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.

Wayniac wrote:

Seriqolm wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
RE: tactics one of the hardet things for me to get into is the whole verbiage. Like bubble wrap, daisy chain (if you can even still do that with things being wholly within more) nd the like. I've been involved in GW games since 1995 and its only within the last few years I've ever heard these terms, and before that was in Warmahordes where everything was much more tactical. It's the things like that which always confuse me because they've never been a thing in warhammer that I can remember but now all of a sudden everyone is doing and pushing them.

Why not learn what these things are and maybe you be a better player? There are always new tactical approaches to new games that were not there before, I play Historicals and there are some tactical moves you can only do in say L'art de la Guerre but not transfer to say DBM but the games are based on the same format just in those games no-one has named the manoeuver.

Right, I'm just saying it's the most challenging part because it's a whole new style of gaming compared to what I was used to from years ago. I'm using this quarantine/lockdown/end of the world stuff to really take a step back and decide what I want out of the game because I've really just flitted around with things and never done much.

The double turn though, to veer back to the topic, is just an odd mechanic period because of how polarizing it is. I don't hate it but I definitely thing it doesn't need to be a core rule becaue often no amount of tactics can handle your opponent getting two turns in a row to do whatever to you while you just have to take it. Most people in my area forget it (legitimately) and we just do alternating turns. When we do remember the initiative every turn thing, we normally realize how it usually makes or breaks the game.

Its a new game with new ideas so understanding them is the sensible approach. I also play a bit of Malifaux and that as we know is alternate activations and I really don't get that as the gangs need to be built with synergy and abilities but stringing those abilities together is a tough thing when your opponent can see what you are doing and just stop the chain in one move. So originally when I played M2E I gave up because of this but with the new edition I've decided to try and learn how you deal with the vagaries of alt.activation and give it another shot, thats all I can do as its a successful game so there must be tactics I don't understand.

This leads to the fact that all of these systems have problems in Bolt Action you can have one player have many more goes just by having a bigger army or the luck of the draw and drawing all their dice in succession, I've seen it happen does that mean its a broken system? you either learn to deal with the problems inherent in the system or stop playing but many just seem to want to bash/dismiss any attempts to do this.

It comes down to what you tolerate and what you want out of a game.

I play warlords of Erehwon, which uses the Bolt Action system. I've never once had an issue with its activation system. Yes bigger armies get more activations. So what? I don't see that as game breaking.

Its no where near as swingy or impactful as a double turn in AOS is.

Part of that is because in warlords / bolt action its alt activation in a sense so you can respond and it truly is random.

In AOS its literally one person doing magic, movement, shooting, and summoning twice in a row *with their whole army* with no possible counter play. Whereas in Warlords your opponent may get a few activations in before you can respond, its only a few activations in. Not an entire army's worth. Twice over. For me my tolerance states a few activations more than me is fine, but two whole army activations twice over most definitely not fine.

Is that right or wrong?

For me its very wrong. Thats because my tolerance level for uninteractive game play is very very low. For other people they may not mind so much.

Does double turn make for a bad game?

For me yes. Because thats not what I want out of a game at all, I want interactive game play with counter play and I want the game to be more than maxing my math via list building, maxing out on pay to win summoning, and getting lucky on a swingy double turn dice roll.

That is all of course my opinion and preference and why I use "for me" to precede my statement. Other people love it to death.

Are they wrong for loving it to death? Nope not at all. We like what we like.

There is no way to circumvent the double turn. Its going to happen. THe only thing you can do is make sure you are doing what you'd do if you weren't dealing with double turn. Play with chaffe. Play with bubble wrap. Max your mortal wound output the best you can. Max your pay to win summoning the best you can. And try to influence who gets the first double turn by having just one drop army.

If thats the game you love, thats the game you love.

Nope, but it will happen.
Sadly just about every AoS discussion breaks down to that point regardless of the actual topic.
More so when the topic is generally about the game mechanics.


