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.

Karol wrote:

 Overread wrote:


I think part of the "un fun" is just learning things a little differently. I think the key is that Ossiarchs will punish anyone who just wants to mindlessly charge forward and fight. It's not a bad thing that there's an army which is going to make people learn some alternative methods of play. Of focusing attacks on specific regions; taking out key units; focusing fire; holding back; using tarpit chockepoint units etc... I don't see that as a negative, just that Ossiarchs are perhaps going to force some to learn better play rather than it being a whole game thing.
.

what about armies that only have a massive charge as their only valid way to play?

I don't think there are any.
Oh to be sure there are many close combat only armies or armies where ranged options are few and might not appear on the battlefield often. However there are no armies which work simply by putting models down and running toward the enemy without thinking.


Like I said for Ossiarchs going against them you might well consider focusing on moving faster units forward to secure objectives early for points because the Reapers can likely not reach them in the first turn nor perhaps the second. Sure they can use spells and some abilities to boost speed, but not over the whole army at once.
You might use that to your advantage; setting down faster chaff units to tarpit the ossiarchs - you don't aim to beat them just to slow them so that they cannot easily reach objectives that you now hold and contest. Deny them points for enough turns and they cannot then move onto them in the latter turns. Even if they win through martial means they lose through objectives.

Other aspects might be charging so that you focus your heavier hitters and rending units at very specific Ossiarch units. Aiming not to engage them all at once but to take out units. Ossiarchs don't summon, they repair and replace. This means if you can take an entire unit off the table they can't bring it back. Maybe you go for that Harvester, skirting your fast close combat units around the Guard; maybe you avoid one whole half of the game board knowing that the Reapers can take 1 objective there, but not have the speed to come around to secure the middle and the one on your side. They have no deep-striking units so they can't suddenly throw down units behind your lines like Daughters of Khaine might with Khinerai.


Again its about thinking about the game several turns ahead and also not just playing into the ossiarchs strength. Their strength is long lasting close combat whilst dealing effective wounds. Their weakneses are mortal wounds; speed; if they don't take a crawler they've no range outside of spells.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Ossiarchs are riddled with design issues where elements may not be -unbalanced- but are absolutely -unfun- to play against. Also petrifax elite obviously need to be nerfed, but everyone knows that and has known that since the preview where we were saying "either that blanket +1 to saves has a big downside or that sub-faction is OP."

I think part of the "un fun" is just learning things a little differently. I think the key is that Ossiarchs will punish anyone who just wants to mindlessly charge forward and fight. It's not a bad thing that there's an army which is going to make people learn some alternative methods of play. Of focusing attacks on specific regions; taking out key units; focusing fire; holding back; using tarpit chockepoint units etc... I don't see that as a negative, just that Ossiarchs are perhaps going to force some to learn better play rather than it being a whole game thing.

I also agree that Summoning has often been a huge issue. Heck I'm not a fan of how depravity works by the nature of basically making you only want to take leaders and then summon more leaders into a slaanesh force. It cuts out loads of deamonet, chariot and fiend heavy army combinations which I think takes some of the fun out of building a Slaanesh army. I was sad to see the "double depravity bubble" in the White Dwarf issue. I guess their thinking was that encouraging all those units to be taken instead of leaders meant that they wanted a mechanic to boost depravity because you were "sacrificing" so much to take more troops. However in practice it also works even if you don't take loads of troops so suddenly its giving you an insane bonus.

A catapult shoots your character from 36" away, rolls some dice, and your character is instantly slain. Your opponent is camping an objective with a unit that has 3+ re-rollable saves and the faction you play has no troops with rend -2. You try to snipe an ossiarch character only to realize the unit 3" behind it intercepts wounds on a 2+. The main caster for your army is stuck at -1 to cast/unbind the whole game because of a terrain feature sitting in the middle of the board. To say these things can just be 'played around' is a slap in the face for many factions who, in fact, can't.

Now they may be balanced on a broader sense due to the point costs involved, but it's the sort of mechanic that frustrates me as a community organizer. I cringe at the thought of a new player encountering such a thing, because they may not have the experience or units to do something about it or even realize that something can be done.

