Switch Theme:

Do you play with Random Turns?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
Do you play with the random turn rule?
Yes
No
Sometimes
I don't play AoS, I'm just here to see what people are talking about

View results
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





I remember the eternal spells were supposed to "balance it out" too. And they didn't even dent it.

Parabellum Conquest Vanguard and champion of all things Conquest: The Last Argument of Kings

www.underspire.net for all things Conquest 
   
Made in ca
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer





British Columbia

There was potential there. Until I realized you only got to move one first. Then they started making some that can't hurt the faction that brought it. Then they made some the enemy couldn't even move.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
That's what 7th edition is about. Yelling "Forge the Narrative Pussy!" while kicking your opponent in the dick.
 BlaxicanX wrote:
A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.


 
   
Made in ca
Long-Range Ultramarine Land Speeder Pilot






I don't even agree with the endless spells hurting yourself idea. Or being used by the enemy. I'd rather them cost more points and be entirely under the purchasing player's control. You pay for it, it's part of your list. Give them all the OBR Treatment while you're at it, -1 to casting rolls for a wizard maintaining the endless spell.

 Rippy wrote:
When you lose to a 7 year old, it's wise to not come and admit it and then try to blame the armies
 
   
Made in ca
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer





British Columbia

That is true and would be a fine change especially as you said these are points that could be used on more reliable choices.

I'm merely stating their complete failure as a lever to pull in an effort to balance the incentives of choosing to take a double turn.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
That's what 7th edition is about. Yelling "Forge the Narrative Pussy!" while kicking your opponent in the dick.
 BlaxicanX wrote:
A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.


 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Savage Minotaur




Baltimore, Maryland

 Thadin wrote:
I'd rather them cost more points and be entirely under the purchasing player's control. You pay for it, it's part of your list.


I thought that would be a trend we'd see after Seraphon had their bound spells.

"Sometimes the only victory possible is to keep your opponent from winning." - The Emperor, from The Outcast Dead.
"Tell your gods we are coming for them, and that their realms will burn as ours did." -Thostos Bladestorm
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

Rihgu wrote:
It's unlikely to happen because it's basically a 50/50 with a tiebreaker leaning towards NOT having a double turn. So about 66% chance of not happening.


58% chance of it not happening, 42% of it happening on a single roll.

The chance of at least one opportunity for a double turn to occur in rounds 2 or 3 is 66%. Two out of three games will feature that opportunity before or during round 3.

The chance of that never happening at all over the course of five battle rounds is just 11%. The overwhelming majority of games will feature a player having the opportunity to force a double turn.

It's not rare or unlikely at all, it's a common occurrence.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/11 20:03:35


 
   
Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





It happened in almost every game I played where I had no choice but to use it due to players being against houseruling anything.

Parabellum Conquest Vanguard and champion of all things Conquest: The Last Argument of Kings

www.underspire.net for all things Conquest 
   
Made in ca
Long-Range Ultramarine Land Speeder Pilot






 nels1031 wrote:
 Thadin wrote:
I'd rather them cost more points and be entirely under the purchasing player's control. You pay for it, it's part of your list.


I thought that would be a trend we'd see after Seraphon had their bound spells.


I wish it had been a trend. Especially when, at least in the games I play, I rarely see Endless spells on both sides.

Call it biased, but I take endless spells the most in my lists in my local play area, up to 2 or 3 and often having the game-wide ones, and it's frustrating that I lose control of what I pay for. Even the faction-spells that cant backfire on my army, the enemy can just move them away and make them useless for the rest of the game

And, I agree Eldarain. It doesn't do enough to stop double-turn dominance when taken at the right time.

 auticus wrote:
It happened in almost every game I played where I had no choice but to use it due to players being against houseruling anything.


The only games I've had where there wasn't a double-turn was when I made a conscious, purposeful choice to NOT take a doubleturn, and force the static turn order. And the choice was made after looking at the board state and deciding that I was in too strong of a position, and taking the double-turn would undoubtedly ruin the game. My stance is just that, it ruins more games than it saves.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/11 20:34:51


 Rippy wrote:
When you lose to a 7 year old, it's wise to not come and admit it and then try to blame the armies
 
   
Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





My stance is just that, it ruins more games than it saves.