In regards to double turns, it can be helped a lot by denial units and placement.
I’ve found anything that always strikes first to make a good bodyguard and deterrent to charges.
No one will charge a key unit if they know most of their unit will die and do barely anything.

Placement is also the big factor.
Using chaff screens and terrain is another key point that so many people ignore.
This is a big part of the reason I always take a flying unit or hero.

The risk of double turns just means you have to play a bit more reserved instead of gung ho charges.

 auticus wrote:
It comes down to what you tolerate and what you want out of a game.

I play warlords of Erehwon, which uses the Bolt Action system. I've never once had an issue with its activation system. Yes bigger armies get more activations. So what? I don't see that as game breaking.

Its no where near as swingy or impactful as a double turn in AOS is.

Part of that is because in warlords / bolt action its alt activation in a sense so you can respond and it truly is random.

In AOS its literally one person doing magic, movement, shooting, and summoning twice in a row *with their whole army* with no possible counter play. Whereas in Warlords your opponent may get a few activations in before you can respond, its only a few activations in. Not an entire army's worth. Twice over. For me my tolerance states a few activations more than me is fine, but two whole army activations twice over most definitely not fine.

Is that right or wrong?

For me its very wrong. Thats because my tolerance level for uninteractive game play is very very low. For other people they may not mind so much.

Does double turn make for a bad game?

For me yes. Because thats not what I want out of a game at all, I want interactive game play with counter play and I want the game to be more than maxing my math via list building, maxing out on pay to win summoning, and getting lucky on a swingy double turn dice roll.

That is all of course my opinion and preference and why I use "for me" to precede my statement. Other people love it to death.

Are they wrong for loving it to death? Nope not at all. We like what we like.

There is no way to circumvent the double turn. Its going to happen. THe only thing you can do is make sure you are doing what you'd do if you weren't dealing with double turn. Play with chaffe. Play with bubble wrap. Max your mortal wound output the best you can. Max your pay to win summoning the best you can. And try to influence who gets the first double turn by having just one drop army.

If thats the game you love, thats the game you love.

We know what you think about it, you've said so many times I think its inprinted on every dakkanaut mind thats reads your posts the point is you do not even accept that others think its not as bad as you say and the game is played from garage to tournament level and is getting more popular with this so called "disaster of the double turn". And activating 5 units one after the other can have a dramatic effect on a game of Bolt Action, I've seen it happen, if they lose a couple of units the chance of it happening again is higher the next turn as they have even less dice in the bag, I've seen reserves that never come in or too late to be effective, terrible dice rolls that (I was the one rolling the dice, lol) and many other things but I don't see players moaning about that in Bolt Action or many other wargames. All games have the elements that need to be accounted for, AoS and the double turn is no different, so sound tactics takes into account the double turn thats just common sense. Your precious alt.activation has problems as I've stated as well and the praise of alt.activation in these boards is close to being meme as the people spouting it really don't understand its no better than IGOUGO or random activation just another way to build a wargame.

Where does the love thing come from? where did I say anytyhing of the sort? I'm just trying to interject a bit or reasoning to the usual disfest of a game you don't even play but seem to "love" being miserable about.

you do not even accept that others think its not as bad as you say

Ah yes here it comes the inflammatory posts. Cool.

So ... there are about 100 different examples proving that wrong, some in this very thread.

That is all of course my opinion and preference and why I use "for me" to precede my statement. Other people love it to death.

Are they wrong for loving it to death? Nope not at all. We like what we like.

If thats the game you love, thats the game you love.

So there you have the rebuttal to "you do not even accept that others think its not as bad as you say". I have said dozens upon dozens of times that others love it, like it, accept it, etc.

And activating 5 units one after the other can have a dramatic effect on a game of Bolt Action,

AoS and the double turn is no different,

For me its a simple matter of math. Now I have never seen 5 units go one after another in Warlords, the most I have seen are 3. That doesn't mean 5 can't happen but it certainly seems to be an outlier.

Pretending that 5 was common, there is still a world of difference between 5 units activating and the whole army activating twice before someone can respond. Thats basic math. If an army has ... say... 12 elements in it (my last slaanesh army) then I get to activate 24 elements in my army while you stand there with thumbs.

