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.

The shooting meta of AoS only exists because of double turn. Decidedly meh on the change, it's a little better than before but does nothing to resolve that I nearly auto-win with a round 1-2 double. Fortunately I only deal with that at tourneys when it comes to matched play, because everyone at my flgs prefers to simply alternate in casual games. So much more tactical.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The shooting meta of AoS only exists because of double turn. Decidedly meh on the change, it's a little better than before but does nothing to resolve that I nearly auto-win with a round 1-2 double. Fortunately I only deal with that at tourneys when it comes to matched play, because everyone at my flgs prefers to simply alternate in casual games. So much more tactical.

No, the shooting meta exists because there's no way to prevent a unit from shooting into/out of combat, and there are no penalties to firing through/over terrain.

Units are pointed appropriately to make up for that. I've played a lot of game with rolled initiative and with alternating turns; the ranged advantage in rolled initiative games is pretty clear. Once turns are just alternating that meta entirely evaporates.

My problem with Double Turn is not that is tactical or it isnt.

Is just boring. One of the most boring thigs I have ever experienced in a wargame. With how long warhammer turns are, to wait sitting here for two full turns of your opponent. Or worse, to gain you the double turn and feel like you are playing alone, killing models of your opponent while he does literally nothing.

I know many people will like the "tactical challenge" of planning for that, the "thrill" and emotion when you are rolling, and the "rewarding" experience when the luck favours you and you spend 50 minutes killing enemy models.

But I just hate it. Is like, 80% of the reason I stopped playing AoS and play LOTR and 40k now. Is like League of Legends vs Heroes of the Storm. In League of Legends ,it is emphatized for the "damage dealer" of the team to become so OP and gain so much advantage that he literally kills all enemy heroes in 2-3 hits, and he can 1vs5 the full enemy team if hes feeded. Many people love that, the "rewarding" experience of felling so powerfull for playing "well". I have seen thats very toxic. In Heroes of the Storm, another MOBA, thats literally imposible. Theres no point where one hero can kill in literally 2-3 hits another one, and its impossible for a hero to do 1vs5 or similar unless hes really really good and the others are really really bad. Its a game where you win with your team.

For me the double turn of AoS is like being feeded in LOL. A toxic experience that is enjoyed by the kind of players that to be honest I don't enjoy playing agaisnt. The ones that like to destroy his opponent without retaliation just because they have "won" that right for doing... something "right" before.

I remember lamenting to my brother before AOS started that the rule in 7th Ed. that allowed a unit to fight a second melee in the same player turn if moves and order of combat facilitated it was the pinnacle of turn breaking garbage. I can easily picture the writer of AOS listening to that and saying "Hold my beer..." There isn't an instance where I see jacking turn sequence is a good thing. The sooner they come to their senses and abolish it, the better.

It has a very rabid fan following that get very angry when you mention removing it.

 auticus wrote:
It has a very rabid fan following that get very angry when you mention removing it.

You mean like the "very rabid fan following" that existed and pissed and moaned about being unable to play without points, putting up nonsense like triple Nagash or triple Archaon as examples of what every game would be like?

You forgot to say "neckbeard" 3 or 4 times as well. If you're going to parrot the same disproven talking points, you may as well stay consistent.

The double turn is definitely the worst part of AoS. I used to consider it important as a mechanism for giving slower armies an opportunity to catch up to more mobile, ranged capable armies. But now armies are being designed with more fulfilled mobility and pressure options in mind, this isn't really an issue anymore. It doesn't present tactical or strategic options so much as it punishes good setups, and does more to reward bad decisions than encourage good ones. If anything, considerations for the double turn push for more passive playstyles.

The double turn. I’m in two minds about it. On the one hand, it can be devastating at times, and if you’re already doing poorly then it’s just extra salt in the wound. But it can also help you bonce back, and it seems to be very popular too. My personal preference is to stick to the old fashioned your turn my turn system though. It’s simple and fair.

I have used double turns and had them used against me. I see their use, but I think I prefer alternating turns.

personally... I'd prefer alternating units, and then warlords or characters could opt to move a unit or so with them, which could help do more damage, but then means you have one activation less this turn.

 Galas wrote:
My problem with Double Turn is not that is tactical or it isnt.

Is just boring. One of the most boring thigs I have ever experienced in a wargame. With how long warhammer turns are, to wait sitting here for two full turns of your opponent. Or worse, to gain you the double turn and feel like you are playing alone, killing models of your opponent while he does literally nothing.

