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.
2021/06/15 00:15:56
Subject: Age of Sigmar N & R: AoS v3 and Dominion p.172.
What happens if the Warlord is in BTB and decides to use this ability and then rolls a total of "2"?
With wording of "must finish the move more than 3" from enemy units", does this mean if you can't end up more than 3" away nothing happens and you don't move at all?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/15 00:16:18
-
2021/06/15 00:31:55
Subject: Age of Sigmar N & R: AoS v3 and Dominion p.172.
What happens if the Warlord is in BTB and decides to use this ability and then rolls a total of "2"?
With wording of "must finish the move more than 3" from enemy units", does this mean if you can't end up more than 3" away nothing happens and you don't move at all?
Exactly. It would also apply if there are lots of enemy units nearby such that even if you got two 6s (12 inches movement), you'd still never be able to move outside of being 3 inches from enemy models.
changemod wrote: I mean, I know I immediately joked at some friends that the "no complaining about luck" rule on the code page is their patch for still having the double turn rule three editions in.
Double turn is a feature, not a bug.
If your only goal is to drastically reduce the impact of player skill and decision making on the outcome of the game, I guess?
Or you can not overextending and stop blaming the double turn when your alpha strike list dies due to bad positioning on the double turn?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/15 00:33:16
2021/06/15 00:47:42
Subject: Re:Age of Sigmar N & R: AoS v3 and Dominion p.172.
changemod wrote: I mean, I know I immediately joked at some friends that the "no complaining about luck" rule on the code page is their patch for still having the double turn rule three editions in.
Double turn is a feature, not a bug.
If your only goal is to drastically reduce the impact of player skill and decision making on the outcome of the game, I guess?
Or you can not overextending and stop blaming the double turn when your alpha strike list dies due to bad positioning on the double turn?
I love that this argument happens in every AoS thread. I guess it's intuitive that each time somebody brings up this refuted point that they must not have seen any of the other threads on the subject.
changemod wrote: I mean, I know I immediately joked at some friends that the "no complaining about luck" rule on the code page is their patch for still having the double turn rule three editions in.
Double turn is a feature, not a bug.
If your only goal is to drastically reduce the impact of player skill and decision making on the outcome of the game, I guess?
Or you can not overextending and stop blaming the double turn when your alpha strike list dies due to bad positioning on the double turn?
I love that this argument happens in every AoS thread. I guess it's intuitive that each time somebody brings up this refuted point that they must not have seen any of the other threads on the subject.
Unfortunately, with a flaw as crippling as this around it's neck, there's not really any way around it being brought up over and over other than to actually solve it.
2021/06/15 00:59:41
Subject: Re:Age of Sigmar N & R: AoS v3 and Dominion p.172.
changemod wrote: I mean, I know I immediately joked at some friends that the "no complaining about luck" rule on the code page is their patch for still having the double turn rule three editions in.
Double turn is a feature, not a bug.
If your only goal is to drastically reduce the impact of player skill and decision making on the outcome of the game, I guess?
Or you can not overextending and stop blaming the double turn when your alpha strike list dies due to bad positioning on the double turn?
I love that this argument happens in every AoS thread. I guess it's intuitive that each time somebody brings up this refuted point that they must not have seen any of the other threads on the subject.
I mean with an argument that shallow (largely made by people who don't actually play AoS but hate the double turn) does it need a textbook to be refuted?
2021/06/15 01:11:55
Subject: Age of Sigmar N & R: AoS v3 and Dominion p.172.
I mean, it sure would be nice if anybody said anything more than "you got caught overextended" to argue for the double turn. I guess the other common "argument" is "without it, you'd just compare lists and know the winner!"
Both of which are far more shallow than like, the fact that a truly good player knows that the best play is to ignore the double turn because to play around the double turn would put them at a disadvantage. If you're truly positioned to make a double turn ineffective against you... they just let you take priority... and then you scramble to make up lost ground... and oh wow, you're in the same position you just tried to avoid! lmao
Rihgu wrote: I mean, it sure would be nice if anybody said anything more than "you got caught overextended" to argue for the double turn. I guess the other common "argument" is "without it, you'd just compare lists and know the winner!"