24 elements activating before you is a very very large contrast to 5 units activating before a player can respond.

Now whether or not you feel 5 units activating is roughly equivalent to taking 24 units activating I suppose will be personal preference and thresholds and all that. For me, that is a gross disparity and a huge negative.

Your precious alt.activation has problems as I've stated as well and the praise of alt.activation in these boards is close to being meme as the people spouting it really don't understand its no better than IGOUGO or random activation just another way to build a wargame.

You start your post off slagging me for my inability to understand that others have a preference different from mine (that I have already resonded to) and then you aggressively post that alt activation is no "better" than IGO or random activation.

See there you are wrong because what is "better" will be up to the preference of the person. To you it may all be the same. To me double turn is really really bad.

you've said so many times I think its inprinted on every dakkanaut mind thats reads your posts

Yes sir. its called a discussion forum.

For one - I don't start these threads. I participate in the threads that I find interesting.

For two - it is highly unreasonable to try to shut down conversation because you don't like what someone has to say.

For three - everyone has a differing degree of how long they've been on these boards or what they have read. I think it is highly illogical and unreasonable to have the soft rule that you post your opinion once, and then forever more STFU.

you don't even play but seem to "love" being miserable about.

Yeah lol. Thats the unfortunate side effect of having sunk 20 years and about 10 grand into armies and running events that I'd like to continue to use my stuff and want to provide the other viewpoint other than the sunny everything is awesome viewpoint that is thrown at the devs every day. Had I not sunk 20 years and 10 grand into warhammer, and I just showed up on the scene brand new and saw AOS, you'd never even know who an Auticus was because I would never have picked it up and went on my way because the game would have had nothing to attract me.

I mean auticus is synonymous with AoS is bad, summoning ruins everything, and the double turn ruined wargaming for an entire generation of players. Not sure why you always post about AoS though?

I would say Bolt Action random activation has the potential to swing the number of activations from one turn to the next in a way very similar to double turn.

I have 12 units my enemy has 5. I went with MSU with small squads and cheap non-vet tanks. My foe went with vets and large squads. I'm TFG. We alternate a couple activations and then my enemy concludes their activation and I activate 7 more units. The turn concludes and I then activate 8 units and my enemy finally activates several units. Is this not exactly the same as a double turn?

Because he WANTS to like AoS.

Not sure why you always post about AoS though?

Hmm well if you were to look in my history you'll see I post in Warmachine once in a while, Legion, 40k occasionally, and I have a whole thread on Conquest in the other forums, plus video content for that game I post on.

I'd definitely say that thats definitely way off the mark that I always post about AOS. I mostly bypass the new threads here entirely and I never create new threads in the AOS forums other than asking about warcry a while back.

Now I have to ask... where are the hyperbole police that tried to ride me like a pony a few months ago when the hyperbole comes equally from the other side?

Is this not exactly the same as a double turn?

In your exact scenario you have 8 more activations than your opponent. Is that the exact same thing as double turn, where I laid out a real example of having 12 units in my last army and get 24 activations before you get to respond? I mean... its exactly the same as in saying that both scenarios have a person getting more activations. Thats about where it being the same ends though. Because 24 activations is 3x the amount of activations you sit through in your extreme bolt thrower example of 8 more activations than your opponent (and again I've never seen that having played that game and Warlords, but I will admit that it *could* happen but its certainly again an OUTLIER whereas having 12 units in an AOS army and getting double turn 24 activations is a common scenario so you're throwing an outlier example that is still 1/3 of the effecetiveness of a normal AOS double turn activation and claiming its roughly the same)

Because he WANTS to like AoS.

^^

Ninth you rascal. You created a topic that is known to be the world over a divisive topic and now that i've posted in it, it has become the "throw auticus out and set him on fire" topic. hahaha (tongue in cheek my dude i'm just messing with you)

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Because he WANTS to like AoS.

