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.

I always hated the blocks of troops. They're utter pain to make rank properly, as someone's weapon is always getting in the way. You cannot convert the models freely as you need to constantly keep in mind how they fir in the unit, and most of the models are not properly visible anyway. Skirmish formations are way more fun to model and paint.

As for the bases, I think round bases look better, and measuring from the base is obviously the way to go, but I really don't mind if someone is using squares. I really don't care about the absolute minuscule differences in measurements this might cause.

 auticus wrote:
A lot of games have done that as well (old whfb for example). The reason I chose the route I did is because if you have two formations that both give a defensive bonus, there's not as much a reason to take one over the other.

I'd argue that having multiple defensive options is perfectly acceptable, providing they are meant to be used against different attacks.
For example, a hit modifier wouldn't be that effective against a high RoF, but weak, series of attacks, but would be effective against a single, powerful strike, like from a cannon.
A shieldwall wouldn't do much against a cannonball, but it would nearly negate any damage against storm of arrows.

Backspacehacker wrote:



Because no matter how hard you try, nothing in AoS will ever look as comfy as a block of chaos warriors.

As an extremely claustrophobic person, that picture legitimately gives me anxiety. I'd be the guy in the middle looking up, gasping for air. I do like moving my Warriors in blocks, though. I just space them out a little more than that.

It is a bit close, yes. I always maintained that the bases needed to be a bit larger. A bigger base would have fixed a lot of the problems concerning ranking up.

I don't miss those bases at all.

1. Models had to be modeled in such a way that their parts didn't overlap their base, lest they not fit next to each other. This was egregious in some models, in particular the Vargheists. They have these big awesome wings that are all scrunched together so they can rank up.

2. The style encouraged purchase of larger and larger squads of models. In order to finish one squad, you often needed several boxes of the same model just to fill out two or three ranks. With that one squad done, you then needed three or four more of that same unit to fill out your army. The expense and the samey-ness, made it a bore and a chore to build and paint.

With the round bases, you've got a lot more room for models to spread out pose-wise and detail-wise, and with the new level of play with Age of Sigmar, you no longer need 200 of the same model (and 100 of other models) to play a game. Unless you just really like goblins or skeletons or something.

Those are problems with ranks not the base. You can still spread out on square bases and honestly I greatly prefer the ranks to details. The details only matter when you pick up the model and look at it. Ranks look cool from any distance.

The bloated unit size was an 8th ed thing. When I played 7th just having blocks of 20 was perfectly fine. And as I said, the problem with ranking up was that GW wanted to put dynamic models on small bases where everything would just spill over and slap the model next to it. If they had used larger bases that problem would have been mitigated.

Or they could do what they did with LOTR and what Para Bellum is doing with Conquest, and have slotted movement trays where you could rank up round based models.
I'm pretty sure LOTR had that anyway. Never played it, just something I noticed at some point.
There was no real reason to completely remove close order formations.

Having to buy multiple boxes has nothing to do with the style of game and everything to do with GW's greed. There was a time where they had 20 models in a box, enough to made 4-5 ranks and that was usually enough. Then they got greedy and started to put models in boxes of 10 at the same price, even though they are the same model.

Close order formations should definitely be a thing. Would add a layer of depth.

 auticus wrote:
Close order formations should definitely be a thing. Would add a layer of depth.

This, I definitely think shield units should get a bonus to save like a +1 to save on the turn you where charged. Bonuses for firing while ranked and file for ranged like I'd you volly fire into a unit of 10 or more you get +1 to hit or +1 to wound because all the shots are grouped up.

Bonus rend for charging while in rank and file

Lots of fun fluffy options to provide bonuses

dosiere wrote:
Maybe auticus, but really even measuring from square bases is both possible and still less fiddly than measuring from the models. I still have all my dudes and dudettes on square bases and the games go just fine. Frankly I forgot that measuring from models is still a thing, square or round bases, I havent seen anyone actually use that rule since about 2 months after AoS came out.

We pretty much are always model to model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
At the risk of starting a fight, does AoS use mortal wounds too much or is it right? I feel like they’re slightly overused, but then again, I’m usually up against Stormcast so I might just have a skewered view of things.

I dont like mortal wounds on general principle and would rather they simply not be in the game at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
The bloated unit size was an 8th ed thing. When I played 7th just having blocks of 20 was perfectly fine. And as I said, the problem with ranking up was that GW wanted to put dynamic models on small bases where everything would just spill over and slap the model next to it. If they had used larger bases that problem would have been mitigated.

Or they could do what they did with LOTR and what Para Bellum is doing with Conquest, and have slotted movement trays where you could rank up round based models.
I'm pretty sure LOTR had that anyway. Never played it, just something I noticed at some point.
There was no real reason to completely remove close order formations.

Having to buy multiple boxes has nothing to do with the style of game and everything to do with GW's greed. There was a time where they had 20 models in a box, enough to made 4-5 ranks and that was usually enough. Then they got greedy and started to put models in boxes of 10 at the same price, even though they are the same model.

WotR did that (it was the mass formation game for lotr)

That sounds about right. Cheers
I remember seeing it and thinking "oh, you can do that now? That's pretty cool"

Does not seem like the double turn is changing too much, just now the person who went first last time gets to pick in the event of ties, so it slightly lowers the chance.

Not sure that will help the people who despise the double turn because it is so polarizing but GW seems to want to keep manipulating and preparing for the double turn as a pinnacle of "skill" in AOS.

Rules Preview: Turn Priority on Warhammer Community.

Yeah they are doubling down on the double turn. To be fair, while it is polarizing and I don't care for it, a giant chunk of people do. The key is to not treat AOS like a game that involves real skill, and just accept it for what it is - a dice game where you hang out with your friends and paint pretty models.

Well that seems awful to me. I barely remember the rerolling as it is now I have to remember the tie part.

The double turn is hands down one of, if not the, worst Mechanic in the game. Almost all games are decided if you get the double turn.

The better thing that GW should have done is just get rid of the double turn between turn 1 and turn 2. Have it be you don't roll for turns until the start of turn three.

auticus wrote:Yeah they are doubling down on the double turn. To be fair, while it is polarizing and I don't care for it, a giant chunk of people do. The key is to not treat AOS like a game that involves real skill, and just accept it for what it is - a dice game where you hang out with your friends and paint pretty models.

I am not picking on you Auticus,, I have much respect for you but just want to address the double turn and not saying you are wrong or I am correct. The way it will be in June is exactly how it is in Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit game. I never herd ONCE a complaint about the double turn in that game. No one complained about it that I know of. Reading on the forums nobody made it a strategy. I am not sure why some people make a big deal out of it. (I know you never made a big deal out of it Auticus, but others have).

So if so many people are having fun with the LotR system, it really can't be that bad. Also what I hope GW introduces is Heroic Intervention. This way even if it's not your turn, your Hero can make it and or troops move or attack out of turn just like in LotR. I really hope AoS becomes more like LotR. ?This way shooting into combat if you miss your target, you hit your units. (evil only but hope this changes to everyone in AoS.)

Davor wrote:

auticus wrote:Yeah they are doubling down on the double turn. To be fair, while it is polarizing and I don't care for it, a giant chunk of people do. The key is to not treat AOS like a game that involves real skill, and just accept it for what it is - a dice game where you hang out with your friends and paint pretty models.

I am not picking on you Auticus,, I have much respect for you but just want to address the double turn and not saying you are wrong or I am correct. The way it will be in June is exactly how it is in Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit game. I never herd ONCE a complaint about the double turn in that game. No one complained about it that I know of. Reading on the forums nobody made it a strategy. I am not sure why some people make a big deal out of it. (I know you never made a big deal out of it Auticus, but others have).

But to be fair, Hobbit and AoS are not the same. When you go up against an army that can shoot you with 21d3 +3d6 auto hitting mortal wounds, getting a double turn is pretty much a garunteed win at that point.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
The double turn is hands down one of, if not the, worst Mechanic in the game. Almost all games are decided if you get the double turn.