I was that new player. My first game of AoS this week was unmitigated disaster. If was fairly new to miniatures wargames I would quit the hobby on the spot and never looked back after what I went through. If my opponent wasn't so friendly, even I would seriously considered stopping playing any sort of PUG ever again. Maybe take an extended break from the hobby too.

My game was 500 points Slaves to Darkness (Sorcerer, Chaos Warriors (Shields) x5, Chaos Warriors (Shields) x5, Chaos Knights x5 (Glaives) vs. Bonereapers (Boneshaper, Guard x10, Stalkers x3 I think). The Bonereapers also had the bird endless spell whatever it does. It never made it on the table. The mission was just kill the other side. I was tabled early in round 3 after the Bonereaper double Initiative. I caused 3 causalities that got up again. So I literally lost my entire force while not causing any causalities to my opponent's.

I thought even at 500 points we still had to have minimum requires of 3 battleline units so I split up my warriors (big mistake on my part). I further made the mistake to spread my force out and lead with my knights. I made a lot of big tactical blunders in the game. Just the same, I don't really think I could have managed to get the charge with all my units and some how fit them all within 1" and still manage to take out even the Guard before being torn to pieces by the rest of the force. My impression of the guard was they either were or could be buffed to hit more often and make my save practically worthless while being hard as nails (something I thought my force would be with heavy armor, shields and Mark of Tzeentch but weren't) and having a kind of reanimation protocol. Heck, being on smaller bases allow my opponent to get more attack in since they could first rant, second rank far better than I could. The only weakness I can say they seemed to have was kinda more expensive per wound and low-ish movement, but I think they have way to increase that for a unit too if they really need to. I also wouldn't call being 1" slowing than my footmen really being slow either. I currently don't really have any ranged weapons (Iron Golems Bolas and the Untamed Beasts harpoon don't look like something to hang a hat on) so I don't have much of an option but to get stuck in. Outside my Knight Glaives on the charge, I don't have any Rend to weaken their Save and my Terror Tactics has no effect.

I am not complaining. Just pointing how my first game felt getting absolutely drummed. It is still early in the League, and I am brand new to the game. I also appear to have a very under-performing faction and limited options to reach minimum points for my games. I know I was fielding my force very poorly and didn't make the most of them since I am literally using the datasheets (or warscrolls I guess) that came with the models. However, I never did expect that I could l play a miniatures wargame where I could get tabled and not cause a single casualty to the enemy. I am going to keep playing in this league. Though, me picking up more models for AoS has been greatly reduced at this point. I am already building and painting what I have more for using running a D&D game than playing AoS now. How the rest of the league goes and if the new S2D battletomb doesn't continue to keep the faction terrible (or goes too far and makes them OP) will decide whether I continue or join with auticus in shelving my army remains to be seen.

Your playgroup did you a disservice by not warning you how much of a burning trash fire slaves to darkness are. And if their book is only khorne or goblin level powerful (which I suspect will be the case) you will still get drummed by the four or so power factions that are popular.

 Overread wrote:
Again its about thinking about the game several turns ahead and also not just playing into the ossiarchs strength. Their strength is long lasting close combat whilst dealing effective wounds. Their weakneses are mortal wounds; speed; if they don't take a crawler they've no range outside of spells.

Funny thing is I thought good portion of those things were going to be my armies strengths and weaknesses. A far I can tell S2D have the lasting in close combat as long as I don't have to deal with Rend -2, Bravery not withstanding, and not being all that fast (Chaos Warriors are really only a 1" faster). I don't deal effective wounds, but I do have something to protect from mortal wounds. I definitely don't see much ranged weapons in my faction though.

 auticus wrote:
Your playgroup did you a disservice by not warning you how much of a burning trash fire slaves to darkness are. And if their book is only khorne or goblin level powerful (which I suspect will be the case) you will still get drummed by the four or so power factions that are popular.

Well I knew they were bad. But I figured they would be like ten man squads of CSM x3 for your troop choice bad. I would lose every game, but I would at least make the opposing army hurt a little doing so. This is next level bad.

Indeed. They are trash fire bad. They have been trash fire bad even in 2015 with the very first scrolls. I have no idea who designed their warscrolls or how inept they must be as game designers to have allowed those to exist in the condition that they are.

