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.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
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!

You can counter shooting in AoS thou, you can not in 40k, otherwise you'll only see shooting armies in top 10.

 Overread wrote:

 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.

I think you are confusing 'can allow a player playing worse to win' with 'always allows a player playing worse to win' he isn't saying that scenario is what ALWAYS happens, just that it can.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
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!

You can counter shooting in AoS thou, you can not in 40k, otherwise you'll only see shooting armies in top 10.

That is beside the point; enough shooting exists in AoS for a double-turn army to shoot the opponent up so badly they cannot recover. It is a scenario where the opposing army cannot win unless they happen to have been an army that both possesses strong counter-shooting and brought those tools (which would be useless against a melee-centered build). And that is the issue; a no-win scenario where the initiative roll decided the game. The players might well have brought only their lists and a single d6, rolled the round two initiative then shook hands and called the game. Now that is a somewhat specific scenario where one army is very shooty, gets turn choice to go second, then wins the first initiative roll. But that it exists at all is a big issue to many people.

To be honest, removing the double turn won't solve AoS's problems - I actually think it will make them worse. It's a fallacy to think it allows "worse" players to win because of that - it has nothing to do with being "good" or "bad" players. The thing is, the double turn is always uncertain and while you can hope to have one at the right time or get ready to eat one in the face, you can never know when or if you'll get it in the end.

That's what most players hate about it : lack of control about the game. Others like it because of that, because you can never predict it 100 %.

Some battles that should have been lost in advance because of the lists didn't thanks to the double turn. Of course, it can become a one sided game as well because lady Luck wasn't on your side. But since it can go either way, it's also the reason shooting lists aren't considered that consistent on the competitive scene - because they rely heavily on when the double turn happens in their favor, and are really bad when it goes the other way.

Remove the double turn, and you will have another meta similar to 40k. It won't stop the one-sided battles...it will just make them more predictable, that's all.

Now with AoS having double turn for so long, players who keep playing it got used to it. Sure, GW may remove it the next edition, but I'm not sure the caucus of voices against it is as loud as people against double turn think it really is.

Removing double turn will indeed not solve AOS' problems. Yes the games will continue to be one-sided provided the two players aren't playing tippy top optimal lists of similar power. Thats another of the problems (the non-balance). However AOS is not a game where balance matters, and its fan base also largely doesn't seem to care about it either.

AOS is a game designed for a casual social experience where the game itself is secondary and balance is not something that really matters at the end of the day so long as chucking dice and drinking beer and pushing pretty gw models around is the primary. And that I guess is ok, if thats what one is after.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 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.

I think you are confusing 'can allow a player playing worse to win' with 'always allows a player playing worse to win' he isn't saying that scenario is what ALWAYS happens, just that it can.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
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!

You can counter shooting in AoS thou, you can not in 40k, otherwise you'll only see shooting armies in top 10.

That is beside the point; enough shooting exists in AoS for a double-turn army to shoot the opponent up so badly they cannot recover. It is a scenario where the opposing army cannot win unless they happen to have been an army that both possesses strong counter-shooting and brought those tools (which would be useless against a melee-centered build). And that is the issue; a no-win scenario where the initiative roll decided the game. The players might well have brought only their lists and a single d6, rolled the round two initiative then shook hands and called the game. Now that is a somewhat specific scenario where one army is very shooty, gets turn choice to go second, then wins the first initiative roll. But that it exists at all is a big issue to many people.

Then you prep for it poorly. Sorry but you don't always win by running up mid field and sitting there doing nothing hoping not to get a double turn on being shot at. I play IDK, CoS, and BoC, i have zero problems with the 2 large shooting forces (DoT and CoS).

I would be surprised if a player of those armies did have problems with shooting. All three are among those which have strong answers to it. IDK in particular are a hard counter to shooting forces, an army which clearly operates outside the norm in that dynamic.

And I was the one doing the shooting for an entire edition. I won a large number of double-turn matches against opponents who definitely could not have done anything to prep for it. This was an army I used exclusively for tourney and tourney-practice games, against players who knew what they were doing. Now if the shooting player is incompetent they can indeed blow their auto-win opportunity, but it is on them to lose.

And finally, there is another critical element; if the first-turn player DID prep so well for a double turn that it was not worth taking the shooter can do exactly that.

 auticus wrote:
Removing double turn will indeed not solve AOS' problems. Yes the games will continue to be one-sided provided the two players aren't playing tippy top optimal lists of similar power. Thats another of the problems (the non-balance). However AOS is not a game where balance matters, and its fan base also largely doesn't seem to care about it either.

AOS is a game designed for a casual social experience where the game itself is secondary and balance is not something that really matters at the end of the day so long as chucking dice and drinking beer and pushing pretty gw models around is the primary. And that I guess is ok, if thats what one is after.

Thing is, it's a game. Conquest is also a game the same way. Both are meant for social experience...and I'm not sure you can say AoS is a "casual" one, given the amount of time you can sink on it. Some may see Conquest the same you're looking at AoS, in the end. It's just a matter of what the players want to do with it and how much time they're ready to invest as well.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

And I was the one doing the shooting for an entire edition. I won a large number of double-turn matches against opponents who definitely could not have done anything to prep for it.

And finally, there is another critical element; if the first-turn player DID prep so well for a double turn that it was not worth taking the shooter can do exactly that.

Sure, but how many did you lose ? It's not the number of victories that matter, it's the ratio.

