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.

 Hulksmash wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I find it amusing that you are telling me how my army works at tournaments. Like, how much arrogance does it take to think you know better how an army you have never played will perform verses someone who has played it for years and taken it to tournaments all that time?

Honestly it's no less arrogant than posting "this is how it is" because of your local scene and personal bias. Maybe I'm wrong though and you're huge on the aos circuit of gts and events in the US outside of your local scene. But it feels like you filter a lot thru your personal experience with that army.

Additionally you tend to take things pretty personally. I was merely pointing out we haven't seen your style list much locally or at the larger gts I've attended. And that having seen it I'm not sure it chews thru, even on a double turn, most of the lists we commonly see played by our better players. Hence my statement of it being a wrecking ball mid tables but a coin flip at the higher tables later in a 6 game run.

Either way even with your monstrosity or other equivalents (tzeentch) we don't have anyone hating on the double turn locally that I've heard. We can discuss the particulars of hour list in your thread

It's an example. My opinion is filtered through personal experience? That's what an opinion is. I'm taking things personally because you made a passive-aggressive trash talk of my list based off nothing other than 'well I think this' then somehow tried to say that I was doing that despite at least having actual experience to speak from. This isn't the first time you have just posted crap, gotten called on it, and tried to walk it back.

Screw it, I'm tired of trying to get a mature response out of you. Ignoring. But go ahead and post to get the last word anyways.

It is always funny, and some things never change

There is this part of the community that is always "those rules are the best and most fun", no matter what it is

You provide houserules to balance things out and get those arguments against it, until GW changes the rule on their own to something similar, and the very same people come up with "this is the best rule change ever"


What I hope is, that GW is a little more open to Events/Tournaments and changes some things for Matched Play.
Double Turns are cool, but removing them for matched play could help a lot.

One idea I've had is double turns are present for some scenarios but not others.

Oh, what determines that? A more time sensitive scenario like encroaching natural disasters or a crumbling fortress so time is of the essence and both armies are throwing everything into the fight?

I hear that objective missions do something with the double turn, so any of those could be double turn. Kill point style missions would be standard. Things like that.

auticus wrote:
One idea I've had is double turns are present for some scenarios but not others.

I wouldn't mind this. I think the double turn only works because every match play mission is currently objectives. If you add essentially kp missions then the double turn would be a poop show.

Yeah. There are bunches of scenarios (battleplans) out now and not all have objectives. We played basically a kill point scenario saturday that would have ended on a double turn (in that game, there was no double turn thanks to the dice but the winning side was all praying for the double turn to seal the game).

In that game, no double turn would have been more appropriate IMO.

I can totally see that. I'm 100% coming from match play on my view of the double turn so that is why I lean so heavily to it being a good mechanic. Doing it by scenario would actually create more interesting army building as then people would have to account for it during the building stage.

I am surprised at how little talk is centered around the fact that the number of drops you have no longer determines if you choose to go first or second. A straight roll off is so so much better., and I am glad they made this change.

I've made my stance on this pretty well-known at this point, but I feel it's worth mentioning again. I don't view the double turn as being a broken mechanic in and of itself, but it does make imbalances worse. The double turn isn't what makes Skryrefyre broken. Stormfiend troops dropping mortal wounds at a stupid rate with no way to counter them makes the list broken. As Hulksmash and auticus have mentioned, the double turn really doesn't change the game that much in objective scenarios. I wouldn't mind seeing it changed to a scenario-specific rule.

I've been fine with double turn, but most armies I end up facing at my store are pretty mellow and won't shoot off an army in a turn. No one runes around with 6 units of stormfiends cause that person isn't fun to play against. No one runs around with Skryrefire cause it's not fun to play against.

When I was at adepticon, a lot of games came down to if someone had gotten a double turn. My first game, I won because my opponent never got a double turn. My second game ended early to double dragon/phoenix list but I never got double turned, but it didn't matter, there was 4 bolt throwers chunking my army. 2 of my games, I got doubled early, and had an uphill battle just to win, and a game where I didn't get double'd, I still won, and still managed to nearly get table'd.

Double turn is strong, and I think it's fun to play around. It's just another tactical element in my head. Will I get a double turn and play aggressive? Do I need to play defensive, let me opponent move up, and I hope I get priority next round? what will help me mitigate getting double turned. What puts me in the best spot?

It's fun in Path to Glory at least.

