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.

 Fafnir wrote:
But it's not just a min-maxing thing. There's nothing to min max, it's entirely out of the players' hands. You just get it or you don't. It's inherently unfair. Do you enjoy just sitting there for 45 minutes not playing while your opponent wins an uncontested game?

Ohhh trust me, a lot of competitive armies are min-maxxed with double turns in mind. Mine is half based on mortal wound cheese and half based on exploiting double turns.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
But it's not just a min-maxing thing. There's nothing to min max, it's entirely out of the players' hands. You just get it or you don't. It's inherently unfair. Do you enjoy just sitting there for 45 minutes not playing while your opponent wins an uncontested game?

Ohhh trust me, a lot of competitive armies are min-maxxed with double turns in mind. Mine is half based on mortal wound cheese and half based on exploiting double turns.

Mine is min-maxxed around a dude with a funny unicorn fish as its general and shouting "GET 'EM BOYS!" on turn 3.

Oh yeah, definitely get it. It's a preference of not liking to feel like the game is up to just chance and there's little to nothing you can do about it and the ensuring disaster of your force getting struck twice and out maneuvered.

To me and others though it's a dynamic turn of events where you have to cope with the heavy losses, do what you can to mitigate damage with dispelling, allocating wounds and other tricks and then do your best to reform, redeploy and do what you can to win with the hope you can grab the next double turn and make your enemy pay for overextending his line.

Definitely not everyone's cup of tea and I fully understand houseruling it out. (Though like I said it's more your just always keeping the initiative in order which is fully in the rules. No one Has to actually take that turn switch. )

Edit:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
But it's not just a min-maxing thing. There's nothing to min max, it's entirely out of the players' hands. You just get it or you don't. It's inherently unfair. Do you enjoy just sitting there for 45 minutes not playing while your opponent wins an uncontested game?

Ohhh trust me, a lot of competitive armies are min-maxxed with double turns in mind. Mine is half based on mortal wound cheese and half based on exploiting double turns.

Mine is min-maxxed around a dude with a funny unicorn fish as its general and shouting "GET 'EM BOYS!" on turn 3.

Hahaha, just take the exalt.

We had a big game today. Some takeaways:

A good solid chunk of the group I play with (about 12 players or so) do not like double turn and a good solid chunk would be ok with it going away.

Seraphon are right now definitely going to be one of the premiere armies. Between teleporting, summoning, and strong strong abilities they were a terror.

The endless spells are a lot of fun, but there are definitely spells you're going to see all the time, kind of like 8th edition WHFB.

Overall today's game was a lot of fun, the imbalance is obvious, its a matter of not caring so much about the imbalance and trying to enjoy yourself.

Enjoying the game is always what I aim for.

But yeah, Seraphon, Nurgle and Nagash are looking to be the kings of AoS2. The age of magic, superstition and gods is back upon us as realms are buckled by titanic battles for their precious souls!

What fun.

Looking forward to trying out the big spells when I get them. I really like the light swords and traps, very thematic.

I really hope Moonclan/Destruction get stronger. I have an Ice Kobolds idea for updating my 6th-7th era army.

Baron Klatz wrote:
Oh yeah, definitely get it. It's a preference of not liking to feel like the game is up to just chance and there's little to nothing you can do about it and the ensuring disaster of your force getting struck twice and out maneuvered.

To me and others though it's a dynamic turn of events where you have to cope with the heavy losses, do what you can to mitigate damage with dispelling, allocating wounds and other tricks and then do your best to reform, redeploy and do what you can to win with the hope you can grab the next double turn and make your enemy pay for overextending his line.

Definitely not everyone's cup of tea and I fully understand houseruling it out. (Though like I said it's more your just always keeping the initiative in order which is fully in the rules. No one Has to actually take that turn switch.

I've noticed that communities more able/willing to exploit double turns also trend to be more against them. If my exploit list gets a double turn the opponent takes ~60 mortal wounds to the face just from shooting that doesn't even have hit rolls. It deep strikes in with no minimum range during the hero phase after which it can move normally. Gryph hounds don't work, screens don't work, hit penalties don't work, save buffs don't work. They just sit there and die. I've seen players who liked or were neutral on the double turn become against it very quickly, even outside games where I am playing that army.

Yikes, no wonder. That list sounds terrifying and something you'd need to cripple early and keep your fingers crossed the dice gods are with you so you either miss double turns or get one yourself beforehand.

Baron Klatz wrote:
Yikes, no wonder. That list sounds terrifying and something you'd need to cripple early and keep your fingers crossed the dice gods are with you so you either miss double turns or get one yourself beforehand.

All those mortal wounds don't deploy on the table.

Haha, if only they did. Being able to make the casualties casualties, woundception.