I want to like brussel sprouts but I've accepted that ain't gonna happen.... I'm off to a Christmas dinner forum and bang on about how bad brussel sprouts are ad infinitum!


But Ninth isn't this thread a discussion about the relative merits for and against the Initiative roll and the answer as always is probably somewhere in the middle but lets have fun getting there, yes? but if listen many a poster *cough* Auticus *cough* its over by their first post cause its BaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaD!

 auticus wrote:
Because I vastly prefer games where I win due to out maneuver, and solid game play, not because I won a random roll off to get to go twice in a row and blow them off the table with magic and ranged attacks etc first that they do nothing but stand there and watch and take it without the ability to do ANYTHING about it. Or even better, getting to spam summon twice in a row on them so I can (and have) doubled my army size. There is nothing tactical about that.

And the rules for the priority roll offers a choice. You can choose to go for a second time, or opt for the other player to go. Saying you get a case of the feel bads because you won the priority and then proceeded to use it to decimate you opponent seems like you think that it isn't a choice.

And what army is blowing other armies off the table with magic, ranged and summoning all in one package? Maybe Tzeentch, but what other army can dominate in every phase of the game like that?
Genuinely curious.

 auticus wrote:
You're removing models. Thats what you're doing. You can't do anything else. You can't move, you can't shoot back, you can't do anything but watch your opponent go through two whole hero, movement, and shooting phases while you stand there with thumbs up the butt.

But the combat phase allows you some ability to mitigate the damage. You still get to attack back, pile in and use certain command abilities. What you put up your butt is your business though, just don't shake hands after the game.

Honesly, I feel like alot of the priority roll detractors seem to give up once they lose the priority roll.

 auticus wrote:
It was the only house rule that I got a majority of people that liked and gave positive feedback during our events for when I removed double turn, and when I introduced alternate activation.

Confused. In one post, you say that your local doesn't like house rules. A few posts later, you say they like the house rule about doing away with the priority roll (believable, as its not entirely game breaking) but then you say they also accepted the alternate activation(not so believable). Alt activation changes up so much of the game that I have a hard time thinking that a hyper competitive dude that swears by Adepticon/LVO tourney packets will try to relearn how to play his army with alt activation for a pickup game or some seasonal campaign. Not saying it isn't possible, but it seems like a big stretch to me.

 auticus wrote:
Its all anecdotal of course, and only GW could tell you if its positive or not from their polls that they don't share with anyone.

Yep. It would be interesting if they released those poll results. But I think that's so far gone at this point that they'll never release it.

 auticus wrote:
Its certainly enough to drive people out, and the games where those people landed on have overwhelmingly discussed the double turn as one of those reasons (from my anecdotal experience).

I can believe that. Attrition happens in every game for a variety of reasons.

Yep and I will continue to bang on about it when a thread is posted asking for what we think about things on a certain topic that I find interesting.

So if you see a double turn thread, or a free summoning thread, or a balance thread... best not read it then or put me on mute.

Nels - to keep things civil with you - since you and I already played the bait and attack game a while back, I'm not interested in continuing the round the table circular discussion with you that we already went through months ago. I get it. You are trying to pick my opinion apart and then prove that its illogical and find all the fallacies that you can with it. Thats great. You win, I'm not going to go into a back and forth with you again.

23/30 of your last posts were about AOS. You're right you never complain about summoning, the double turn, or how AoS ruined 20+ years of wargaming and an entire generation of wargamers. I don't know how I managed to get that wrong.

Fortunately most people just ignore your comments and the thread continues...

The double turn is in the rules for AOS. AOS is a top seller for arguably the largest producer of miniatures and table top games. Apparently enough people are ok with the double turn they continue buying miniatures and going to tournaments. Profits drive decisions in business.

I don't like the Double Turn, but I think it's about the only way to negate the huge advantage of going first in turn one. Owning turn one is such a huge advantage in 40k that it's almost an automatic game winner, especially with tournament competitive armies.

In AoS, owning turn one isn't going to (necessarily) win you the game, because the double turn exists.