I am in total agreement.

Parabellum Conquest Vanguard and champion of all things Conquest: The Last Argument of Kings

www.underspire.net for all things Conquest 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






 auticus wrote:
I remember the eternal spells were supposed to "balance it out" too. And they didn't even dent it.
Endless spells pretty much went the way everyone said it would; the ones that could be used 'safely' were used, the ones that had a reasonable chance of backfiring were not, and they had no impact on initiative overall.

What did have an impact was making ties go to the player who went first the previous round, as opposed to a re-roll. In first edition it was 50/50 odds for player 1 or 2 to win initiative, second edition changed that to 58/42 which may not have been enough but was still quite noticeable.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/11 23:18:27


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






 Void__Dragon wrote:
I have never once heard a compelling argument in favor of double turns. Never. I've played with it because "dem's the rules" but it's a bad rule and no one in this thread or in my experience has ever intelligently defended it.


I travel for GTs and Majors for AoS (sadly not in the past year b.c Covid) I do teams and singles. And I can tell you the game would be extremely boring and you would know who would win by end of turn 2 within the double turn (other than a couple missions).

I would rather not have it, but sadly the game needs it. GW had a chance to redo some of the problems for 3.0 but it looks like they decided not to do that.

15k+
3k
Emperor's Spears 2k
Beastmen 9500
CoS: 3500

Reading/Writing LD, be kind!

https://maddpaint.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Battle-tested Knight Castellan Pilot





I was thinking about it today and the only GW rule the majority of players seem fine with houseruling away is 10 points for painted models in 40k. And heck are they adamant about it, too.
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

Rihgu wrote:
I was thinking about it today and the only GW rule the majority of players seem fine with houseruling away is 10 points for painted models in 40k. And heck are they adamant about it, too.
There are a lot of people on here who LOVE that rule.

I don't get why-it encourages you to paint fast rather than well, so even if you value the look more than the playing, I'd imagine you'd rather face an army that's half-done, but the half that's done is gorgeous; than a shoddily (but completely) painted army.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

 JNAProductions wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
I was thinking about it today and the only GW rule the majority of players seem fine with houseruling away is 10 points for painted models in 40k. And heck are they adamant about it, too.
There are a lot of people on here who LOVE that rule.

I don't get why-it encourages you to paint fast rather than well, so even if you value the look more than the playing, I'd imagine you'd rather face an army that's half-done, but the half that's done is gorgeous; than a shoddily (but completely) painted army.
People like that rule because they just don't want to see unpainted armies and would rather see a half-assed painted one than gray plastic.

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





 Amishprn86 wrote:
 Void__Dragon wrote:
I have never once heard a compelling argument in favor of double turns. Never. I've played with it because "dem's the rules" but it's a bad rule and no one in this thread or in my experience has ever intelligently defended it.


I travel for GTs and Majors for AoS (sadly not in the past year b.c Covid) I do teams and singles. And I can tell you the game would be extremely boring and you would know who would win by end of turn 2 within the double turn (other than a couple missions).

I would rather not have it, but sadly the game needs it. GW had a chance to redo some of the problems for 3.0 but it looks like they decided not to do that.


That speaks volumes to how garbage the rules and balance are. How its the #1 fantasy game really astounds me. Many / most of my games WITH the double turn... were decided by turn 2 as well. Thats one of the things I really dont like about AOS or 40k. They both suffer from that. It astounds me how thats ok and how popular the game is despite that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
I was thinking about it today and the only GW rule the majority of players seem fine with houseruling away is 10 points for painted models in 40k. And heck are they adamant about it, too.
There are a lot of people on here who LOVE that rule.

I don't get why-it encourages you to paint fast rather than well, so even if you value the look more than the playing, I'd imagine you'd rather face an army that's half-done, but the half that's done is gorgeous; than a shoddily (but completely) painted army.
People like that rule because they just don't want to see unpainted armies and would rather see a half-assed painted one than gray plastic.