Heroes of the Nighthaunt on Warhammer Community:

Lady Oylynder - Mortarch of Grief Warscroll



Kurdoss Valentian - The Craven King Warscroll



Reikenor the Grimhailer Warscroll

Those are fairly weak characters, at least wound wise.

Carnith wrote:
Double turn is strong, and I think it's fun to play around. It's just another tactical element in my head. Will I get a double turn and play aggressive? Do I need to play defensive, let me opponent move up, and I hope I get priority next round? what will help me mitigate getting double turned. What puts me in the best spot?

I always play as if my opponent will be first next round. If you anticipate the worst possible outcome, it can't surprise you. I do the same with my Necrons in 40k. I never build a strategy based out getting back 1/3 of my casualties because if I do that, I'll struggle when I only bring back two warriors.

auticus wrote:
Those are fairly weak characters, at least wound wise.

I love it! At 7 Wounds, my Aspect of the Storm can use "Pulled Into the Depths" to make them have a -1 to their hit rolls during Combat.

I would greatly prefer alternating activation by phase. Greatly. Double turn is disgusting, and this game could easily be adapted away from I GO U GO.

I'm 100% in agreement with you.

Me too, but I think it's a bit much to ask of the player base. Maybe one day.

Thats the thing I think if "officially" it used an alternate activation process, people would be totally fine with it.

We do alternating phases in multiplayer games. Seems to speed things up and drops the wait time a lot. The game works fine with a variety of turn structures.

I too really like the idea of the scenarios changing that up.

 Sal4m4nd3r wrote:
I am surprised at how little talk is centered around the fact that the number of drops you have no longer determines if you choose to go first or second. A straight roll off is so so much better., and I am glad they made this change.

That's because it didn't change... the wording is just horrible in the rules.

 Mymearan wrote:

 Sal4m4nd3r wrote:
I am surprised at how little talk is centered around the fact that the number of drops you have no longer determines if you choose to go first or second. A straight roll off is so so much better., and I am glad they made this change.

That's because it didn't change... the wording is just horrible in the rules.

Or did it? I know folks who help with testing who say their GW contacts told them the rule did change. I've literally heard it both ways from people within GW. That one is definitely getting an official FAQ.

Last I read on it was on the facebook and the community page confirmed that it didn't really change. Its still revolved around if you drop first and that the faq would clear it up.

auticus wrote:
Last I read on it was on the facebook and the community page confirmed that it didn't really change. Its still revolved around if you drop first and that the faq would clear it up.

I expect you're correct (and am disappointed that its the case), but it sounds like even internally there is some confusion over this.

I love my GW games... but ye Gods... how are we in an age where a rule that poorly written can make it all the way to print??

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

auticus wrote:
Last I read on it was on the facebook and the community page confirmed that it didn't really change. Its still revolved around if you drop first and that the faq would clear it up.

I expect you're correct (and am disappointed that its the case), but it sounds like even internally there is some confusion over this.

I love my GW games... but ye Gods... how are we in an age where a rule that poorly written can make it all the way to print??

Sometimes it's not a case that the rule is "that poorly written", but rather that the players decide it needs an FAQ as they can't seem to wrap their heads around it.

From the Core Rules(which are available as a download right now and in the app):

At the start of each battle round, the players must roll off, and the winner decides who takes the first turn. If the roll-off is a tie, then the player who went first in the last battle round can choose who goes first in this one, but if it is the first battle round, the player that finished setting up their army first chooses who has the first turn.

It only comes into effect if the roll off for turn priority is a tie from what it seems.

Thats how I read it too but the community page said that was not the case and that if its the first battle round, the player that finished setting up their army first always chooses and that this would be cleared up in the faq coming out in a couple weeks.

If its true that its how the community account says it should be played, thats a poorly written sentence.

Find the post please. Nothing I've seen from them had the wording of "player that finishes first always chooses".

I'm not going to dig back to find the post, sorry. Its not that important to me, especially considering that the faq is very imminent and will be the final word, so the economy of my time digging up a facebook response in 150+ responses on that post does not justify.

When that response hit I was shocked. Its not how I read it either, and definitely not how I want the rule to be, but he was pretty clear as can be that that was the correct interpretation.

The guys on twitter that hang with the staff are all also treating it as the community page said, as are people on the TGA until the faq says otherwise.

The FAQ in a couple weeks will be the final word regardless. Two weeks of wondering.

I haven't seen anyone from Bad Dice, etc treating it as you're claiming. That's why I wanted to see the post so I could glean if it was just a shoddily worded question to start with or if the response is missing something.