Both of which are far more shallow than like, the fact that a truly good player knows that the best play is to ignore the double turn because to play around the double turn would put them at a disadvantage. If you're truly positioned to make a double turn ineffective against you... they just let you take priority... and then you scramble to make up lost ground... and oh wow, you're in the same position you just tried to avoid! lmao
No no, you see:
Git gud.
That'll cancel the impact of an entire army acting unopposed at double speed, right?
Sincerely, if there's more argument to it than that, I've yet to hear it. Bonus points for ignoring that it also feels gakky to win because you got to go second and third in a match and your opponent had an uphill struggle from there.
2021/06/15 02:04:26
Subject: Age of Sigmar N & R: AoS v3 and Dominion p.172.
Rihgu wrote: I mean, it sure would be nice if anybody said anything more than "you got caught overextended" to argue for the double turn. I guess the other common "argument" is "without it, you'd just compare lists and know the winner!"
Both of which are far more shallow than like, the fact that a truly good player knows that the best play is to ignore the double turn because to play around the double turn would put them at a disadvantage. If you're truly positioned to make a double turn ineffective against you... they just let you take priority... and then you scramble to make up lost ground... and oh wow, you're in the same position you just tried to avoid! lmao
Ah yes, because every army has the same movement characteristics, same abilities to outflank or teleport or summon abilities. The long and short of it is you play to your strengths, try to capitalize on their weaknesses and play the mission (which is usually objective base, not killing based).
But go on and act like a shallow argument about it being a "flaw" should be given more than a shallow answer. Maybe you come up with a better argument and then people will come up with a better answer.
Seriously, "I don't like this" is not an argument, it's opinion. Calling it a "flaw" with no specifics doesn't give anything for people to argue specifics against so we're only going to take a shallow defense against a shallow (and opinion based) argument. No reason wasted getting dug in on defense against someone not committing to the "attack".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/15 02:06:52
2021/06/15 02:17:53
Subject: Age of Sigmar N & R: AoS v3 and Dominion p.172.
It works more or less ok in a game that's built around alternating combat activations.
It's kinda junk when ranged damage is becoming a bigger and bigger part of the game. The win rate for a ranged army that goes second and then gets the double is like upwards of 80%, and that's really not very healthy.
And the thing that makes it junkiest of all is the lower drop player being guaranteed choice of whether to go first or second. That's a big part of what creates the problem honestly, without that people would have to actually plan for all scenarios instead of just setting up to abuse a double turn if they get it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/15 02:21:08
2021/06/15 02:22:18
Subject: Age of Sigmar N & R: AoS v3 and Dominion p.172.
Rihgu wrote: I mean, it sure would be nice if anybody said anything more than "you got caught overextended" to argue for the double turn. I guess the other common "argument" is "without it, you'd just compare lists and know the winner!"
Both of which are far more shallow than like, the fact that a truly good player knows that the best play is to ignore the double turn because to play around the double turn would put them at a disadvantage. If you're truly positioned to make a double turn ineffective against you... they just let you take priority... and then you scramble to make up lost ground... and oh wow, you're in the same position you just tried to avoid! lmao
Ah yes, because every army has the same movement characteristics, same abilities to outflank or teleport or summon abilities. The long and short of it is you play to your strengths, try to capitalize on their weaknesses and play the mission (which is usually objective base, not killing based).
But go on and act like a shallow argument about it being a "flaw" should be given more than a shallow answer. Maybe you come up with a better argument and then people will come up with a better answer.
Seriously, "I don't like this" is not an argument, it's opinion. Calling it a "flaw" with no specifics doesn't give anything for people to argue specifics against so we're only going to take a shallow defense against a shallow (and opinion based) argument. No reason wasted getting dug in on defense against someone not committing to the "attack".