By the by, was this before the new rules and magic?

What list is that specifically, 9th Musketeer?
If you don't mind sharing.

Baron Klatz wrote:
Haha, if only they did. Being able to make the casualties casualties, woundception.

By the by, was this before the new rules and magic?

Before, but it's actually gotten better because for some unknown reason they thought Stormfiends needed to go DOWN in cost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 privateer4hire wrote:
What list is that specifically, 9th Musketeer?
If you don't mind sharing.

It's a bit off topic for this thread so I'll start one up over in list discussion

Before, but it's actually gotten better because for some unknown reason they thought Stormfiends needed to go DOWN in cost.

The cheese thickens.

 Fafnir wrote:
But it's not just a min-maxing thing. There's nothing to min max, it's entirely out of the players' hands. You just get it or you don't. It's inherently unfair. Do you enjoy just sitting there for 45 minutes not playing while your opponent wins an uncontested game?

Eh, I don't have a problem with that. I've seen games with double turns go either way, getting it is not a guaranteed win. It does however add to the excitement every round and if it goes against me I get a chance to get a double turn back. We are a very casual group and no one has ever taken a cheese list except to try it out for a tournament, with advance warning given. I don't really care about the downtime, I'm still chatting with my opponent and having a good time even if I'm not moving my guys. And top tier tournament players seem to want to keep the double turn as well from what I've heard on their podcasts, at least in the UK where AoS has been strong since the beginning. I guess the biggest problems would arise if a competitive player took a cheese list against a more casual player, but that's the case with 40k as well even without double turns.

Baron Klatz wrote:

Before, but it's actually gotten better because for some unknown reason they thought Stormfiends needed to go DOWN in cost.

The cheese thickens.

Maybe, maybe not. It was mentioned that we should be seeing some significant Warscroll overhauls so it might be they go down in power too.

Top tier tournament players got there by exploiting weaknesses in balance, including the double turn. So it's a bit confusing to me how their opinion gets raised in so many conversations as if they inherently have a desire for balance. They literally have a financial interest in a lack of balance, which isn't to say they are automatically self-serving but the conflict of interest there doesn't seem to be noticed at all.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Top tier tournament players got there by exploiting weaknesses in balance, including the double turn. So it's a bit confusing to me how their opinion gets raised in so many conversations as if they inherently have a desire for balance. They literally have a financial interest in a lack of balance, which isn't to say they are automatically self-serving but the conflict of interest there doesn't seem to be noticed at all.

This is an excellent point. I think so many people lose sight of the fact that tournament play is explicitly about seeking out imbalance. And then when they make their regular games with friends like tournament games and try to make their armies as powerful as possible, they act surprised when the game gets really one sided.

That said, I'm a fan and advocate of the double turn. I play to find out what happens and the double turn mechanic means that things can swing back and forth very dramatically. I'm the wrong opponent for someone who wants a competition as I don't really play to win. I like to run my army like we're both gamemasters in an RPG. i ask myself what the soldiers would do rather than try to come up with the best moves to make from my outside perspective.

This is why I get frustrated a lot in conversations. My endgoal is a more balanced game, because I find that keeps my community growing. Imbalance only appeals to a very small subsection.

But the overall community response to trying to seek balance is usually negative.

The double turn was almost universally panned yesterday and will be making its way into our campaign ruleset as an option to turn off if both players agree.

auticus wrote:
This is why I get frustrated a lot in conversations. My endgoal is a more balanced game, because I find that keeps my community growing. Imbalance only appeals to a very small subsection.

But the overall community response to trying to seek balance is usually negative.

If I can be brutally honest here, Auticus? To me, part of the reason why it seems like the response is negative is that you're trying to suggest balance suggestions for the game as a whole based on your community.

I get that you can only suggest based on your own experiences--but that's the way it keeps seeming in my eyes. I know we butt heads quite a bit over things but as I said to you awhile back, I understand that running campaigns can be a chore. It's a lot of effort for not much payout and tons of griping. A lot of your rule suggestions could probably work--but they don't strike me as overall fixes that are quality for the game. They seem like the kind of thing that works for your group.

The double turn was almost universally panned yesterday and will be making its way into our campaign ruleset as an option to turn off if both players agree.

Thankfully, it's getting left alone here. The people who generally complain about it do so because they can't properly build/play around it.

 Kanluwen wrote:

auticus wrote:
This is why I get frustrated a lot in conversations. My endgoal is a more balanced game, because I find that keeps my community growing. Imbalance only appeals to a very small subsection.

But the overall community response to trying to seek balance is usually negative.

If I can be brutally honest here, Auticus? To me, part of the reason why it seems like the response is negative is that you're trying to suggest balance suggestions for the game as a whole based on your community.

