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.

Lets face it msot times you use a predatory spell the best your opponent can do is send it away for a turn so it does nothing. It's very rare that they will get to actually use it on you.

Also I've noticed a few more factions have their own spells that they control and can't be taken over, which I think suggests that with a 2.5 or 3.0 release Endless Spells might well be "you pay for it you own it" affairs.

I'd be glad with that. Ossiarchs and Seraphon were a step in the right direction IMO, when it came to Endless Spells. Especially the OBR method, where controlling the endless spell required the caster to focus on them, and reduced their spellcasting ability in exchange.

Other than them, and Khorne Judgements, the predatory endless spells of factions can be moved by the other player, but they just won't effect the owning armies models. Which is fine I suppose, just sort of annoying.

Cut Double Turn from Matched Play officially, no losing control of your Endless spells, even if the caster suffers a negative to casting to control it. Short wishlist for rules updates.

I like that wishlist too.

With limit to 3 endless spells now, i feel losing control over yours is bad. If they had random movements or something thats fine, but go back and forth starting with 2nd player in new GH2020 i don't agree with.

 Thadin wrote:
I'd be glad with that. Ossiarchs and Seraphon were a step in the right direction IMO, when it came to Endless Spells. Especially the OBR method, where controlling the endless spell required the caster to focus on them, and reduced their spellcasting ability in exchange.

Other than them, and Khorne Judgements, the predatory endless spells of factions can be moved by the other player, but they just won't effect the owning armies models. Which is fine I suppose, just sort of annoying.

Cut Double Turn from Matched Play officially, no losing control of your Endless spells, even if the caster suffers a negative to casting to control it. Short wishlist for rules updates.

Yea, I want to use the endless spells that I paid for too, and not let my opponent use my 30 points against me. It is the main thing keeping me from really using endless spells in the lumineth lists I’m planning on.

I can’t wait for my opponent to take control of my twin stones and move them as far away from where I need them. That’s always fun too...

At least you can cast yours lol. For my BoC (i've kept trak for a bit) i get mine off 1/8 the time. There are games i try every turn and never goes off. BoC has no plus to cast or ways to stop deny, etc.. its just a strait cast, and almost every army makes me either -1, or they have better deny, or i just fail to cast it.

 Tiger9gamer wrote:

 Thadin wrote:
I'd be glad with that. Ossiarchs and Seraphon were a step in the right direction IMO, when it came to Endless Spells. Especially the OBR method, where controlling the endless spell required the caster to focus on them, and reduced their spellcasting ability in exchange.

Other than them, and Khorne Judgements, the predatory endless spells of factions can be moved by the other player, but they just won't effect the owning armies models. Which is fine I suppose, just sort of annoying.

Cut Double Turn from Matched Play officially, no losing control of your Endless spells, even if the caster suffers a negative to casting to control it. Short wishlist for rules updates.

Yea, I want to use the endless spells that I paid for too, and not let my opponent use my 30 points against me. It is the main thing keeping me from really using endless spells in the lumineth lists I’m planning on.

I can’t wait for my opponent to take control of my twin stones and move them as far away from where I need them. That’s always fun too...

They only move 8", but affect things within 12". So unless they're being sent off-board I'd think it'd be pretty hard for them not to be close enough to where you need them.

 auticus wrote:
Who knows. I doubt it. The Double Turn is a sacred cow that people cling to and love. It is also one of my pillars for not touching the game anymore and was always houseruled out until the lockdown on houserules came about in my main stores.

I'm waiting on the Old World project to come out. Hopefully they move away from IGOUGO in the first place and give us a form of alternate activation. LOTR works that way. So its not entirely out of the question.

I'm not even convinced it was intentional in the first place. More like an unintended consequence of a hasty four page rules document that was meant more as a starter set to get in quick games. But there it is to stay.

Ummm...lotr is igougo at core. One player moves, other player moves etc. And same player can get first action repeatedly which can have huge impact.

Closer to aos than aa

While interesting perhaps the endless spell discussion can be spun off into another thread?

tneva82 wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Who knows. I doubt it. The Double Turn is a sacred cow that people cling to and love. It is also one of my pillars for not touching the game anymore and was always houseruled out until the lockdown on houserules came about in my main stores.

I'm waiting on the Old World project to come out. Hopefully they move away from IGOUGO in the first place and give us a form of alternate activation. LOTR works that way. So its not entirely out of the question.