I say that because at that very same time, stormcast warscrolls also were out, and David & Goliath isn't even being fair to discern the differences between the two power levels.

The chaos knights, one of the most awesome units in the narrative, instilling fear in the heart of any opponents... have nerf lances and their weapons are sheathed in rubber so as not to hurt anyone.

The only shining star in that entire list were the chaos warriors for their tanking abilities.

But no damage abilities at all mean you can't hurt the other guy, and you can't win games by having rubber weapons.

Definite agreement in the fact that regular warriors and knights have been disappointing since the beginning. My very first game in 1.0 I took three units of 10, multiple daemon princes, Archaon and Hellcannons. The Warriors did nothing but tarpit. Their damage output was garbage. I expect them to become a force to be reckoned with next month. But right now...winning with them against the new power toy...not gonna work at all. If you use a currently supported army, you’re likely to have a good game. Using an army that hasn’t received an update won’t work. Judge them when they get an update.

Of course there's also the fact that 500pts games are complete joke in terms of any balance. The games starts being properly balanced at 1500, and is balanced (as much as any GW game can) at 2k. The lower you get, the worse the power balance gets, at 500pts all it takes is one strong unit to dismantle most of the army.

So Aos has a random double turn mechanic?

 Argive wrote:
So Aos has a random double turn mechanic?

Yes Initiative is rolled every game turn, so if you went second there's a chance you can win initiative and go first the next round, effectively getting two turns in a row (e.g. Round 1 go second, Round 2 go first) before your opponent can do anything.

It's simultaneously the most hated and liked feature of the game. It adds a lot of dynamic to it, just it's very polarizing because if the player who is "ahead" gets a double turn, there's a good chance they can just dominate the enemy and decide the game. A lot of house rules ignore it, but there's also a lot that feels it's a good thing

Personally its my observation that its very rare to lose a game if you get a doubleturn within the first handful of turns. Furthermore it means that an opponent has to spend two turns only able to roll saves and remove models. If they are against a ranged army that's all they can do - agianst a close combat one each combat is done one at a time alternating who starts first; however its again only reacting to combats rather than being able to start fresh ones.

Overall its something I wish they'd move to Open Play. For competitive you can't plan for it save to not move for a turn (ergo hold back) which is pretty pointless in a game of only 6 rounds (at most) where most objectives are going to be out in the middle of the table.


Some like it because they either get it more often than they don't others like it because "its random and other games don't do it (probably cause its really not a good idea)". Some seem to like it just because its "AoS" and such.
Personally I find that whenever I read reviews I see far too many situations where whoever gets a doubleturn first tends to win the game.

The double turn is the worst aspect of AOS in my opinion. The biggest buzz kill and negative play experience that exists. Even more so than when 3 keepers generate another 2000 free points in your mouth and tell you to take it.

It would be cool if you had alternate activation with that mechanic, because then its not as impactful and you're not standing there for two full rounds taking it in the face while doing nothing at all but removing models while your opponent lulz.

Me and my group house rule out the random initiative. It’s almost literally never fun and is always annoying. You feel bad when you do it to someone, and the other person sighs and accepts defeat.
We’ve been having a lot more fun since we stopped using it.

Yaaaaaiks!!

I usually go second and tell my opponent I won't be double-turning them, even if it means losing. Given a choice of house rule I've found I like deploy-first-go-first where one player puts everything down first but gets first turn, and initiative alternates.

Love the double turn myself. It means every game has a chance of being different.

And Jervis had some things to say about the double turn in last months White Dwarf that I tend to agree with, and loved that he addressed it.

 nels1031 wrote:
Love the double turn myself. It means every game has a chance of being different.

And Jervis had some things to say about the double turn in last months White Dwarf that I tend to agree with, and loved that he addressed it.

care to summarize? I don't always buy White Dwarf and it's been years since they've let you backorder

 nels1031 wrote:
Love the double turn myself. It means every game has a chance of being different.

Surely just an opponent who thinks and ins't just charging forward mindlessly also makes every game different on its own.
For me the problem is that the doubleturn is such a powerful game swinging element that relies on a single dice roll. That's not a chance based game that's just boiling the whole game down to a handful of key dice rolls.