IMO the double turn is no worse a rule than the IGOUGO system as a whole. Both ideas are bad and I'd love if Warhammer in general moved to a unit activation system.

 Jjohnso11 wrote:
23/30 of your last posts were about AOS. You're right you never complain about summoning, the double turn, or how AoS ruined 20+ years of wargaming and an entire generation of wargamers. I don't know how I managed to get that wrong.

Fortunately most people just ignore your comments and the thread continues...

The double turn is in the rules for AOS. AOS is a top seller for arguably the largest producer of miniatures and table top games. Apparently enough people are ok with the double turn they continue buying miniatures and going to tournaments. Profits drive decisions in business.

You're definitely the hero that everyone needs right now. I'm glad you were here to put me in my place.

Something else to consider is that people continue buying miniatures for gw games because it has the world's largest built in playerbase, so they know their investment is very safe, as opposed to other games where they have to struggle to find games. Its already been stated a great.many.times that rules quality and balance are one of the least impactful things that the gw-fanverse prioritizes. That being said, and apparently the case from months and years of being told that balance and rules quality aren't really prioritized in someone's desire to play, and the pretty models, lore, art, and massive player base are... it stands to reason that the rules could be almost anything at all and that great big tournament scene you love so much would continue without a hiccup, not because of the love of the rules, but because of the love of the massive playerbase and community. If the double turn went away tomorrow and was replaced with any form of activation system you can think of, from card based to dice based unit activation to igougo... the gw playerverse would shrug their collective shoulders. Some may lament the loss of the unique double turn, but it would ultimately not lose anyone in the process. They would continue to play business as usual.

I think there are factions that double turns can practically win or lose the game depending how they swing while there are also factions that it really has little effect on them.

My army (Warrior and Knight heavy S2D) is not all that bothered by the double turn. Even without it, I am going to choose to go second more often than not as almost nothing in my army is going to get into combat or even cover all that much ground Round 1. Going first just means losing a lot more charge attempts and definitely getting shot up more. Double turns basically make my army seem faster than it is, and it is also part of the reason I chuckle when people think OSR weakness is their speed. Neither my nor any OSR army I have seen worry all that much about our slowness. The stuff that has to get charges have speed to over the distance, and the stuff that can't cover the distance don't really need to win the charge anyways. Melee attacks are always alternating and losing first choice isn't usually that devastating.

At the same time, my common opponent plays DoT and KO. Both armies seem to be devastated from double turns used against them as it greatly reduces how they can react and they can't take nearly the amount of punishment my army can. So he absolutely distastes double turns. I think sometime he puts all his eggs into one basket which with a double turn can really allow me put the screws to him. Especially since I am not above double, double attacking with Spurred by Chaos or the Varanguard's once per game double attack.

So I think there is some ability to mitigate double turns via army list construction depending on how much said faction has options. That said, I do think double turns can't really be adjusted for on the tabletop outside of Archaon knowing who is going first. I also think that for something that is a single dice roll it has too much power to tip the scales. So I don't think it is a very good mechanic even if I am not all that bothered by its existence. I certainly wouldn't bemoan it going way.

Since it was brought up, I will mention that I really like Bolt Action's random activate since it isn't completely random. It was well understood that a 1000-1250 point Bolt Action army should have at least 10 units to have some control over activation. At the same time, once a player got over 16 units they were probably diluting their army too much for the sake of dice and would suffer for it as they realistically only had a couple of effective units that would largely be 'Pinned' out after the first or second round. Age of Sigmar's double turn is both far more blunt and players have almost most no control over which is a problem.

I honestly don’t care either way for the double turn. In early days, when AoS sucked and there was no “meat” to the armies, just random units thrown on a board with no true army synergy, it was overly powerful and shouldn’t have existed. Now, it’s a part of the game that some love, some hate, some are indifferent. I mark myself in the indifferent category. I see the double turn as “mid-game seizing initiative”. In case of tie or win, it stays with the current first turn player. The round two player HAS to score higher to seize. Concept wise, it’s fine. In game it hurts many players. But yeah, I don’t mind playing it and I also wouldn’t care if it disappeared tomorrow.