I'm not even convinced it was intentional in the first place. More like an unintended consequence of a hasty four page rules document that was meant more as a starter set to get in quick games. But there it is to stay.

Ummm...lotr is igougo at core. One player moves, other player moves etc. And same player can get first action repeatedly which can have huge impact.

Closer to aos than aa

When one player moves, and another player then moves, that is a /form of/ alternate activation. /form of/ Because you at least get to do something in response other than stand there for an entire turn doing nothing. When you say IGOUGO the assumption is you stand there for an entire turn doing nothing. Or in AOS' case... you stand there for TWO whole turns doing nothing. Because tactical and strategic.

 auticus wrote:
Who knows. I doubt it. The Double Turn is a sacred cow that people cling to and love. It is also one of my pillars for not touching the game anymore and was always houseruled out until the lockdown on houserules came about in my main stores.

I think it's only a sacred pillar by virtue of being part of AoS at all. I never see anyone, even the biggest fanboys, bring it up as a feature when trying to sell the game. They're quick to defend it when it does come up, but they secretly hope it isn't mentioned because their enjoyment of it only extends to the fact GW/AoS can do no wrong. I've said it before, but if it's removed in 3.0 those same people will cheer it's removal as genius as loudly as they defended it all this time.

I'm waiting on the Old World project to come out. Hopefully they move away from IGOUGO in the first place and give us a form of alternate activation. LOTR works that way. So its not entirely out of the question.

A Song of Ice & Fire is a fantastic example of an AA rank-and-file game, but I'd be happy with a LotR style. I never actually had the chance to play War of the Ring but I'm guessing that worked very, very similar just with larger armies and movement trays?

 auticus wrote:

If you go to the big facebook old world group, more than half want the old world to just be aos reskinned for the old world. So I'm not entirely sold or put my emotional investment into it, because part of me thinks thats exactly what it will be. AOS rules in the old world.

How many of those are just AoS-newcomers angry GW brought back the game they gleefully cheered was dead every time another holdover WHFB model got squat'ed though? There's a trend in TOW threads where a lot of AoS diehards get way too giddy at the idea the game is NOT what WHFB players have been clamouring for since 2015. The words 'false flag' sound painfully dramatic but I wouldn't put it past that segment of the so-called audience to try and vocally convince GW that TOW needs to be anything but WHFB to kill it before it can succeed. Afterall these people spent years thinking they'd 'won' and that only five guys in Antarctica actually played it.

I never actually had the chance to play War of the Ring but I'm guessing that worked very, very similar just with larger armies and movement trays?

I only got to play it a couple of times, but it had some issues they needed to iron out. It was the beginnings of a good system though. It was rumored in 2015 that AOS was actually going to be using that system and I was pretty pumped about that. Of course, we know what we got instead lol.

I think it's only a sacred pillar by virtue of being part of AoS at all.

I think you are 1000% correct and I have voiced that opinion as well.

How many of those are just AoS-newcomers angry GW brought back the game they gleefully cheered was dead every time another holdover WHFB model got squat'ed though? There's a trend in TOW threads where a lot of AoS diehards get way too giddy at the idea the game is NOT what WHFB players have been clamouring for since 2015. The words 'false flag' sound painfully dramatic but I wouldn't put it past that segment of the so-called audience to try and vocally convince GW that TOW needs to be anything but WHFB to kill it before it can succeed. Afterall these people spent years thinking they'd 'won' and that only five guys in Antarctica actually played it.

Great question and one that I cannot realistically answer. However I suspect a lot of what you are saying is true because I have observed that same sentiment.

There is indeed a lot of those threads in the old world facebook group and a lot of trolling of people that are wanting something a little more like it used to be or at least something not AOS because AOS rules are repellent to a lot of people who were into rank and file games for a variety of reasons (less impactful maneuver, terrain that doesn't really do much, spam summoning, double turn, etc).

Its at this point turned into something that mirrors the political environment. But thats not surprising since people are at their core... people. And for a lot of people "winning" by exterminating the other side's wants and desires is a common motivator.

I just want a game that I can use my models in again that I don't throw up a little in my mouth everytime.

An AOS 3.0 without double turn would definitely be one of the solid pillars of never playing for me removed. If they got rid of free spam summoning and gave me a warriors of chaos book that wasn't designed to make my opponents look good everytime Id probably be on board with at least giving it a try again, despite it not being the style of game I enjoy.

 auticus wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Who knows. I doubt it. The Double Turn is a sacred cow that people cling to and love. It is also one of my pillars for not touching the game anymore and was always houseruled out until the lockdown on houserules came about in my main stores.