Wayniac wrote:

 nels1031 wrote:
Love the double turn myself. It means every game has a chance of being different.

And Jervis had some things to say about the double turn in last months White Dwarf that I tend to agree with, and loved that he addressed it.

care to summarize? I don't always buy White Dwarf and it's been years since they've let you backorder

I'll hit you up later, at work. Its not a whole lot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:

Surely just an opponent who thinks and ins't just charging forward mindlessly also makes every game different on its own.

Counterpoint: Surely just an opponent who thinks and isn't just charging forward mindlessly is able to work with the priority roll, win or lose.

 Overread wrote:
For me the problem is that the doubleturn is such a powerful game swinging element that relies on a single dice roll. That's not a chance based game that's just boiling the whole game down to a handful of key dice rolls.

It is indeed powerful, not disputing that, but its a unique mechanic that I've come to enjoy for what it is. Its won me some games that I thought I was losing and vice versa. Doesn't bother me, and I think folks that home brew their solution to what they feel is a problem only open up more complex balance and game play conundrums. At a glance, at least. I have no qualms with that, if its what makes them enjoy the game more, more power to them but its not for me.

Does any AoS youtuber play with alternating turns that I can see how it actually functions? I only see folks on forums say that they do the more traditional WHFB turn sequence and it always leaves me with a lot of questions.

I go, you go, you go, you win wouldn't make for a good battle report video.

I don't like the double turn. Regardless of it's impact on the game it simply isn't a fun mechanic. If it were an optional rule I suspect the overwhelming majority of players would not use it.

I go, you go, you go, you win wouldn't make for a good battle report video.

It doesn't make for a good game period, particularly a game you pay hundreds of dollars to play.

My AOS campaigns for five years have now used alternate activation sequence of units. It was wildly more popular than double turn so was accepted by my community as our way of playing. (been voted in 100% for the past three campaigns out of 15 or so players)

The latest incarnation that they are playing right now is here:

http://www.louisvillewargaming.com/Files/Kingmaker.pdf

It has the alt activation rules detailed within.

Overread wrote:Ossiarchs I don't see being adjusted yet, they are too fresh, though in fairness its mostly Petrifax (the +1 save) that people have issues with. I think the rest of the army "issues" is people learning that you don't beat them by charging them fast and trying to beat them all up at once - target prioritizing and maximising early game advantage and location/objective securing to put the Ossiarch player in an early uphill struggle

Hang on. Wait up.
The new army is too new to be balanced? How long do they get to stomp new players and everyone else?
The fact that people have come to accept this kind of bs somehow is *nods to OP* is why I am not playing AoS. Seriously? "This army is new so I guess I'll just loose then". How is that remotely acceptable to anyone? The army should have been balanced from the start, most companies need to adjust things or fix a typo, but this gak is ridiculous.
GW so obviously doesn't give a feth about putting out a good game, they care about the new release selling.

The good news is not that Slaves to Darkness are getting new rules. Those rules will disappoint you like every new edition, or battle tome has.
The good news is that the new player can use those models for other games.

The General's Handbook is usually released in June. I doubt we'll see any adjustments for the Ossiarch Bonereapers before then.

Wayniac wrote:
care to summarize? I don't always buy White Dwarf and it's been years since they've let you backorder

Its from JJ’s article, the broader theme being that dealing with bad luck is part of the game and how you can take steps to mitigate it. The quote below is only about 1/10th of the article.

THE DREADED DOUBLE TURN
Nowhere is the importance of forward planning more obvious than in the vexed issue of the dreaded ‘double turn’. This is where the player that move second in the last round wins the roll to pick the player who goes first in the next round and in effect gets two turns in a row. Because the player order stays the same if the dice roll is tied, the odds are slightly against the double turn, albeit not by much. This means that it quite often happens during a game, and I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve been told that a game was won ‘just because the winner got to do a double turn’. Now, I’m not going to try and say that getting a double turn can’t have an impact on the outcome of a battle, but it isby no means such a sure thing as some might say. How do I know this? Well it’s because people like Jack Armstrong and Ben Johnson can play through two or three tournaments in a row, against tough opponents, and not lose a single game. The chance of their being able to do this without suffering a double turn now and then is pretty much zero, which means that they still won the games when it happens. And how do they do this? By planning for it and making their moves accordingly, so that they will never be defeated just because an opponent got lucky and took two turns in a row. Specifically, they make their moves in such a way that if they suffer a double turn it will not be catastrophic for them, rather than making their moves on the assumption that the double turn will not happen (and then blaming bad luck for the loss if it does!).