There are some missions that seem built around the Initiative roll off, while others are just suited to being in a normal IGOUGO format.

Off the some of the dome-piece, there's Relocation Orb. The player going first gets 1 point for control, second player in the Round gets 3 instead.

I think it's another key thing to look at, not just in terms of army lethality, but how missions get structured with the mechanic in mind. Some missions, you get the double turn on and get two rounds of magic and shooting murder and charges of your choice plus full scoring. If everything in the game was built around the potential of two turns in a row, I wouldn't mind it as much but there's been far too many times when my games have ended on turn one. Even when it's in my favor, that's a trash game and unsatisfying for me.

I still play the game, but would much prefer it without it.

Honestly the doubleturn to me is like the "you get a +1 attack if you've got a beard" kind of rules. I very much agree if hte game was ground up built around it it would be better, but the game isn't. The game is built pretty much without the doubleturn being part of the game and then the doubleturn potential is thrown in on top.

We can tell this because the game doesn't rely on the double turn happening. Many players might never have seen a doubleturn if the dice don't give them one. Or they might only see it once in a blue moon.

Eh...I view the double-turn as akin to the armies which have access to any kind of "make an attack before removing" or "you activate before the other guy in combat" stuff.

There's a bit more happening there, of course, but I've never really had any army(meaning that actually belongs to me) outside of my Wanderers that benefits extremely heavily or just gets wrecked from the double-turn.

Should I make a "complain about Auticus complaining" thread because seriously...

I despise the double turn and have seen too many games broken because of it.

We started playing without it but as people wanted to play more "proper AoS" we use it now.

Double turn combined with that mission were you burn the objetives (And you can burn yours without being there) is a sickening experience. I played a 2vs2 game were I (playing ogres) and my friend (playing stormcasts) losts agaisnt idoneth and legions of nagash because they gave us first turn, we didn't moved to "prepare" for a possible double turn, they had double turn, reached our lines, burnt our 2 of our objetives and 3 of theirs. We literally lost that game in 30 without even playing.

We started again and played other that was much more closer but at the end of the day:

Feth the double turn, being unique is not by itself a virtue, so AoS doesn't gain anything positive by being unique for having the double turn mechanic.

And feth whole armies having "Always strike first" habilities. That was one of the biggest balancing factors of AoS and GW started an arms raced about what faction can manipulate the combat phase flow the best to win. If you don't do it you just suck, unless you shoot like a madman.

Going first on AoS is not as big of a problem as it is in 40k where whole armies can shoot from across the table and remove 2/3 of the opponent army. In AoS shooting is much more limited and some armeis are VERY fast but you can always deploy to avoid that.

 nels1031 wrote:
And what army is blowing other armies off the table with magic, ranged and summoning all in one package? Maybe Tzeentch, but what other army can dominate in every phase of the game like that?\

Seraphon and OBR come to mind. Skaven don't even need the summoning.

I wish my local meta would take my advice for playing against Skaven so I can take all the dirty tools I want with them. However, until they learn to not take First round first turn against me, those toys stay away because even my lists I tone down with less powerful choices and optimization a double turn with Skaven is a disaster for the other player, irregardless of what round it happens on.

Irregardless, some armies capitalize on a double turn better than others, and some to such an excessive extent it was obvious they weren't designed with the mechanic in mind.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Seraphon and OBR come to mind. Skaven don't even need the summoning.

Corona has prevented me from playing the new Seraphon, I never worried about it before this newer tome. My OBR exposure has been somewhat limited. Skaven I felt like my Fyreslayers (heavy on hearthzerkers) just eat their shooting for breakfast, and my tunneled Hearthguard could jack up whatever they want next turn in return.

 Galas wrote:

And feth whole armies having "Always strike first" habilities. That was one of the biggest balancing factors of AoS and GW started an arms raced about what faction can manipulate the combat phase flow the best to win. If you don't do it you just suck, unless you shoot like a madman.

Thats something we can agree on. The whole “activation wars” is a needless slow down and complication for some.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:
Something else to consider is that people continue buying miniatures for gw games because it has the world's largest built in playerbase, so they know their investment is very safe, as opposed to other games where they have to struggle to find games. Its already been stated a great.many.times that rules quality and balance are one of the least impactful things that the gw-fanverse prioritizes. That being said, and apparently the case from months and years of being told that balance and rules quality aren't really prioritized in someone's desire to play, and the pretty models, lore, art, and massive player base are... it stands to reason that the rules could be almost anything at all and that great big tournament scene you love so much would continue without a hiccup, not because of the love of the rules, but because of the love of the massive playerbase and community. If the double turn went away tomorrow and was replaced with any form of activation system you can think of, from card based to dice based unit activation to igougo... the gw playerverse would shrug their collective shoulders. Some may lament the loss of the unique double turn, but it would ultimately not lose anyone in the process. They would continue to play business as usual.

While I think there is some element of truth to the “safe investment’ thing, I don’t think thats all there is.

I think the slow death of WHFB(commercially) and the reception to the disastrous launch of AoS also kind of refutes this point about how fanboys will tolerate everything GW feeds them. AoS without GHB1 would’ve died on the vine, imo.

 Overread wrote:
The only thing you might get is alternate control of an Endless Spell

However anyone using a predatory Endless Spell knows to cast it well into the enemy lines, so at best you just get to move it away from your army for a turn rather than turn it to attack your opponent.

Sure, that's the ideal.
But in reality I've zero qualms about dropping/moving one where ever it'll do me the most good.

I rarely see Endless Spells in the wild, but when I do they are exclusively the ones who's behaviour can be exactly predicted. Eg Balewind Vortex, Cogs, Bridge.

Endless Spells in general need a full rework. I find the rules given to Bonereapers and Seraphon a bit insulting. It's like they know ESs are generally awful (with a few notable exceptions), and instead of actually to fix them they just make them usable for the newest tomes.

It's not surprising, just pretty frustrating.

My Gitz have made good use of every one of their faction specific spells.
Heck, the Malevolent Moon & Mork's Mushroom are one 1/2 of why I play the Gitz in the 1st place (the other 1/2 being Squigs).

I think the slow death of WHFB(commercially) and the reception to the disastrous launch of AoS also kind of refutes this point about how fanboys will tolerate everything GW feeds them. AoS without GHB1 would’ve died on the vine, imo.

There was but one aspect as to why AOS was dying before GHB1. It didn't have "official" points. No one could wrap their heads around how to create a list without having points as structure to their game.

Once the points were put back into the game, it went back to business as normal.

In regards to double turn, the vast majority of people I know or have read online that like AOS view the double turn as meh and if it was removed they wouldn't care either way. Only a very few absolutely love it to pieces.

So at least in regards to double-turn, its removal would have negligible impact on the player base in terms of losing players. You would, however, gain a bunch back.

Additionally and again... its not that gw fanboys will tolerate anything, its that their primary reason for choosing gw games in the first place is the massive community. That has been gleaned several times over by polls here, facebook, twitter, and other places where people ask a variation of the question "how can you people continune to play GW games if the rules and balance are bad" - and no I don't start those threads lol.

But I read the results with interest and many of them have a pattern of "the balance and the rules arent' what interest me as much, its that the community is huge and I can always get in a game, where other games that might be better have no players and you have to drive three hours to get a game"

Which is why I have the opinion that I do in that regard.

ccs wrote:
My Gitz have made good use of every one of their faction specific spells.
Heck, the Malevolent Moon & Mork's Mushroom are one 1/2 of why I play the Gitz in the 1st place (the other 1/2 being Squigs).

I'm not too familiar with the Gitz allegiance spells. My main armies are Ogors and Legions, so I'm stuck with the generic ones :(

The best takeaway from this thread is that DakkaDakka remains a terrible venue for talking about Age of Sigmar.