No offense but... This feels like major projection? You've had six years to get used to people pointing out something so blindingly obvious it's been criticized since the 4-page pamphlet came out. It really doesn't take a lot to point out that, when operating an entire army in one go with the opposing side taking casualties without being able to retaliate, action economy favours the player with initiative, and therefore far more favours the guy with doubled action economy. And no, "playing to the mission" doesn't fix that, because the double turn recipient also gets two turns to act on the mission and losing resources hampers your ability to maintain the board control necessary to focus on missions.
Something being obvious and easy to explain doesn't make it shallow. You can't really ward away a core criticism by going "No, it's good and people just say it's bad a lot which makes them saying that shallow and petty!"
Let's be entirely clear here, we're not just saying you haven't managed to mount a defence, we're saying the closest thing to a defence in six years is "git gud", and frankly: Even if I were to feel bad about beating a dead horse, this is the third edition in a row with the same fundamentally broken mechanic. I don't blame the original four page pamphlet for it because that was ultimately Kirby's last dying-breath attempt to sink the company through raw incompetence before his replacement, but goddamn: They've had plenty of time to notice the world's most glaring rules issue by now.
2021/06/15 02:59:04
Subject: Age of Sigmar N & R: AoS v3 and Dominion p.172.
ingtaer wrote: Do we know if warscroll battalions from Tomes are going to be a thing of the past in matched play?
Yep. They specified that in the Facehammer stream. Those dudes are the tourney sort, so they went for that early in the stream.
Cheers, that is going to take alot of thinking about with how to run my IDK now.
In the same boat with my Fyreslayers. Losing Lords of the Lodge is a blow, but I'm not despairing until I see all options.
Aye, hopefully the GHB clears a lot of things up in conjunction with the new rulebook.
Do we think this could be the classic GW trick. Where warscroll battalions aren't allowed in matched play, but that new AOS 3.0 battle tomes will have scrollwar battalions in them that can be used in matched play? Similar to vigilus detachments in 9th edition 40k being obsoleted to be replaced with armies of reknown and supplements.
No. Warscroll Battalions will be relegated to Narrative Play and I would find it unlikely to see new Core Battalions in the battletomes (although it is possible). And you do know that 40K has had supplements as far back as 3rd edition?
Yes but his point is something similar to banned came in 9e. So while battalions might be out some new way to get free bonuses could appear.
Gw being gw even likeiy.
2024 painted/bought: 109/109
2021/06/15 02:59:52
Subject: Age of Sigmar N & R: AoS v3 and Dominion p.172.
Rihgu wrote: I mean, it sure would be nice if anybody said anything more than "you got caught overextended" to argue for the double turn. I guess the other common "argument" is "without it, you'd just compare lists and know the winner!"
Both of which are far more shallow than like, the fact that a truly good player knows that the best play is to ignore the double turn because to play around the double turn would put them at a disadvantage. If you're truly positioned to make a double turn ineffective against you... they just let you take priority... and then you scramble to make up lost ground... and oh wow, you're in the same position you just tried to avoid! lmao
Ah yes, because every army has the same movement characteristics, same abilities to outflank or teleport or summon abilities. The long and short of it is you play to your strengths, try to capitalize on their weaknesses and play the mission (which is usually objective base, not killing based).
But go on and act like a shallow argument about it being a "flaw" should be given more than a shallow answer. Maybe you come up with a better argument and then people will come up with a better answer.
Seriously, "I don't like this" is not an argument, it's opinion. Calling it a "flaw" with no specifics doesn't give anything for people to argue specifics against so we're only going to take a shallow defense against a shallow (and opinion based) argument. No reason wasted getting dug in on defense against someone not committing to the "attack".