Yep. Thats my feelings on it too. I dont like grey plastic either.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/05/13 03:13:36


Parabellum Conquest Vanguard and champion of all things Conquest: The Last Argument of Kings

www.underspire.net for all things Conquest 
   
Made in pl
Regular Dakkanaut




 auticus wrote:
How its the #1 fantasy game really astounds me.


Sales-wise.

Monopoly is also a top boardgame sales-wise, but if you take a look at BGG rankings, it's nowhere to be seen...

People buy them because they are popular and they are popular because people buy them. I am quite sure that just like most people who buy Monopoly don't even know that there's an entire world of modern bardgame design that makes Monopoly feel like a joke of a game, a lot of people think that all miniature wargames must be like GW games, just with worse models.

(Not to mention people who bought Brass or Arkwright or Food Chain Magnate thinking that it must be something like Monopoly, because all boardgames are ... )

   
Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





Cyel wrote:
 auticus wrote:
How its the #1 fantasy game really astounds me.


Sales-wise.

Monopoly is also a top boardgame sales-wise, but if you take a look at BGG rankings, it's nowhere to be seen...

People buy them because they are popular and they are popular because people buy them. I am quite sure that just like most people who buy Monopoly don't even know that there's an entire world of modern bardgame design that makes Monopoly feel like a joke of a game, a lot of people think that all miniature wargames must be like GW games, just with worse models.

(Not to mention people who bought Brass or Arkwright or Food Chain Magnate thinking that it must be something like Monopoly, because all boardgames are ... )



I do think that its common knowledge for most places in the world (I have not seen contrary but for a few rare instances) that AOS is also the most played fantasy wargame - if not THE ONLY fantasy wargame - played from locale to locale. You can pretty much go anywhere and find open public games and events of AOS. You cannot do the same with any other fantasy wargame. Many of which struggle to hold a handful of people in a region.

Parabellum Conquest Vanguard and champion of all things Conquest: The Last Argument of Kings

www.underspire.net for all things Conquest 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






People would rather play a wargame with deep flaws than fail to find games for one with a better ruleset.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
People would rather play a wargame with deep flaws than fail to find games for one with a better ruleset.
absolutely. And on top of that they want to have a variety of opponents rather than a handful so even if there were a couple of people playing a different game it's still an uphill struggle because 4 people is not enough, it has to be 40.

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





Probably the biggest frustration I have lol. Oh well. I always have Total Warhammer.

I am finishing up Primo Victoria which is an advanced AOS ruleset and proper rebalanced models based on my azyr engine, so I'll put some battles of that up on my channel in the future and at least entertain myself.

Parabellum Conquest Vanguard and champion of all things Conquest: The Last Argument of Kings

www.underspire.net for all things Conquest 
   
Made in us
Battle-tested Knight Castellan Pilot





 auticus wrote:
Probably the biggest frustration I have lol. Oh well. I always have Total Warhammer.

I am finishing up Primo Victoria which is an advanced AOS ruleset and proper rebalanced models based on my azyr engine, so I'll put some battles of that up on my channel in the future and at least entertain myself.


I actually await this with baited breath! I remember doing a bunch of work on "pointifying" early AoS only to find out that you not only had done the work, but with actual tools and data science type experience backing it up. Azyr came out to the same "points" as I had figured out for like... 3 units... but you had already done most of the game by the time I figured those 3 out

So very interested to see this Primo Victoria!
   
Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





Rihgu wrote:
 auticus wrote:
Probably the biggest frustration I have lol. Oh well. I always have Total Warhammer.

I am finishing up Primo Victoria which is an advanced AOS ruleset and proper rebalanced models based on my azyr engine, so I'll put some battles of that up on my channel in the future and at least entertain myself.


I actually await this with baited breath! I remember doing a bunch of work on "pointifying" early AoS only to find out that you not only had done the work, but with actual tools and data science type experience backing it up. Azyr came out to the same "points" as I had figured out for like... 3 units... but you had already done most of the game by the time I figured those 3 out

So very interested to see this Primo Victoria!