The better thing that GW should have done is just get rid of the double turn between turn 1 and turn 2. Have it be you don't roll for turns until the start of turn three.

I'd go with this really complex idea: You roll off at the start. The winner goes first. Then the other person. That's how every round goes.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Davor wrote:

auticus wrote:Yeah they are doubling down on the double turn. To be fair, while it is polarizing and I don't care for it, a giant chunk of people do. The key is to not treat AOS like a game that involves real skill, and just accept it for what it is - a dice game where you hang out with your friends and paint pretty models.

I am not picking on you Auticus,, I have much respect for you but just want to address the double turn and not saying you are wrong or I am correct. The way it will be in June is exactly how it is in Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit game. I never herd ONCE a complaint about the double turn in that game. No one complained about it that I know of. Reading on the forums nobody made it a strategy. I am not sure why some people make a big deal out of it. (I know you never made a big deal out of it Auticus, but others have).

But to be fair, Hobbit and AoS are not the same. When you go up against an army that can shoot you with 21d3 +3d6 auto hitting mortal wounds, getting a double turn is pretty much a garunteed win at that point.

True. I guess it would change the game too much to make it more fair. That said, When it's the first turn and your opponent is shooting you with 21d3 +3d6 and you know you can do nothing about it is even less fun. At least knowing you might get the double turn makes the game more exciting. I am getting my butt kicked right now, but maybe I can wether through it and get the double turn.

Hmmm.... I think we are derailing the thread. I will make a new thread and we can have this great conversation.

You know what would be nice?

People not treating Double Turns as some kind of unintended rules consequence.

It's a part of the game, deliberately so, and a tactical challenge to be mastered.

That doesn't mean you have to like it of course - just accept that it works precisely as intended.

And most of all, plan for it. If you know your opponent might get a double turn, play your turn as if you know they will.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
You know what would be nice?

People not treating Double Turns as some kind of unintended rules consequence.

It's a part of the game, deliberately so, and a tactical challenge to be mastered.

That doesn't mean you have to like it of course - just accept that it works precisely as intended.

There is nothing that is tactically genius about having an army that can null deploy, opt to go second if they win the roll, or if they go first just don't put anything on the table, then when they get to go, pop up 3.1" away and hit you will 21d3+3d6 auto hitting g auto wounding mortal wounds and then roll a single dice to be abek to do it again before you can even do anything at all.

That's not tactic that's just double turn bs. Or sitting there and eletting your opponant move I to range, shoot them, get double turn and do it again. It can't be mastered unless you can determine the roll

Davor wrote:

auticus wrote:Yeah they are doubling down on the double turn. To be fair, while it is polarizing and I don't care for it, a giant chunk of people do. The key is to not treat AOS like a game that involves real skill, and just accept it for what it is - a dice game where you hang out with your friends and paint pretty models.

I am not picking on you Auticus,, I have much respect for you but just want to address the double turn and not saying you are wrong or I am correct. The way it will be in June is exactly how it is in Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit game. I never herd ONCE a complaint about the double turn in that game. No one complained about it that I know of. Reading on the forums nobody made it a strategy. I am not sure why some people make a big deal out of it. (I know you never made a big deal out of it Auticus, but others have).

So if so many people are having fun with the LotR system, it really can't be that bad. Also what I hope GW introduces is Heroic Intervention. This way even if it's not your turn, your Hero can make it and or troops move or attack out of turn just like in LotR. I really hope AoS becomes more like LotR. ?This way shooting into combat if you miss your target, you hit your units. (evil only but hope this changes to everyone in AoS.)

With respect, there's a big difference in LOTR and AOS. In LOTR you don't get an entire turn before your opponent. You move. Then your opponent moves. Then you shoot. Then your opponent shoots. Then you do melee and who has priority picks the combats that take place.

In AOS you move. You shoot. You do combat. THen you double turn and you move, you shoot, you do combat, and your opponent sat there the entire time taking it in the face for upward of an hour. Thats the big deal with the double turn and compared with Middle Earth why you don't hear complaints over there.