But the only planning for a double turn I can see is just holding back until the dice says you’re safe to go. To me it’s like sitting in an intersection, looking at the red light as your opponent dominates the table and takes all the objectives, because if you head out you’re likely to get violently destroyed by oncoming traffic.
I’m by no means a tactical genius, and probably not overly smart, but to me it’s just an annoyance and hinders fun in all ways.

 Tiberius501 wrote:
But the only planning for a double turn I can see is just holding back until the dice says you’re safe to go. To me it’s like sitting in an intersection, looking at the red light as your opponent dominates the table and takes all the objectives, because if you head out you’re likely to get violently destroyed by oncoming traffic.
I’m by no means a tactical genius, and probably not overly smart, but to me it’s just an annoyance and hinders fun in all ways.

Not to mention many competitive players pick top tier factions which through the sheer power of their battletomes can more than manage to weather double turn from weaker factions. And when those powerful factions get double turn for themselves, in many cases it is game over for the weaker factions. Hedonites taking double turn to summon keepers two turn is vastly different from, say, slaves to darkness or gloomspites taking double tirn.

I also read Jervis Johnson's White Dwarf article with great scepticism.
It is because I think he is a wargame designer most unsuitable for competitive play.
Long time ago, he wrote in his article that wargames without points are the best ones.
He does not seem to have changed his opinion.
Early this year, in White Dwarf issue he wrote that games without points are ideal and matched play was initiated due to great demand from customers.

My impression was that he begrudgingly accepted matched play as an official format only because of market demand.

 auticus wrote:


My AOS campaigns for five years have now

AoS isn’t even 5 years old.

 auticus wrote:

It has the alt activation rules detailed within.

Jesus, I’d rather play the I go, You go, I go method than play that. Seems more random than the double turn and not to mention convoluted. How many points are your campaign games?

Roll for Initiative
Before a unit activates, players roll a D6 and the highest activates a unit. Ties go to the player that did not have the last activation. This adds some random element in the game of not knowing when you will activate next, and having to be careful with overextending forces lest you get a cold hand and not get the supporting units up in time. This initiative lasts until all players have activated a unit.

So you have to plan for the unknown, which is decided by a dice roll. Sounds familiar...

I already know that everything about how i like to play is polar opposite to how you play and that you and I would never face off against each other pretty much ever even if we were next door neighbors *shrug*

Seems more random than the double turn and not to mention convoluted.

Our campaign games are 2000 points.

Its not random at all. You activate an entire unit then I activate an entire unit. There's nothing random about it other than who gets to activate the first unit. Additionally for convoluted, I guess I'm a product of the 80s and older editions of games that go beyond 4 pages of pew pew. Everyone seems to pick up the system after the first game, and a lot of those guys are new to wargaming in general, so my experience over the past few years is that its pretty easy for almost everyone universally to pick it up, and even the ones that don't like it like you would pick it up quite fast, though complain its convoluted ... because truthfully when compared against 4 pages of pew pew it is a lot more complex. If someone's primary goal is a four page pew pew ruleset then sure this wouldn't be their cup of tea.

So you have to plan for the unknown, which is decided by a dice roll. Sounds familiar...

Except that you don't stand there for two entire turns straight taking it in the face which pretty much everyone I know, and the majority of people I talk to online hate.

The number of people that cheer for double turn always seem to be a very tiny minority.

I would anticipate with the GW surveys being a thing now that the double turn will be transformed in the next version of the game. I have a feeling that the mechanic in warcry will be a lot closer to your new reality than the current manifestation. I'd bet the farm that 3rd ed won't have the current version of double turn... or the new whfb whatever that is will be their more complicated ruleset which will let people like me not have to endure four page pew pew any longer. One or the other. We have a few years to wait though for that.