No offense but... This feels like major projection? You've had six years to get used to people pointing out something so blindingly obvious it's been criticized since the 4-page pamphlet came out. It really doesn't take a lot to point out that, when operating an entire army in one go with the opposing side taking casualties without being able to retaliate, action economy favours the player with initiative, and therefore far more favours the guy with doubled action economy. And no, "playing to the mission" doesn't fix that, because the double turn recipient also gets two turns to act on the mission and losing resources hampers your ability to maintain the board control necessary to focus on missions.
Something being obvious and easy to explain doesn't make it shallow. You can't really ward away a core criticism by going "No, it's good and people just say it's bad a lot which makes them saying that shallow and petty!"
Let's be entirely clear here, we're not just saying you haven't managed to mount a defence, we're saying the closest thing to a defence in six years is "git gud", and frankly: Even if I were to feel bad about beating a dead horse, this is the third edition in a row with the same fundamentally broken mechanic. I don't blame the original four page pamphlet for it because that was ultimately Kirby's last dying-breath attempt to sink the company through raw incompetence before his replacement, but goddamn: They've had plenty of time to notice the world's most glaring rules issue by now.
Honestly I only really hear this complaints from people who don't play AoS or outside of major AoS communities. But go on pretending most of the AoS community hates the double turn. Either way I'm not going to keep feeding your need for attention because you clearly don't have an argument based on any objective facts, just an opinion and nothing will fix that.
ingtaer wrote: Do we know if warscroll battalions from Tomes are going to be a thing of the past in matched play?
Yep. They specified that in the Facehammer stream. Those dudes are the tourney sort, so they went for that early in the stream.
Cheers, that is going to take alot of thinking about with how to run my IDK now.
In the same boat with my Fyreslayers. Losing Lords of the Lodge is a blow, but I'm not despairing until I see all options.
Aye, hopefully the GHB clears a lot of things up in conjunction with the new rulebook.
Do we think this could be the classic GW trick. Where warscroll battalions aren't allowed in matched play, but that new AOS 3.0 battle tomes will have scrollwar battalions in them that can be used in matched play? Similar to vigilus detachments in 9th edition 40k being obsoleted to be replaced with armies of reknown and supplements.
No. Warscroll Battalions will be relegated to Narrative Play and I would find it unlikely to see new Core Battalions in the battletomes (although it is possible). And you do know that 40K has had supplements as far back as 3rd edition?
Yes but his point is something similar to banned came in 9e. So while battalions might be out some new way to get free bonuses could appear.
Gw being gw even likeiy.
Core Battalions are the way to get free bonuses. It's just now everyone has the same exact bonuses to choose from.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/15 03:00:45
2021/06/15 05:53:26
Subject: Age of Sigmar N & R: AoS v3 and Dominion p.172.
I have slowly realized that the 'you can compensate for the double by being skilled' is coming from people who lose after getting it. It is an excuse, saying that 'oh my opponent pulled out a super top notch strategy' and externalizing the cause. The reality is that they get the double then screw up so hard they aren't able to win.
An actual skilled player with an early double will not leave the opponent room to come back from it, bar luck (that generally involves them getting a double themselves) or context-driven imbalance. In the end it is the opposite of what they say; if you lose to a double that means little. If you lose after getting it more often than not it is on you. You weren't skilled enough to guarantee victory using the double.
I know I am being a bit hostile here, but I am real sick of people responding to legitimate criticism with comments that amount to 'you suck (and I don't)'.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/15 06:03:00
changemod wrote: They've had plenty of time to notice the world's most glaring rules issue by now.
but by now this is the outstanding feature of AoS it is the one rule no other skirmish game will ever have and some people play AoS specially because there are double turns
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
2021/06/15 05:58:46
Subject: Age of Sigmar N & R: AoS v3 and Dominion p.172.
changemod wrote: They've had plenty of time to notice the world's most glaring rules issue by now.
but by now this is the outstanding feature of AoS it is the one rule no other skirmish game will ever have and some people play AoS specially because there are double turns
And where would they go if AoS dropped it? All evidence points to a notable number of players avoiding AoS because of random initiative, those are lost customers. The minority of players who actually like double turns don't have anywhere else to go, while the majority of players simply tolerate it because it is there. For once I wish the accountants would have MORE influence on a specific rule, because that one is losing GW sales.