I'm waiting on the Old World project to come out. Hopefully they move away from IGOUGO in the first place and give us a form of alternate activation. LOTR works that way. So its not entirely out of the question.

I'm not even convinced it was intentional in the first place. More like an unintended consequence of a hasty four page rules document that was meant more as a starter set to get in quick games. But there it is to stay.

Ummm...lotr is igougo at core. One player moves, other player moves etc. And same player can get first action repeatedly which can have huge impact.

Closer to aos than aa

When one player moves, and another player then moves, that is a /form of/ alternate activation. /form of/ Because you at least get to do something in response other than stand there for an entire turn doing nothing. When you say IGOUGO the assumption is you stand there for an entire turn doing nothing. Or in AOS' case... you stand there for TWO whole turns doing nothing. Because tactical and strategic.

Except when one player moves his entire army there's often not much other can do. Especially once combat starts. One player moves, then other is in melee locked.

Lotr is lot closer to aos than aa. Double and triple turns decide games there as well

Ok. I'm not going to argue with you. I've played LOTR for many years. Its nothing at all like AOS. Other than they use D6. And there's a turn sequence.

You're the first person I have ever heard in the history of that game try to say LOTR is like AOS with double and triple turns deciding games.

If you feel that AOS and LOTR are similar in that way good on you. I don't agree with you. I'd play AOS with a LOTR ruleset in place any day.

tneva82 wrote:

 auticus wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Who knows. I doubt it. The Double Turn is a sacred cow that people cling to and love. It is also one of my pillars for not touching the game anymore and was always houseruled out until the lockdown on houserules came about in my main stores.

I'm waiting on the Old World project to come out. Hopefully they move away from IGOUGO in the first place and give us a form of alternate activation. LOTR works that way. So its not entirely out of the question.

I'm not even convinced it was intentional in the first place. More like an unintended consequence of a hasty four page rules document that was meant more as a starter set to get in quick games. But there it is to stay.

Ummm...lotr is igougo at core. One player moves, other player moves etc. And same player can get first action repeatedly which can have huge impact.

Closer to aos than aa

When one player moves, and another player then moves, that is a /form of/ alternate activation. /form of/ Because you at least get to do something in response other than stand there for an entire turn doing nothing. When you say IGOUGO the assumption is you stand there for an entire turn doing nothing. Or in AOS' case... you stand there for TWO whole turns doing nothing. Because tactical and strategic.

Except when one player moves his entire army there's often not much other can do. Especially once combat starts. One player moves, then other is in melee locked.

Lotr is lot closer to aos than aa. Double and triple turns decide games there as well

It's really not. Really really not.

You see, LotR contains resources that allow players to act out of strict priority, and much of the game revolves around spending or conserving these resources for maximum impact, because they also usually allow for things like roll modification, or the activation of special abilities.

Also it doesn't have the same issues of allowing for doubling down of damage that AoS shooting, or the ASF wars allows for.

Units in LotR also don't have dramatic insane movements as a rule, as opposed to what is extremely common on AoS.

Also there are no units, and every model acts individually.

There's, uh, not a lot in common in fact.

There's, uh, not a lot in common in fact.

The d6. And the fact there are turns. Thats about it.

 auticus wrote:

There's, uh, not a lot in common in fact.

The d6. And the fact there are turns. Thats about it.

There's also a priority roll.

It just doesn't have the same effect in a game where the phases alternate, and there are methods that players can control to mitigate the roll based off limited resources their army contains.

When AoS was first released I was excited. It seemed to be changing to something I would enjoy more than WHFB. I waited for an army to come along that I could really get passionate about. Then came the Daughters of Khaine and I was all in.
I got the army built (and some of it partially painted) and went to the game store.
Then the double turn happened. I packed up after the game and went home with a complete lack of interest in the game.
A few months passed and a grow league started. Having forgot completely about the double turn I got all excited and joined up.
Then the double turn happened and remembered why I stopped playing. Packed up when home and put the army in storage.
A few months passed and some really cool models came out. My friend bought and painted up (stunningly) a OBR army. I got excited to play a few games with him, picked up Morathi for something to work on during covid.
Decided it had been a while since I visited Dakka and thought I'd see what had been going on over the last fee months.
Then i saw this thread. And once again I was reminded that I actually HATE AoS because of the double turn. Been trying to sell the army online ever since. I really should make a post on here in the Swap Shop but its too mich work using only a phone.