This is exactly the reason why I don't like double turns, and one of the reasons why I'm reluctant to get into AoS.
Having to wait for my opponent to move his entire army again and delete my army before I get to do something does not sound fun. That crap is in Carnage (Multiplayer 40k) and its terrible there. If it were an alternate activation style of game and not UGOIGO then that would be fine, as I know that I would get to do something soon, but having double turns in UGOIGO is just wrong.

The fact that its random isn't great either, as you can never really plan for it. Its basically Russian roulette.

Yeah, League has problems. I blame riot's incompetence as developers and their insistence on making everything flashy for E Sports. They remind me a lot of GW, funnily enough.

ritualnet wrote:
I have used double turns and had them used against me. I see their use, but I think I prefer alternating turns.

personally... I'd prefer alternating units, and then warlords or characters could opt to move a unit or so with them, which could help do more damage, but then means you have one activation less this turn.

I mean, once you get into combat this is exactly how it works. You alternate activations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
The double turn. I’m in two minds about it. On the one hand, it can be devastating at times, and if you’re already doing poorly then it’s just extra salt in the wound. But it can also help you bounce back, and it seems to be very popular too. My personal preference is to stick to the old fashioned your turn my turn system though. It’s simple and fair.

And I think that's where a lot of the hate for it comes from. People don't like being unable to 'fight back'. The hate my Wanderers got at the launch of AoS was ridiculously disproportionate to what they got in 8th, where they were just laughed at and I was told to "get over it" when I couldn't do anything to certain armies without just netlisting things.

Shoe's on the other foot and all of a sudden, I'm a powergamer.

I do like the double turn, it helps simulate the fickle fortunes of battle and can throw a spanner into the best laid plans forcing you to react on the fly. I wouldn't mind if it disappeared though.

I can see it being boring in bigger battles, but both players are heavily involved in the melee phase of the game and if they introduce interrupt stratagems then that will get even better.

The double turn does highlight my gripe with AoS i.e. too much shooting and magic and not enough blocks of infantry slogging away in the battle line.

Without derailing the topic any longer on double turn (Davor created a thread for that subject) - shooting into combat appears to also be staying.

The cinematic spells seem intteresting and I did like the objective counters they put out.

 auticus wrote:
Without derailing the topic any longer on double turn (Davor created a thread for that subject) - shooting into combat appears to also be staying.

We haven't really had what "shooting into combat will be staying" means specifically clarified. It might be that no matter what, you can shoot into combats with no penalties--or it might be that your missile troops who get locked into combat can still shoot while they're in the combat.

The cinematic spells seem interesting and I did like the objective counters they put out.

I really want them to hurry up and discuss the Magic system, because I have some big questions about that and how it interacts with turn priority. Right now, I'm getting the distinct impression that the "remains in play" spells are going to require some form of 'upkeep' to persist and that getting double turns will degrade the performance of them.

That could be. I'm expecting something based on 8th editions remains in play mechanics. They even released that little box of art templates representing the various spells that spun around the table.

My *concern* is rooted in one of the core evils of 8th: ridiculous magic made it so if you weren't min/maxing wizards you might as well go home.

Of course without seeing the spells we won't know. But if thats the case then armies like khorne that don't have wizards are going to be in a bad way.

 auticus wrote:
That could be. I'm expecting something based on 8th editions remains in play mechanics. They even released that little box of art templates representing the various spells that spun around the table.

My *concern* is rooted in one of the core evils of 8th: ridiculous magic made it so if you weren't min/maxing wizards you might as well go home.

I wouldn't be too concerned if the spells have a set duration of turns(it would make Sands of Infinity a bit more of an autotake for Idoneth though) or can be unbound at any point during their lifespan.

Of course without seeing the spells we won't know. But if thats the case then armies like khorne that don't have wizards are going to be in a bad way.

Yeah...of any army, I'm least worried about Khorne. Slaughterpriests can unbind and Bloodsecrators have an 18" forced reroll on successful casting rolls.

Yeah, at last in AoS playing Khorne really feels like being the worshipers of a God that really, really hates magic. Thats one of the things I most like about AoS. They have very very cool rooles and variety, and most factions really feel like how they should feel. Just look at the Daugthers Khaine and how the Avatar of Khaine works, or the Nurgle Cicle of Decay, Tzeentch dice of fate, all of those unique mechanics aren't present in other GW games. 40k is much more uniform (And for that I like it too).

But then you have some basic core rules that are very... "why?". The balance changes (Even if I of course acknowledge they are bad) aren't as important for me because I don't play in a competitive scene so we don't have those problems.

This was in the Ironjawz Faction Focus today, and it goes with this:

They're called "Endless Spells" and they said we'll see more "soon..."

I'm on the fence here.

On the positive side, I like how it looks and it definitely has a cool factor.