I get that you can only suggest based on your own experiences--but that's the way it keeps seeming in my eyes. I know we butt heads quite a bit over things but as I said to you awhile back, I understand that running campaigns can be a chore. It's a lot of effort for not much payout and tons of griping. A lot of your rule suggestions could probably work--but they don't strike me as overall fixes that are quality for the game. They seem like the kind of thing that works for your group.

With due respect to Auticus this is a reasonable point.

Thankfully, it's getting left alone here. The people who generally complain about it do so because they can't properly build/play around it.

This argument doesn't really hold up in my experience. I particularly dislike the double turn because of how well I can exploit it. See earlier mentions of my tourney list being specifically built to auto-win on double turns. But even outside of that, if I'm playing a game with rolled initiative and have turn choice I will always take second (but then all of my opponents do to, since it's kinda the obvious choice) and if I get the double that decides the game a good three quarters of the time, it isn't even difficult.

I compare it to a video game where one is fighting another player--then suddenly they bug out and can't do anything for a period. So you can just wail on them, or simply wait until they come back, but either option is really unsatisfying. That you could potentially bug out later in the same way doesn't make it less of an issue.

Well a lot of times people will say "yeah the game is broken / imbalanced but those are the rules so either exploit those as well or go find a different game".

The thing with AOS 2.0 is several things that are now core rules were rules we were messing with as houserules as well (like the terrain obstacles now in place that make it harder to shoot through, or not shooting out of combat, etc)

One example: I proposed shooting having a penalty through woods and things like that back in 2015 and argued it through 2016 and 2017 and all the way this year. I received a lot of harsh negative feedback about how that was stupid and not necessary (even recently, with some of you guys in this very thread). But now its an actual part of the rules and everyone is fine with it. Or at least I haven't seen waves of negative feedback on it. Hell Sylvaneth Wyldwood are allegedly obscuring all line of sight through them (I cannot confirm this, but was told this by two different people that saw the rule)

I have a very strong feeling that if another houserule, shooting into combat hitting allies on misses, or even also taking a -1 to hit period, were to be official that people would also be fine with it. Things like that. I think its just a general dislike for houserules in general more than what the rule is itself.

The people who generally complain about it do so because they can't properly build/play around it.

I've still not seen anyone validly post a way to build and play around a double turn with examples. I've seen plenty of builds that exploit double turns to the point where if you get hit with it there's nothing you can do to pull the game off at that point, but I've never seen a good video or demonstration of how to build against or play around a double turn against a good player with an imbalanced build gaining one.

The double turn provides some very negative game experiences: you sit there for two complete turns doing nothing but removing models. This is both frustrating and a very long time of sitting there doing nothing yourself.

auticus wrote:
Well a lot of times people will say "yeah the game is broken / imbalanced but those are the rules so either exploit those as well or go find a different game".

Keep in mind that the people who disagree with you will speak more often and more loudly than the ones who agree--it's the nature of people. Also more casual players who are less likely to be perpetrators are also less likely to be engaged enough to discuss it frequently online.

Double turn has never been an issue here. I've been on both sides but I've found that most people play as if their opponent will get that double turn and hedge the bets. Granted we haven't had any thing like Ninth's list around here but that's likely because it wouldn't work. Not since ghb 2017 anyway. Tzeentch on the othe hand thanks to board control gave fit's to the locals over the last year but never has the double turn been seen as a bad mechanic in our groups. Granted a lot of then play ffg games like xwing and armada so the potential for a "double" turn with 1/2-2/3 of your firepower so it's a mechanic their used to.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Double turn has never been an issue here. I've been on both sides but I've found that most people play as if their opponent will get that double turn and hedge the bets. Granted we haven't had any thing like Ninth's list around here but that's likely because it wouldn't work. Not since ghb 2017 anyway. Tzeentch on the othe hand thanks to board control gave fit's to the locals over the last year but never has the double turn been seen as a bad mechanic in our groups. Granted a lot of then play ffg games like xwing and armada so the potential for a "double" turn with 1/2-2/3 of your firepower so it's a mechanic their used to.

It's been working just fine since GHB2, fyi.

auticus wrote:
Well a lot of times people will say "yeah the game is broken / imbalanced but those are the rules so either exploit those as well or go find a different game".

The thing with AOS 2.0 is several things that are now core rules were rules we were messing with as houserules as well (like the terrain obstacles now in place that make it harder to shoot through, or not shooting out of combat, etc)

One example: I proposed shooting having a penalty through woods and things like that back in 2015 and argued it through 2016 and 2017 and all the way this year. I received a lot of harsh negative feedback about how that was stupid and not necessary (even recently, with some of you guys in this very thread). But now its an actual part of the rules and everyone is fine with it. Or at least I haven't seen waves of negative feedback on it. Hell Sylvaneth Wyldwood are allegedly obscuring all line of sight through them (I cannot confirm this, but was told this by two different people that saw the rule)

To be fair, my criticism was not that it did it--but the way that you did it. Your version was not what "obscured" does(granting the effects of Cover) but rather granting a -1 to be hit.