Also - the amount of damage you do in Middle Earth is fractional compared to some of the insane damage you do in AOS. So you are doing insane damage. Twice in a row. While your opponent stands there with his pants around his ankles reaching for a bottle of lube that is just out of grasp. Not very fun.

I play Middle Earth, am going to Adepticon next year playing Middle Earth, and love that system. If AOS would adapt away from a pure IGOUGO I would be ecstatic. That would make things like this double turn not as much of a groin kick, and brings the game more interactive instead of potentially I watch you kick my teeth in for over an hour before I can respond.

EDIT: and I see others have made that comment as well, sorry was just responding to the first paragraph.

Additionally

It's a part of the game, deliberately so, and a tactical challenge to be mastered.

Thats just it. For me there is no tactical challenge to master. The tactic you are mastering is I hope I roll higher. I've asked many times for articles or videos on where the tactics and skill are in regards to double turn and very few people can really give one. I get that its different, and because its different its not old school wargaming, so to a lot of people thats the plus... but I don't see the tactical depth in double turn.

Now if they have changed it so that you have more deterministic ways of determining double turn so that its a tool that is not entirely up to the whims of Bicycle and Chessex dice, I'm all ears aand will come to it with an open mind.

Sounds like your issue is with Skryre Fyre, not the double turn, Backspace. The issue isn't the double turn, it's that the list is broken as hell.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:

It's a part of the game, deliberately so, and a tactical challenge to be mastered.

Thats just it. For me there is no tactical challenge to master. The tactic you are mastering is I hope I roll higher. I've asked many times for articles or videos on where the tactics and skill are in regards to double turn and very few people can really give one. I get that its different, and because its different its not old school wargaming, so to a lot of people thats the plus... but I don't see the tactical depth in double turn.

Now if they have changed it so that you have more deterministic ways of determining double turn so that its a tool that is not entirely up to the whims of Bicycle and Chessex dice, I'm all ears aand will come to it with an open mind.

The tactic you're mastering is placing your army in such a way as to mitigate the effects of a double turn while maximizing your chance of holding the objectives.

 EnTyme wrote:
Sounds like your issue is with Skryre Fyre, not the double turn, Backspace. The issue isn't the double turn, it's that the list is broken as hell.

They are just the worst offenders of it, but tzeentzch are just as bad, double turn spells can be just as brutal.

Or empire gunline with double turn of shooting that can easily pump out over 100 shots of 2+/2+ -1 1 damage per shooting phase on top of spells and artillery. And as I have said before the issue is really only between turn 1 and 2. If you did not start rolling for double turn until after turn 2, there would be no problem

 EnTyme wrote:
Sounds like your issue is with Skryre Fyre, not the double turn, Backspace. The issue isn't the double turn, it's that the list is broken as hell.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:

It's a part of the game, deliberately so, and a tactical challenge to be mastered.

Thats just it. For me there is no tactical challenge to master. The tactic you are mastering is I hope I roll higher. I've asked many times for articles or videos on where the tactics and skill are in regards to double turn and very few people can really give one. I get that its different, and because its different its not old school wargaming, so to a lot of people thats the plus... but I don't see the tactical depth in double turn.

Now if they have changed it so that you have more deterministic ways of determining double turn so that its a tool that is not entirely up to the whims of Bicycle and Chessex dice, I'm all ears aand will come to it with an open mind.

The tactic you're mastering is placing your army in such a way as to mitigate the effects of a double turn while maximizing your chance of holding the objectives.

Against heavy shooty armies it doesn't matter where you position your guys if you are in range (and if we're talking objectives, those will largely be in areas of the table also in range of enemy shooting). Combined with true line of sight and no penalties to firing through terrain, you are just going to get rocked with ranged attacks twice. Against a fun balanced list, probably not that bad, and probably wouldn't be that big of an issue, but in my neck of the woods you don't get to face those lists, you face the ones that push out a bunch of ranged mortal wounds and ranged high rend shots enmasse.