On the negative side, in a game that already faps heavily over spamming mortal wounds, adding even more mortal wounds to your list building continues to narrow down what you'll see on the table.

 Kanluwen wrote:

This was in the Ironjawz Faction Focus today, and it goes with this:

They're called "Endless Spells" and they said we'll see more "soon..."

That is badass. Kinda sounds like a physical version of the 40K Vortex of Doom.

Its heavily reminiscent of 8th edition WHFB vortex spells that remained in play, like Purple Sun.

 auticus wrote:
I'm on the fence here.

On the positive side, I like how it looks and it definitely has a cool factor.

On the negative side, in a game that already faps heavily over spamming mortal wounds, adding even more mortal wounds to your list building continues to narrow down what you'll see on the table.

Ehhhh...we don't know how spells are going to change. I'm seriously thinking that Arcane Bolt and a few others are going to be changed into just 'normal' wounds rather than Mortal Wounds.

I'm going on my assumption that the game remains largely how it is today with the #1 priority being spam as many ranged mortal wounds as you can.

I also remember one of the main bad design elements of 8th edition that people hated other than steadfast having no caps and people creating massive blobs of infantry. That being the mandatory level 4 wizards everywhere blowing up armies with their spells.

I really don't want to go back to that. So my cynicism is rooted in something GW has already done.

I don't have as much of a frame of reference here as everyone else, but i'll lend my 2c because this is a discussion forum, and why not.

I haven't played a lot of AoS. I've found the games that don't have a double turn to be pretty fun and interesting. I have found that games involving a double turn are pointless and over immediately as it happens.

Melee combat is built on alternating activations, but shooting, hero powers, casting, command abilities, aren't. Naturally the lists that win when they get a double turn will go heavily in this area... Because you can shoot twice without being shot back, or if you have access to mortal wounds just spam them like crazy twice in a row.

To me it seems like bad design to keep the double turn in there. I would very much prefer every phase was alternating activation, then there really isn't a need to worry about going second or first. It's a minor advantage, at best.

I have run events that used both the LOTR activation phase, as well as a pure alt activation phase.

Both times I did that, I had about 50% of my players very happy with it.

The other 50% went on facebook tirades about why houserules are horrible and how you should just play the game with no houserules because the game was designed around double turns and being able to spam their mortal wounds twice in a row was a feature that they built around, and they were screwed over by not being able to do it.

If you want to get a real gauge on mostly very happy AOS players and how they'll react to removing double turn, go post the suggestion on TGA and see what kind of reactions you receive.

Make sure you wear a hazmat suit first though. And goggles. Always wear goggles.

If you can spend command points to deny a double turn, that would be nice. Hopefully they add that in there.

I still maintain that AoS is perfect for alternating activation. 40k isn't, but AoS is.

 auticus wrote:
I have run events that used both the LOTR activation phase, as well as a pure alt activation phase.

Both times I did that, I had about 50% of my players very happy with it.

The other 50% went on facebook tirades about why houserules are horrible and how you should just play the game with no houserules because the game was designed around double turns and being able to spam their mortal wounds twice in a row was a feature that they built around, and they were screwed over by not being able to do it.

If you want to get a real gauge on mostly very happy AOS players and how they'll react to removing double turn, go post the suggestion on TGA and see what kind of reactions you receive.

Make sure you wear a hazmat suit first though. And goggles. Always wear goggles.

I'm going to be honest:
Anytime you bring house rules into things, unless you get enough forewarning it's going to be an issue.


It's especially going to be a Big Deal when you're specifically doing it to hurt one kind of thing(mortal wound "spamming") but damage everything else.

Oh there is plenty of forewarning lol. Nothing is sprung on anyone at the last second.

First off if I'm doing a tournament event there are no houserules.

But if I'm doing a campaign and I don't want to see those tournament builds squashing casual players, you betcha there will be some rules in place to tone down the most volatile of offenders.

The problem is that the competitive players go into it months in advance knowing that there will be alternate rules, knowing what those alternate rules are, and then get mad anyway.

What they should do is just not play in a casual campaign if they are going to get upset about having their tournament lists clipped and just stick to tournament style games where they can do whatever they want based on whatever popular tournament rules are going at the time.

That goes back into there is a time and a place for everything. A casual campaign focused on telling a narrative where guys that don't want to tournament game or chase the meta can go to play a public event is not the place to show up with your stormcast that have a 2+ rerollable save and the ability to dish out 45 mortal wounds a turn. Thats for adepticon or LVO or events leading up to that.

I've also always used campaigns to test out new ideas. My fondest wish would be for people not interested in rules changes and just want to competitive game with RAW to stick to events that do that and not try to rip up events that they don't like by going to them anyway and then getting super angry.