I can dig that. For me ... AOS ruleset is mostly repulsive to what I want out of a wargame, but I played it because of the large community and it got me games in. But yeah the double turn is one of the trifecta of reasons why I can't play the game until they are removed.

 DeffDred wrote:
When AoS was first released I was excited. It seemed to be changing to something I would enjoy more than WHFB. I waited for an army to come along that I could really get passionate about. Then came the Daughters of Khaine and I was all in.
I got the army built (and some of it partially painted) and went to the game store.
Then the double turn happened. I packed up after the game and went home with a complete lack of interest in the game.
A few months passed and a grow league started. Having forgot completely about the double turn I got all excited and joined up.
Then the double turn happened and remembered why I stopped playing. Packed up when home and put the army in storage.
A few months passed and some really cool models came out. My friend bought and painted up (stunningly) a OBR army. I got excited to play a few games with him, picked up Morathi for something to work on during covid.
Decided it had been a while since I visited Dakka and thought I'd see what had been going on over the last fee months.
Then i saw this thread. And once again I was reminded that I actually HATE AoS because of the double turn. Been trying to sell the army online ever since. I really should make a post on here in the Swap Shop but its too mich work using only a phone.

Ooh, here's an idea. It's pretty radical.....

You know your friend with that stunningly painted OBR army? Why don't you just talk to him about playing games without the hated double turn mechanic?
Might also work with other players.

In the group I play with some of us like the double turn, some don't & some don't care either way.
So what do we do?
If two like minded people are playing - it's in/out depending upon opinion.
If the games between pro & neutral - it's in.
If the games between negative & neutral it's out.
Neutral vs neutral - flips a coin
Pro vs Negative - flip a coin for that game. The next time these two play each other it's in/out depending upon who lost the coin flip the last time.
We've not noticed any down side to not using this rule.

Personally I think its quite telling that with AoS and 40K sharing very similar rules systems and GW clearly swapping the best parts back and forth - that with 40K not having a doubleturn suggests that GW knows its not universally liked.

In my opinion I hate the double turn.

I was an ETC 9th Age Player, and now I´m on the AOS Spanish ETC Team, and a doble turn allows an opponent that is playing worse than you to win a game.

Yeah, you can play with the double turn etc etc... but it´s broken.

ccs wrote:

 DeffDred wrote:
When AoS was first released I was excited. It seemed to be changing to something I would enjoy more than WHFB. I waited for an army to come along that I could really get passionate about. Then came the Daughters of Khaine and I was all in.
I got the army built (and some of it partially painted) and went to the game store.
Then the double turn happened. I packed up after the game and went home with a complete lack of interest in the game.
A few months passed and a grow league started. Having forgot completely about the double turn I got all excited and joined up.
Then the double turn happened and remembered why I stopped playing. Packed up when home and put the army in storage.
A few months passed and some really cool models came out. My friend bought and painted up (stunningly) a OBR army. I got excited to play a few games with him, picked up Morathi for something to work on during covid.
Decided it had been a while since I visited Dakka and thought I'd see what had been going on over the last fee months.
Then i saw this thread. And once again I was reminded that I actually HATE AoS because of the double turn. Been trying to sell the army online ever since. I really should make a post on here in the Swap Shop but its too mich work using only a phone.

Ooh, here's an idea. It's pretty radical.....

You know your friend with that stunningly painted OBR army? Why don't you just talk to him about playing games without the hated double turn mechanic?
Might also work with other players.

In the group I play with some of us like the double turn, some don't & some don't care either way.
So what do we do?
If two like minded people are playing - it's in/out depending upon opinion.
If the games between pro & neutral - it's in.
If the games between negative & neutral it's out.
Neutral vs neutral - flips a coin
Pro vs Negative - flip a coin for that game. The next time these two play each other it's in/out depending upon who lost the coin flip the last time.
We've not noticed any down side to not using this rule.

Because that one friend and I are only a singular example of potential games. Despite living within 30 minutes of each other we have not had the chance to game together since Tyranids had their mutation based codex and Dakka was a brick and mortar store.
If I do go to the local stores I have 2 choices, the store where every last person is a tfg power gamer that wants every last rule possible in effect or the other place that isnt really the place to play so much as buy stuff.

and a doble turn allows an opponent that is playing worse than you to win a game

That was its design intent. AOS was supposed to be devoid of barriers to entry. One barrier to entry is losing games because you aren't as good, which drives people away.