Well, as most players who don't like AoS are found playing 40k, it is not really lost sales
those that play GW games because "the models are looking better than those from *insert random company*" are playing anyway no matter the rules
Being the number 2 in miniature sales in the US, behind 40k, it is hard to argue that there are many players left who don't play AoS because of double turn and don't play any other GW game as well so they lose on sales (and with most stuff selling out on release hard to tell if more sales are a thing anyway)
People are not going to play Kings of War or Conquest because there are double turns in AoS, as well as those people playing KoW/Conquest would not get into AoS if double turn is removed
If people play the game now, there is no reason to remove it because those that like it may leave while the others play the game anyway
Keeping double turn does not harm for now while removing it might do (and makes AoS a genereic Skirmish among many others again)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/15 06:10:12
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
2021/06/15 06:11:43
Subject: Age of Sigmar N & R: AoS v3 and Dominion p.172.
Yeah, it always amuses me to hear people say "good players don't lose to a double turn." Of course they do. Everyone loses to a double turn against an army that can exploit it. The ~80%+ win rate ranged-focused armies have when they get the first double turn is not because all but 20% of the players they are playing are bad, it's because the game doesn't give you the tools (or didn't in 2.0, anyway) to do anything significant enough to avoid the overwhelming advantage it creates. There are little things you can do around the margins, but nothing that can begin to alter the massive spike in win rate a player gets from getting the first double turn with a ranged army. If you're facing a ranged focus army and they get the first double turn, statistically you will only win about 1 in 5 of those games against someone of vaguely equal skill.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/15 06:13:29
2021/06/15 06:34:38
Subject: Age of Sigmar N & R: AoS v3 and Dominion p.172.
changemod wrote: They've had plenty of time to notice the world's most glaring rules issue by now.
but by now this is the outstanding feature of AoS it is the one rule no other skirmish game will ever have and some people play AoS specially because there are double turns
And where would they go if AoS dropped it? All evidence points to a notable number of players avoiding AoS because of random initiative, those are lost customers. The minority of players who actually like double turns don't have anywhere else to go, while the majority of players simply tolerate it because it is there. For once I wish the accountants would have MORE influence on a specific rule, because that one is losing GW sales.
If double turns would be removed game results would be known right after seeing lists. you know who goes first, then it's easy to see how game pans out.
Well would make quick games. Exchange lists, see result, game over. You can pay 100's of games in a day!
2024 painted/bought: 109/109
2021/06/15 06:40:17
Subject: Age of Sigmar N & R: AoS v3 and Dominion p.172.
changemod wrote: I mean, I know I immediately joked at some friends that the "no complaining about luck" rule on the code page is their patch for still having the double turn rule three editions in.
Double turn is a feature, not a bug.
If your only goal is to drastically reduce the impact of player skill and decision making on the outcome of the game, I guess?
Or you can not overextending and stop blaming the double turn when your alpha strike list dies due to bad positioning on the double turn?
I love that this argument happens in every AoS thread. I guess it's intuitive that each time somebody brings up this refuted point that they must not have seen any of the other threads on the subject.
Unfortunately, with a flaw as crippling as this around it's neck, there's not really any way around it being brought up over and over other than to actually solve it.
If it cripples you, you're a bad player. Not a victim.
Literally have NEVER had the DT cause me any issues. Positioning! AoS players need to learn it! This game isn't the easy-peasy 40K child rules, you're in Big Boy town when you come to an AoS table.