Thanks for the comments i got rid of my entire AOS collection and books but will be going off of the model collection. I'm going to be hosting my game studio's website here in the summer and it will be up there. I plan on starting with stormcast and warriors of chaos and working my way through everything through there.

Parabellum Conquest Vanguard and champion of all things Conquest: The Last Argument of Kings

www.underspire.net for all things Conquest 
   
Made in us
Did Fulgrim Just Behead Ferrus?




Noctis Labyrinthus

 Amishprn86 wrote:
 Void__Dragon wrote:
I have never once heard a compelling argument in favor of double turns. Never. I've played with it because "dem's the rules" but it's a bad rule and no one in this thread or in my experience has ever intelligently defended it.


I travel for GTs and Majors for AoS (sadly not in the past year b.c Covid) I do teams and singles. And I can tell you the game would be extremely boring and you would know who would win by end of turn 2 within the double turn (other than a couple missions).

I would rather not have it, but sadly the game needs it. GW had a chance to redo some of the problems for 3.0 but it looks like they decided not to do that.


So your argument is that it is a bad rule but the rest of the rules are so much worse that it is necessary? And you actually give GW money for AoS products?
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






 Void__Dragon wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
 Void__Dragon wrote:
I have never once heard a compelling argument in favor of double turns. Never. I've played with it because "dem's the rules" but it's a bad rule and no one in this thread or in my experience has ever intelligently defended it.


I travel for GTs and Majors for AoS (sadly not in the past year b.c Covid) I do teams and singles. And I can tell you the game would be extremely boring and you would know who would win by end of turn 2 within the double turn (other than a couple missions).

I would rather not have it, but sadly the game needs it. GW had a chance to redo some of the problems for 3.0 but it looks like they decided not to do that.


So your argument is that it is a bad rule but the rest of the rules are so much worse that it is necessary? And you actually give GW money for AoS products?


I would rather it be removed, but after testing it gone, i'd rather have it in the game until a large amount of things are changed.

15k+
3k
Emperor's Spears 2k
Beastmen 9500
CoS: 3500

Reading/Writing LD, be kind!

https://maddpaint.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






 Void__Dragon wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
 Void__Dragon wrote:
I have never once heard a compelling argument in favor of double turns. Never. I've played with it because "dem's the rules" but it's a bad rule and no one in this thread or in my experience has ever intelligently defended it.


I travel for GTs and Majors for AoS (sadly not in the past year b.c Covid) I do teams and singles. And I can tell you the game would be extremely boring and you would know who would win by end of turn 2 within the double turn (other than a couple missions).

I would rather not have it, but sadly the game needs it. GW had a chance to redo some of the problems for 3.0 but it looks like they decided not to do that.


So your argument is that it is a bad rule but the rest of the rules are so much worse that it is necessary? And you actually give GW money for AoS products?
That IS the appeal; even players at a heavy disadvantage can still have a chance.
   
Made in pl
Regular Dakkanaut




That's true. When you design games you use randomness to have worse players not feel hopeless against better ones.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






I have found it is less often that and far, far more often a worse army list vs a better one. It is a crutch for the horrid imbalances the game suffers.
   
Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





Right - the problem is that it doesn't even really help that because the strong armies ALSO take advantage of low drops to get the double turn as well.

Double turn isn't something that always goes to the weaker list. It can just as easily and often go to the stronger list as well.

Making the game pointless to play. If you're looking for a game won on strategy and tactics, this is a huge disappointment.

Parabellum Conquest Vanguard and champion of all things Conquest: The Last Argument of Kings

www.underspire.net for all things Conquest 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Technically building a list to take advantage IS a strategy you know
   
Made in ca
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer





British Columbia

The disproportionate and seemingly random distribution of quality Battalions really wasn't handled well.

I'm glad to hear a more equitable way of building armies is coming to open up that strategy to armies not blessed with quality battalions

 Crimson Devil wrote:
That's what 7th edition is about. Yelling "Forge the Narrative Pussy!" while kicking your opponent in the dick.
 BlaxicanX wrote:
A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.


 
   
 
Forum Index » AoS General Discussion
Go to: