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.

Super exicted with the Slaanesh preview today. Will just continue my own work on making my own mortals of slaanesh, which I'm perfectly fine with. New spells, neat ways to play the army, and fun rules interactions are what I always wanted.

If it's viable I may reboot my all-cavalry Slaanesh army. I had one but sold it off when GHB1 made it non-legal. If only I had known GHB2 would change that.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
If it's viable I may reboot my all-cavalry Slaanesh army. I had one but sold it off when GHB1 made it non-legal. If only I had known GHB2 would change that.

Out of interest how did you transport such an army? Even if the points change, right now one can put a silly number of chariots (regular and all the way to exalted) as well as seekers into a single army. Even at 1K points, let alone going toward 2K.

Also did you put the whips on everything or stick to the blades purely for the ease of not having long whips to risk breaking on so many models.

Ok I should be fair that there was a KoS so it wasn't *all* cavalry. I had two gorebeast chariots, 12 horsemen with javelins, 6 knights, 3 fiends, 6 seekers, a smattering of characters, and the battalion from everchosen. Altogether it ate up a good chunk of points. The 24 hellstriders also did, for that matter...

And yeah, I skipped out on whips. Dealing with those is among Slaanesh's most evil torments.

I didn't use a case but rather an open-topped plastic box-tray-thing I had around.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I know that in my circles the Double Turn is getting more and more dislike as time goes on. Even the hardiest of caac players are getting bothered by it. I also know of quite a few players who don't want to commit or get into AoS because they do not like the Double Turn mechanic.

GW probably wants to keep it because it makes AoS "Different", but I do wonder what it might cost in the long run. I just know I am tired of getting double-turned while facing a Nagash spell caster army. Feels like I can just take a coffee break and then get an update on how many mortal wounds were caused when I return.

We are having more or less the opposite here. Even the most competitive guys do not mind, or outright like, double turn. And generally speaking they are not game deciding in my experience of the games.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I know that in my circles the Double Turn is getting more and more dislike as time goes on. Even the hardiest of caac players are getting bothered by it. I also know of quite a few players who don't want to commit or get into AoS because they do not like the Double Turn mechanic.

GW probably wants to keep it because it makes AoS "Different", but I do wonder what it might cost in the long run. I just know I am tired of getting double-turned while facing a Nagash spell caster army. Feels like I can just take a coffee break and then get an update on how many mortal wounds were caused when I return.

We are having more or less the opposite here. Even the most competitive guys do not mind, or outright like, double turn. And generally speaking they are not game deciding in my experience of the games.

I set up to get the double turns, 1 drop armies, let them go 1st and hope for double turn. I hate double turns.

My group unanimously voted to be rid of the double turn.

To be completely honest, the way AOS has been going just has soured me on it. It feels like they are going TOO crazy about everything. I'm sure it will even out over time but as of now it's just constant tome creep upon tome creep.

I think I'll be focusing on 40k for the time being. Try as I might I just can't get "into" the AOS vibe right now.

That was their stated goal yeah - we're going to go nuts with everything. And if everything is nuts then everything is fine.

Which is true. But as long as there are factions not nuts....

Conquest is released in a couple months

Wayniac wrote:
To be completely honest, the way AOS has been going just has soured me on it. It feels like they are going TOO crazy about everything. I'm sure it will even out over time but as of now it's just constant tome creep upon tome creep.

I think I'll be focusing on 40k for the time being. Try as I might I just can't get "into" the AOS vibe right now.

Speaking as a Wanderers, Scourge Privateers/Shadowblades, and Idoneth player...I'm fine with the pace and balance right now. The only thing I'm concerned with is them actually getting armies out. Balance can be sorted a bit more over time, but we're now two editions in and some factions still have yet to see Allegiance abilities let alone Battletomes.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I know that in my circles the Double Turn is getting more and more dislike as time goes on. Even the hardiest of caac players are getting bothered by it. I also know of quite a few players who don't want to commit or get into AoS because they do not like the Double Turn mechanic.

GW probably wants to keep it because it makes AoS "Different", but I do wonder what it might cost in the long run. I just know I am tired of getting double-turned while facing a Nagash spell caster army. Feels like I can just take a coffee break and then get an update on how many mortal wounds were caused when I return.

We are having more or less the opposite here. Even the most competitive guys do not mind, or outright like, double turn. And generally speaking they are not game deciding in my experience of the games.

I was able to observe the games at a recent GT near me. Naturally there were a lot of round 1-2 doubles by virtue of so many games being played. I remember one where they player who got it lost (the other player got the round 2-3 double).

Similarly, I can count on one hand the number of games where I have gotten the 1-2 double and lost.

That is my experience, so I imagine anyone can see why I would be heavily against it.

My experience is the same. Largely he who gets the first double 9 times out of 10 wins the game.

Between that and standing there two turns in a row doing nothing but removing models is why its hated where I am.

So I finally got around to finishing my read of the new Fyreslayers. A really great battletome. The rewritten warscrolls continue the Khorne trend of better design, less gimmicky, and more tactical. The point costs are pretty well balanced barring hearthguard berzerkers, which are so wildly out of whack I wonder if there was simply an error along the line. Not many battalions but then there are not many units, and the battalions available have good and thematic benefits. The specific loges aren't tremendously well balanced but not really bad either; they add more than they take away.

The fluff is excellent. A ton of extra details packed in there beyond just what the army does on the battlefield. Insights into society, rituals, history, etc are welcome for a fluff lover like me. A bunch of paint scheme examples, some guides including a bit on doing volcanic bases, much-improved paint work for Greyfyrd, and lots of other little bits in there.

Really good work overall.

As the game stands today, is there any reason why rolling for the turn is still a thing? Game mechanic reasons?

I gotta say, I'm a big supporter of scrapping it. I do think it works pretty well in Underworlds though.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I know that in my circles the Double Turn is getting more and more dislike as time goes on. Even the hardiest of caac players are getting bothered by it. I also know of quite a few players who don't want to commit or get into AoS because they do not like the Double Turn mechanic.

GW probably wants to keep it because it makes AoS "Different", but I do wonder what it might cost in the long run. I just know I am tired of getting double-turned while facing a Nagash spell caster army. Feels like I can just take a coffee break and then get an update on how many mortal wounds were caused when I return.

We are having more or less the opposite here. Even the most competitive guys do not mind, or outright like, double turn. And generally speaking they are not game deciding in my experience of the games.

I was able to observe the games at a recent GT near me. Naturally there were a lot of round 1-2 doubles by virtue of so many games being played. I remember one where they player who got it lost (the other player got the round 2-3 double).

Similarly, I can count on one hand the number of games where I have gotten the 1-2 double and lost.

That is my experience, so I imagine anyone can see why I would be heavily against it.

Aye its a mechanic where whoever gets it first has an extremely likely chance of winning, whilst at the same time the opponent not only has to sit there for two full turns doing nothing but rolling saves and removing models; but increasingly will have the view that they've just lost the game. Even if they could win chances are their moral is broken and the fun sapped out of the game.

Honestly most of those I see who like the mechanic either state that they've hardly encountered it in their own games (ergo its more that its so random for them that they don't mind losing or winning the odd game due to it); or they "want a greater challenge". The latter is fine, but the latter is why we've got open and narrative play. You can build more challenge into the system if you want; you can play with missmatched points etc... I just don't feel that missmatch should be in the core balanced rules.

Sadly it seems GW really likes it and its going to be hard thing to push out of the system, even though I think that its possibly the single biggest issue with the rules as they are now.

They came at the issue several different ways in the survey which I think means they might be open to adjusting it.

Double turn is a really, really bad mechanic. It is bad from a game balance point of view, as it makes the game be decided by random chance rather than player choices.
It is bad from a narrative point of view, because it makes no sense for your army to stand there doing nothing while the other army goes into overdrive.
It is bad from a fun point of view as your only participation for a very long period of time is removing your models.
I don't see how anyone benefits from this. The fact that GW includes it convinces me that they have a deeply unprofessional and incompetent design team.

Sadly it seems GW really likes it and its going to be hard thing to push out of the system, even though I think that its possibly the single biggest issue with the rules as they are now.

Its not just GW. Whenever I am involved in a discussion on double turns it seems I get run out of the room because double turn is the greatest thing to ever happen to wargaming to a lot of people.

It is said to be hugely tactical (though I have never once had anyone explain or show a report that illustrates other than "you have to sometimes hold some models back so they don't get double turned" - but you're talking about a game where people can teleport or charge across the table in a turn so I don't see where that goes really)

It is said to be "exciting" because if you get the double turn you will likely be at a huge advantage, and that outweighs the times you don't get it.

That is amazing. Different strokes for different folks I suppose, but wargames take too long to set up and prepare for to have them be so dependent on pure random chance. Snakes and Ladders has a lot less time investment for the same experience.

auticus wrote:

Sadly it seems GW really likes it and its going to be hard thing to push out of the system, even though I think that its possibly the single biggest issue with the rules as they are now.

Its not just GW. Whenever I am involved in a discussion on double turns it seems I get run out of the room because double turn is the greatest thing to ever happen to wargaming to a lot of people.

It is said to be hugely tactical (though I have never once had anyone explain or show a report that illustrates other than "you have to sometimes hold some models back so they don't get double turned" - but you're talking about a game where people can teleport or charge across the table in a turn so I don't see where that goes really)

It is said to be "exciting" because if you get the double turn you will likely be at a huge advantage, and that outweighs the times you don't get it.

GW is willing to change their stance on it, there is a reason why they asked multi large GT's about it and the community survey.

It is one of my dearest hopes to see it gone. However we will likely never know the true result of the survey. We will only be able to divine the tea leaves by some GHB 2020 change, but that leaves us a whole other year of having to have it in our game or houseruling it out.

The only way I've come up with for avoiding the double turn is by outdropping my opponent and giving away the first turn. If I win the turn subsequently I can then give it up and ensure "I go you go". If my opponent wins they almost always go first.

The problem with this though, the speed of things these days, if you don't go first, chances are you're spending turn on turn trying to knock the opponent off objectives.

 lare2 wrote:
The only way I've come up with for avoiding the double turn is by outdropping my opponent and giving away the first turn. If I win the turn subsequently I can then give it up and ensure "I go you go". If my opponent wins they almost always go first.

The problem with this though, the speed of things these days, if you don't go first, chances are you're spending turn on turn trying to knock the opponent off objectives.

That is the real argument for rolled initiative; first turn is an advantage and sometimes a rather significant one. It is nowhere near the advantage that a double turn gives; even with a 1/3 chance I see it being assumed in conversations that everyone wants to go second and the point of low-drop deployment referred to as 'secure second turn'.

Pushing VP from objectives to the end of the round (instead of turn) would go a long way. The issue would then be alpha-strike builds being a problem. But those are already an issue with the double turn in place so the solution would be addressing those specifically. Though it could also be tackled with something along the lines of a matched play rule where all bonuses to charge rolls are ignored round 1, or more scenarios that penalize reserves.

First turn super advantage is indeed annoying but if I have to choose between the two I'll take first turn advantage over double turn.

Its at least more engaging.

Get rid of who deploys first picks first turn (i wouldn't mind who deploys first gets +1 to the turn roll) and screen properly and I don't see it being anywhere near the negative play experience that it is today.

I'll be super interested in seeing the results on the survey in relation to Priority Rolls.

I love turn priority. But then I've yet to lose when my opponent gets it so my bias is probably showing.

I voted to keep turn priority, take away single drop battalions, and change how going first is determined.

Interested to see where this takes us

@Auticus

You're describing 40k deployment and first turn which would make this pretty much a 40k clone with fantasy models. Personally I like the core of each game feeling different and don't want it to be close combat 40k.

auticus wrote:
First turn super advantage is indeed annoying but if I have to choose between the two I'll take first turn advantage over double turn.

Its at least more engaging.

Get rid of who deploys first picks first turn (i wouldn't mind who deploys first gets +1 to the turn roll) and screen properly and I don't see it being anywhere near the negative play experience that it is today.

I personally prefer having the double turn over first turn super advantage any day. However, I would agree with getting rid of whoever deploys first getting priority. First turn should really be a roll off with first deployed winning ties.

I think alternating activation by unit would be an excellent thing to add to the game. The rules are generally modular enough that you could do it. It reduces the random element and keeps both players engaged, as well as giving a lot more decision points and making play more dynamic.

Alternate by phase, do the shooting phase 'I pick, you pick' like the combat phase. Two combat phases, the second having reverse initiative to the first.

I also think that shooting should alternate between units like combat does. And that goes for 40k too.