2021/06/15 07:21:20
Subject: Age of Sigmar N & R: AoS v3 and Dominion p.172.
changemod wrote: They've had plenty of time to notice the world's most glaring rules issue by now.
but by now this is the outstanding feature of AoS it is the one rule no other skirmish game will ever have and some people play AoS specially because there are double turns
And where would they go if AoS dropped it? All evidence points to a notable number of players avoiding AoS because of random initiative, those are lost customers. The minority of players who actually like double turns don't have anywhere else to go, while the majority of players simply tolerate it because it is there. For once I wish the accountants would have MORE influence on a specific rule, because that one is losing GW sales.
If double turns would be removed game results would be known right after seeing lists. you know who goes first, then it's easy to see how game pans out.
Well would make quick games. Exchange lists, see result, game over. You can pay 100's of games in a day!
wow, even I would not have called AoS that bad
Automatically Appended Next Post: but interesting,
one says the outcome is determined by a random dice roll only
the other claims it is much more tactical than the other big GW game
while I would say AoS is better than 40k, with 3rd it depends on the GHB/Errata and the net books if it stays that way
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/15 07:35:59
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
2021/06/15 08:59:52
Subject: Age of Sigmar N & R: AoS v3 and Dominion p.172.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I have slowly realized that the 'you can compensate for the double by being skilled' is coming from people who lose after getting it.
This is the best explanation I've ever read on the topic
New rules, I can see the games going like 25% longer and with the constant commands, reactions and fiddly tracking of once per game abilities (one of these 3 units can do this command once per game for free, one of those other four units can do a different one, etc)
Posters on ignore list: 36
40k Potica Edition - 40k patch with reactions, suppression and all that good stuff. Feedback thread here.
Gangs of Nu Ork - Necromunda / Gorkamorka expansion supporting all faction. Feedback thread here.
2021/06/15 09:12:09
Subject: Re:Age of Sigmar N & R: AoS v3 and Dominion p.172.
Even if it was a case of "git gud" (and generally it isn't, there's a reason shooting is so powerful in AoS) that the feature is so controversial within the fandom and by enlarge seen as something that's tolerated rather than enjoyed by what I assume is the majority of people, says a lot. For a game that was deliberately designed from the ground up as Baby's First Wargame it's just such a weird rule to include because as many people will tell you, it just doesn't add to the enjoyment of the game.
Although I do wonder what defence of Double Turn will be used now that "just screen bro" has been dramatically nullified by the new cohesion rules. I fully expect the narrative to shift to, "dude 1 extra CP is just as powerful as another round of shooting!"
tneva82 wrote: If double turns would be removed game results would be known right after seeing lists. you know who goes first, then it's easy to see how game pans out.
This is a game written by GW, that's already the case in AoS.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/15 10:00:40
2021/06/15 10:22:26
Subject: Re:Age of Sigmar N & R: AoS v3 and Dominion p.172.
Eldarsif wrote: Can people wanting to circle jerk(with/against) about the double turn move it into its own thread?
Wouldn't that be nice? But no, realistically you shouldn't expect them to because AoS is weighed down by such a fundamental issue that you can't discuss the game without occasionally finding cause to address double turn. Now with the added bonus of having a game designer on record saying they really wanted to keep in double turn, with that particular emphasis.
So, have fun talking about AoS the next three years and better luck next edition?
Nehekhara lives! Sort of!
Why is the rum always gone?
2021/06/15 11:53:03
Subject: Re:Age of Sigmar N & R: AoS v3 and Dominion p.172.
changemod wrote: I mean, I know I immediately joked at some friends that the "no complaining about luck" rule on the code page is their patch for still having the double turn rule three editions in.
Double turn is a feature, not a bug.
''Feature, not a bug.'' ''Working as intended.''
Exactly what Miyazaki says about his Dark Souls 3 bugs lol
2021/06/15 12:02:56
Subject: Re:Age of Sigmar N & R: AoS v3 and Dominion p.172.
Humm I wonder when they eventually release the Stormcast as individual kits if theres an option to ditch the plastic spears, that make the model a pain to store or handle, for swords instead, I would be in for that.
Depending on prices I will be only getting the shield boys and yndrasta on eBay.