I'll put out the call again. Someone make an article with diagrams or a video that highlights the deep tactical mastery of the double turn and I'll give it an open view. Between working azyr comp and the over 100 games logged there and the last two years of campaign play, I haven't seen it explained properly or convincingly once and maybe I'm just stupid and need to "git gud" but I don't see it. I see how to abuse it with my tzeentch army and happily roflpwn people with it because they can't hide from my ranged attacks and ranged mortal wounds very well on a double turn but I've yet to see how one actually goes about mitigating it properly other than it goes off at a time where nothing is in range, as it is entirely random.

So what both of you are telling me is that the issue isn't the double turn, it's that the double turn exacerbates other issue in the game. That I fully agree with. Stormfiends should have never been battleline. You shouldn't be able to place units in your opponent's deployment zone on turn one by any means. The terrain rules need depth. Hopefully some of that will be fixed this edition or at some point in the future (though I'm not necessarily counting on it).

If those other issues were fixed, then yeah the double turn would be less a smash to the face and as such wouldn't leave as much of a toxic taste on my tongue.

Everything you just mentioned are things I've been harping on (as you know lol) forever.

auticus wrote:

Spoiler:

Davor wrote:

auticus wrote:Yeah they are doubling down on the double turn. To be fair, while it is polarizing and I don't care for it, a giant chunk of people do. The key is to not treat AOS like a game that involves real skill, and just accept it for what it is - a dice game where you hang out with your friends and paint pretty models.

I am not picking on you Auticus,, I have much respect for you but just want to address the double turn and not saying you are wrong or I am correct. The way it will be in June is exactly how it is in Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit game. I never herd ONCE a complaint about the double turn in that game. No one complained about it that I know of. Reading on the forums nobody made it a strategy. I am not sure why some people make a big deal out of it. (I know you never made a big deal out of it Auticus, but others have).

So if so many people are having fun with the LotR system, it really can't be that bad. Also what I hope GW introduces is Heroic Intervention. This way even if it's not your turn, your Hero can make it and or troops move or attack out of turn just like in LotR. I really hope AoS becomes more like LotR. ?This way shooting into combat if you miss your target, you hit your units. (evil only but hope this changes to everyone in AoS.)

With respect, there's a big difference in LOTR and AOS. In LOTR you don't get an entire turn before your opponent. You move. Then your opponent moves. Then you shoot. Then your opponent shoots. Then you do melee and who has priority picks the combats that take place.

In AOS you move. You shoot. You do combat. THen you double turn and you move, you shoot, you do combat, and your opponent sat there the entire time taking it in the face for upward of an hour. Thats the big deal with the double turn and compared with Middle Earth why you don't hear complaints over there.

Also - the amount of damage you do in Middle Earth is fractional compared to some of the insane damage you do in AOS. So you are doing insane damage. Twice in a row. While your opponent stands there with his pants around his ankles reaching for a bottle of lube that is just out of grasp. Not very fun.

I play Middle Earth, am going to Adepticon next year playing Middle Earth, and love that system. If AOS would adapt away from a pure IGOUGO I would be ecstatic. That would make things like this double turn not as much of a groin kick, and brings the game more interactive instead of potentially I watch you kick my teeth in for over an hour before I can respond.

EDIT: and I see others have made that comment as well, sorry was just responding to the first paragraph.

Additionally

It's a part of the game, deliberately so, and a tactical challenge to be mastered.

Thats just it. For me there is no tactical challenge to master. The tactic you are mastering is I hope I roll higher. I've asked many times for articles or videos on where the tactics and skill are in regards to double turn and very few people can really give one. I get that its different, and because its different its not old school wargaming, so to a lot of people thats the plus... but I don't see the tactical depth in double turn.

Now if they have changed it so that you have more deterministic ways of determining double turn so that its a tool that is not entirely up to the whims of Bicycle and Chessex dice, I'm all ears aand will come to it with an open mind.

Ah yes, I see where I have made my mistake now. Been ages since I played LotR I have forgotten that besides the double turn, it's still and IGOUGO system. I fully understand why now people don't like it and fully agree with you.