As I said then, I just haven't seen significantly scary ranged units of late to make me think we need -1 to be hit to be an all over thing. If anything I think we need a return of "Magical" attacks so that we can start having some of the weirder stuff get toned down that way rather than just being Mortal Wounds.

I have a very strong feeling that if another houserule, shooting into combat hitting allies on misses, or even also taking a -1 to hit period, were to be official that people would also be fine with it. Things like that. I think its just a general dislike for houserules in general more than what the rule is itself.

Part of it certainly is a dislike of a plethora of house rules on my end. I have some that I use, mostly introing new players to the game...but they're tied to older official scenarios from things like the Skirmish handbook back in the day. I know that one being bandied about at the moment is that whoever actually fluffs their army as being from a Realm tied to their army's lore gets to declare what Realm the game will be in.

The people who generally complain about it do so because they can't properly build/play around it.

I've still not seen anyone validly post a way to build and play around a double turn with examples. I've seen plenty of builds that exploit double turns to the point where if you get hit with it there's nothing you can do to pull the game off at that point, but I've never seen a good video or demonstration of how to build against or play around a double turn against a good player with an imbalanced build gaining one.

I don't have any specific ones on my part. I don't build for it nor plan around it. If it happens--I know how to exploit it. If it doesn't, then I'll just keep playing as normal.

Admittedly my Idoneth just went from a riptide to a tidal wave if I get the double turn on 2+3 since I did find out(thanks Ninth!) that I can put Command Abilities on everyone I have CPs for. My units of 6 eels are going to be just slammin' with Lord of Tides on!

The double turn provides some very negative game experiences: you sit there for two complete turns doing nothing but removing models. This is both frustrating and a very long time of sitting there doing nothing yourself.

The double turn certainly does that, but so did combat oriented armies or those that had 'strikebacks' early on in AoS' history. So do Tau and Guard(incidentally, two of the most loathed 40k armies right now).
Hell, so did my Rogue in WoW.

The important part that you're seeming to miss out on here is on the parts of the players and their interactions. A player who provides a good game, win or lose, provides a positive game experience. People remember that. Talking after the game helps--not crowing about your luck in getting the double to stomp them.

I'm not arguing a player providing a good game provides a positive game experience.

But being tabled, being rolled, being put in a position that feels helpless never really provides a positive game experience regardless of if the opponent is awesome or not at providing a great game experience.

If the double turn provides a deep negative experience to a lot of people, regardless of whether or not other elements ALSO add negative experiences, for me lessening the negative experience load of something that is almost universally reviled would seem to be a good action.

Or at the very least, my preference, to provide that option. If people want to keep it in, let them keep it in.

The fact of the matter is, unless I am just hugely mistaken, when talking about the negatives of the system that is AOS, the ONE thing that gets brought up by so many people as being hugely negative is often double-turn.

A silver lining though is that for people against houserules it does put a foot in the door for opening their opinions when it comes to such a small change that's technically not really altering any rules.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
Double turn has never been an issue here. I've been on both sides but I've found that most people play as if their opponent will get that double turn and hedge the bets. Granted we haven't had any thing like Ninth's list around here but that's likely because it wouldn't work. Not since ghb 2017 anyway. Tzeentch on the othe hand thanks to board control gave fit's to the locals over the last year but never has the double turn been seen as a bad mechanic in our groups. Granted a lot of then play ffg games like xwing and armada so the potential for a "double" turn with 1/2-2/3 of your firepower so it's a mechanic their used to.

It's been working just fine since GHB2, fyi.

Dude, I don't doubt it works where you are. I can see fielding it pretty effectively myself after seeing it I see a lot of the moving parts though the work up would take a bit. However I feel like that list is a coin toss list. It wins big or gets the gak kicked out of it. Since ghb 2 dropped and the sheer number of models and wounds started showing up on the field I think it would be a coin toss at the upper levels of a gt. It clubs mid tabs like no one because you can play out of bad matches likely. But in the last game or two of a gt I'm to likely to see tzeentch, seraphone, skellies, nurgle, mass model order or DoK. I think the list would struggle against how I've seen most of these built. But it works for you and seems to frame your whole look in regards to the double turn which is fine.

To give you an example I don't see any of the above armies outside of DoK with less than 150 wounds at the higher level locally. With the killing power rarely concentrated in an easily digestible chunks.

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?

 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