disclaimer not withstanding I’ve given your idea some thought. I think the proposed system, of giving Strategy Points based on the inclusion of Heroes of a tier, is biased toward armies with access to cheap Heroes at each level. This feels wrong. Within your concept I think assigning a Strategy Points value to each army could better reflect tactical acumen in line with the literature. Even with Strategy Points assigned based on the army I am not sure the outcome would be to eliminate runs of Priority in favour of one side. Experienced players would save their points for key turns, still resulting in a roll off but with an extra set of book-keeping bolted on to the game. A simpler solution would be to revise the mechanism for determining Priority. At the start of the turn the player who had Priority rolls a D3; a roll of 1 = Evil Priority, 2 = swap from previous turn, and 3 = Good Priority. There is a 2 in 3 chance of Priority switching - not guaranteed but far more likely than a 1 die vs 1 die roll off.
Thanks for your comment! I think your system of rolling the d3 would definitely work to reduce runs of one player winning priority which would be positive! The idea of each army having a set number of points is also interesting, some factions may become more reliant on having a set number of points which could also allow for adjustments in balance, depending on the strength of each faction!
So fun fact the mean on a dice roll is 3
5 and the standard deviation is 1.71 So it is completely normal to roll below a 2 and above a 5.
Meaning the randomness of the dice roll is inherent in priority with the skill being applied is understanding the extra chance of winning ties
I like the idea of more skill in the priority stage but not sure this method works as long games would result in just defaulting back to normal
I've suggested before there needs to an extra heroic "heroic hold" which allows a section of ur army to act last
Onod suggested 'Heroic patience' a while a go which sounds very similar to your idea! Heroic hold is an objectively better name though
I like mechanics that give a risk/reward aspect in favour of the current random system.
I don't think it would take long at all to remember and build into the game and gives a nice bit of bluffing to the game.
That's the hope! I don't think it will ever be a thing sadly but it would be an interesting change to try out!
I like it! More skill expression
Thanks! It's definitely an imperfect solution but I like the idea of having more control over priority
While I agree with your analysis (that Priority is very random, and it is not improbable for a side to get an extended run of winning/losing), I am not convinced that this is problematic. I believe a lot of the complaints stem from the belief that Priority should be switching regularly, and not accounting for the fairly likely possibility that it will not.
The above disclaimer not withstanding I’ve given your idea some thought. I think the proposed system, of giving Strategy Points based on the inclusion of Heroes of a tier, is biased toward armies with access to cheap Heroes at each level. This feels wrong. Within your concept I think assigning a Strategy Points value to each army could better reflect tactical acumen in line with the literature. Even with Strategy Points assigned based on the army I am not sure the outcome would be to eliminate runs of Priority in favour of one side. Experienced players would save their points for key turns, still resulting in a roll off but with an extra set of book-keeping bolted on to the game.
A simpler solution would be to revise the mechanism for determining Priority. At the start of the turn the player who had Priority rolls a D3; a roll of 1 = Evil Priority, 2 = swap from previous turn, and 3 = Good Priority. There is a 2 in 3 chance of Priority switching - not guaranteed but far more likely than a 1 die vs 1 die roll off.
Thanks for your comment! I think your system of rolling the d3 would definitely work to reduce runs of one player winning priority which would be positive! The idea of each army having a set number of points is also interesting, some factions may become more reliant on having a set number of points which could also allow for adjustments in balance, depending on the strength of each faction!