(pew pew doesn't mean poop it means pew pew noises)

 auticus wrote:
I already know that everything about how i like to play is polar opposite to how you play and that you and I would never face off against each other pretty much ever even if we were next door neighbors *shrug*

Meh, I’d like to think we’d give it the old college try. At least with AoS.

 auticus wrote:
go beyond 4 pages of pew pew.

Core rules of AoS have been 18 pages cover to cover since Soul Wars. And thats bare minimum. The recently released 89 page Gaming Book plus Battletome of choice is more indicative of what you’ll need to play fully nowadays.

 auticus wrote:
Except that you don't stand there for two entire turns straight taking it in the face which pretty much everyone I know, and the majority of people I talk to online hate.

Which doesn’t happen every game, lets be honest. I feel like alot of hyperbole surrounds that mechanic on both sides of the argument if were being truthful.

 auticus wrote:
The number of people that cheer for double turn always seem to be a very tiny minority.

Might just be confirmation bias, but I feel the opposite. And we probably operate in separate circles.

 auticus wrote:
I would anticipate with the GW surveys being a thing now that the double turn will be transformed in the next version of the game. I have a feeling that the mechanic in warcry will be a lot closer to your new reality than the current manifestation.

I’d be cool with that. I’m not married to the concept of the double turn, I just think most solutions to the problem create their own set of problems when looked at with a bit of scrutiny. Your alternate activation rules for instance completely changes the landscape of balance and how certain mechanics work and not for the better imo. Not to mention needing tokens. There is already enough gak on the board in base AoS.

 auticus wrote:
I'd bet the farm that 3rd ed won't have the current version of double turn...

Would be interesting to see, and after some thought, sounds like something GW would do to reset battletomes. $$$!

 auticus wrote:
or the new whfb whatever that is will be their more complicated ruleset which will let people like me not have to endure four page pew pew any longer.

There are plenty of games out there now. And theres the 4 page thing again. No offence, but that seems like a weird fixation for a dude that should know its been alot more than 4 pages for some time.

 nels1031 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
care to summarize? I don't always buy White Dwarf and it's been years since they've let you backorder

Its from JJ’s article, the broader theme being that dealing with bad luck is part of the game and how you can take steps to mitigate it. The quote below is only about 1/10th of the article.

THE DREADED DOUBLE TURN
Nowhere is the importance of forward planning more obvious than in the vexed issue of the dreaded ‘double turn’. This is where the player that move second in the last round wins the roll to pick the player who goes first in the next round and in effect gets two turns in a row. Because the player order stays the same if the dice roll is tied, the odds are slightly against the double turn, albeit not by much. This means that it quite often happens during a game, and I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve been told that a game was won ‘just because the winner got to do a double turn’. Now, I’m not going to try and say that getting a double turn can’t have an impact on the outcome of a battle, but it isby no means such a sure thing as some might say. How do I know this? Well it’s because people like Jack Armstrong and Ben Johnson can play through two or three tournaments in a row, against tough opponents, and not lose a single game. The chance of their being able to do this without suffering a double turn now and then is pretty much zero, which means that they still won the games when it happens. And how do they do this? By planning for it and making their moves accordingly, so that they will never be defeated just because an opponent got lucky and took two turns in a row. Specifically, they make their moves in such a way that if they suffer a double turn it will not be catastrophic for them, rather than making their moves on the assumption that the double turn will not happen (and then blaming bad luck for the loss if it does!).

Having read the article it more or less just says this in several different ways. Like nearly all pieces defending the double turn it emphasizes that it 'can be planned for' and goes to great lengths emphasizing that it 'can be planned for' yet never provides a single specific example of what that looks like. Why? Because in practice the plan is to either secure second turn with low drop count, or alpha strike so hard there isn't enough enemy left to capitalize on a double. Both of those happen in the listbuilding, which is why tournament players manage to do consistently well in spite of the double turn existing. I know, because I've done it. My original tourney army was specifically built to exploit getting double turns.

As someone trying to come back to the game I too find the "play expecting it" odd advice for mitigating the double turn.

The top tier armies seem like they put out savage shooting damage or have such crazy movement that anything outside turtling in a corner won't end well. And if you do that how far behind on the turn based objective scoring are you?

Some details examples of it in action would be really helpful.