No I'm not being sarcastic, this was touched on in a very early designer video interview back in either late 2015 or early 2016. They wanted to remove the things people hated about whfb, and one of those things was rules mastery and opening the game up to be more fun for casual people by introducing ways where even the worst strategic player in the world could feel that they have a chance to win, which is where the double turn stems from.

Ooh, here's an idea. It's pretty radical.....

You know your friend with that stunningly painted OBR army? Why don't you just talk to him about playing games without the hated double turn mechanic?

The idea you pose in general is not a bad one, however I'm responding beacuse you lead off with it as if it were the obvious choice that every group should be able to do.

Except thats not true. If you have an area that is 100% against any houseruling, you aren't playing without the double turn. And if you suggest playing without the double turn, you won't have any games to play. You have to basically accept that you'll have to use the double turn, find garage or basement games and not participate in the community overall, or not play AOS.

Even my play area, which has great people, focused on putting cool toys on the table and having a good game, are hesitant about dropping rules from the game, particularly the double turn mechanic. I really do hope I can convince them after several games where my Skaven get two turns of uncontested shooting in a row.

Maybe two turns of uncontested Lumineth shooting where their heroes and support pieces are removed without any way to interact or defend against it, will be the tipping point. And I get to have a smug "I told you so" moment once they realize that double turn sucks.

 Overread wrote:
Personally I think its quite telling that with AoS and 40K sharing very similar rules systems and GW clearly swapping the best parts back and forth - that with 40K not having a doubleturn suggests that GW knows its not universally liked.

When an army can get 400 shots at 48"+ range and the ability to re-roll those hits and wounds, Double turns are impossible in 40k. AoS is not 40k. Sure some aspects can translate, but many can not.

Shooting armies do exist in AoS. Are they as shooty as their 40k equivalents? No. Are they shooty enough to auto-win with a double? Absolutely. I would know given my first edition tourney army was built around exactly that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Thadin wrote:
Maybe two turns of uncontested Lumineth shooting where their heroes and support pieces are removed without any way to interact or defend against it, will be the tipping point. And I get to have a smug "I told you so" moment once they realize that double turn sucks.

Please tell us how that goes over!

People will continue to defend double turn until gw finally removes it. And I'm betting is that when that day comes... the people defending it won't be really lamenting its loss either.

 ElAntiguoGuardián wrote:
and a doble turn allows an opponent that is playing worse than you to win a game.

Actually this is a core problem with understanding the double turn - it doesn't allow what you're saying.


See if it allowed for the underdog in a battle to gain the upper hand, or at least have a greater chance at gaining the upper hand, then it might not be too bad. If, say the doubleturn begin for a side starting a battle round with 50% less points than their opponent - ergo that the game state is taken into account - then the doubleturn might have a merit.

However it doesn't, its a simple dice roll that relies and is modified by nothing in the game state. It can just as easily happen to the underdog as to the person winning or turn an even sided match one sided.

And that's its critical flaw. It's a single random dice roll that heavily swings the game in the favour of the person who gets it. Furthermore because its a dice roll it only happens by chance. So writing it out of the rules is a super simple step, you just take it out and the whole game functions as normal without the risk.


I've heard a few argue that you can't do that, because tactics in the game require you to think it might happen and "plan for it" but I've yet to see any of those plans actually be specific to the doubleturn. Screening your good units with chaff units isn't unique to the doubleturn; its purely good tactics in general. The doubleturn has likely forced some to learn those tactics whereas before they didn't "need" them because if an underdog gets a double on them then even worse players have a hard time losing when getting full two rounds.



So in the end I try not to justify it as "allowing a worse player to win" because it equally allows a slightly better play to guarantee their win; in the end it basically hands whoever gets it a near iron clad chance to win.

On the contrary. I have seen worse players pull off wins because they got a key double turn that just tore the guts out of their opponent. They had played poorly up to the point of the double turn, and the double turn is what helped them swing the game back into their favor and ultimately win the game.

Thats also one of the reasons why I hear it defended so hard. Because people have won games with it and they know its powerful and it gives them that feeling that they are never out of the game if they can get the double turn. Its also a commonly cited reason of scorn against people that don't like it: because those are just salty neckbeards that don't like losing when they get double turned and therefore double turn is good because it drives those people out of the game and away from the community.

I've seen both of those many many times cited in some form or fashion over the past four - five years of AOS' lifetime.