And while the shooter can indeed get ready for not having a double turn, it usually is lacking in the melee department and can't counterattack well during the opponent's turn because of that. It just has not as many tools as a melee army on that matter. Otherwise, we would see shooting armies constantly at the top of tournaments, but it's not the case. That means shooting doesn't have as many interesting tools as melee ones with the mechanism of double turn existing.

and I'm not sure you can say AoS is a "casual" one, given the amount of time you can sink on it.

I've sunk several thousand hours into my side soccer hobby too over the course of my life. It was still casual.

I dont think the amount of time sunk into something defines it as "casual" or not.

When I say AOS is built for the casual social experience I mean that quite literally:

* it was designed to be as simple and as easy as possible to remove any barrier of entry concerning rules mastery or poor strategy and tactics holding one back. That was said verbatim by a gw designer in 2015 interview about the system and why they did what they did.

* it is a game whose massive player base is a main hook for a great many people

* balance amongst its player base is listed as tertiary or not important at all.

Games like conquest cannot even come close to being successful if they rolled out a game like AOS. They have to make an attempt to build a solid game and not rely on their non existent name or street cred to carry them.

If mantic or para bellum or warlord games or Joe's Game Shop.com had released AOS, AOS would not be played very much today if at all. I'll die on that hill saying that.

Sarouan wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

And I was the one doing the shooting for an entire edition. I won a large number of double-turn matches against opponents who definitely could not have done anything to prep for it.

And finally, there is another critical element; if the first-turn player DID prep so well for a double turn that it was not worth taking the shooter can do exactly that.

Sure, but how many did you lose ? It's not the number of victories that matter, it's the ratio.

And while the shooter can indeed get ready for not having a double turn, it usually is lacking in the melee department and can't counterattack well during the opponent's turn because of that. It just has not as many tools as a melee army on that matter. Otherwise, we would see shooting armies constantly at the top of tournaments, but it's not the case. That means shooting doesn't have as many interesting tools as melee ones with the mechanism of double turn existing.

You are highlighting the point; with a hard shooting army the roll for initiative decides the game more than any other factor. Also to answer your first question, I had a bit under a 5:1 win:loss ratio. Out of all my games there were three where I got the double then managed to lose (each time due to a critical mistake on my part against a skilled opponent). Three.

 auticus wrote:

Games like conquest cannot even come close to being successful if they rolled out a game like AOS. They have to make an attempt to build a solid game and not rely on their non existent name or street cred to carry them.

If mantic or para bellum or warlord games or Joe's Game Shop.com had released AOS, AOS would not be played very much today if at all. I'll die on that hill saying that.

You'll die alone, then.

Reason why AoS is popular is clearly not just the game system. The brand and the size of the company also matters - especially when GW already has a whole network of places where you can play and can promote everything by themselves. Mantic Games, Para Bellum, Warlord Games - they all have to depend on third parties, they have nothing for themselves. Also, the wargame market is very crowded now.

And yeah, GW was here the first. Helps too.

But if Para Bellum was in the place of GW ? I think the game system doesn't matter that much. Battle has survived for so many years with a clunky and old game system, after all. Conquest isn't any different here, it is far from being perfect - it's clear it will evolve much more as years pass on.

In the end, the rules are just a way to make everyone agree on how to use it before going in the real game - and here with Conquest, I think it's not just the game system : it's also the universe and the miniatures. Sure, they may not be that original, but the scale is quite an unusual one for wargames on the market and you can't deny it has quite a good art design for itself.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

You are highlighting the point; with a hard shooting army the roll for initiative decides the game more than any other factor.

That's very true. TBH, I think as long as AoS will keep a "I Go U Go" rule system, allowing you to make your whole army shoot without the enemy being able to answer during your turn, the problem will stay the same - double turn or not. That's why 40k games feel so one-sided with optimized lists. That's why I think removing the double turn won't actually make things better for AoS if it keeps the rest.

If there was an alternance like in Kill Team, it already changes quite a lot (well, as long as you have some parts of shooting units, of course...which isn't guaranteed in AoS, I agree).

I would rather work on scenarios with victory conditions favorable for the player who decides to play last - like giving more victory points, as it already exists in some scenarios right now. So that there is more of a choice rather than automatically taking double turn because it's a win-win situation in all cases.

Removing doubleturn won't magically make the whole system perfect but it will remove one of its most glaring imperfections. Even in close combat where it alternates the double turn gives a major advantage because the player with the doubleturn gets to choose about engaging into new fights or not. They can hold units back or sweep them around to gang up on a specific target. They can also make good on actual dodging of attacks the enemy was going to initiate.

Not to mention the duel magic phase use and doubling of any shooting.

You'll die alone, then.

Reason why AoS is popular is clearly not just the game system. The brand and the size of the company also matters - especially when GW already has a whole network of places where you can play and can promote everything by themselves. Mantic Games, Para Bellum, Warlord Games - they all have to depend on third parties, they have nothing for themselves. Also, the wargame market is very crowded now.

And yeah, GW was here the first. Helps too.

But if Para Bellum was in the place of GW ? I think the game system doesn't matter that much. Battle has survived for so many years with a clunky and old game system, after all. Conquest isn't any different here, it is far from being perfect - it's clear it will evolve much more as years pass on.

In the end, the rules are just a way to make everyone agree on how to use it before going in the real game - and here with Conquest, I think it's not just the game system : it's also the universe and the miniatures. Sure, they may not be that original, but the scale is quite an unusual one for wargames on the market and you can't deny it has quite a good art design for itself.

Nah. There is a whole wide world of people who are basically of the same mindset as me. You just won't find them in an AOS forum.

I agree and you mirrored a lot of what I said though. AOS is more than its game system. Its the massive fan base that draws most people in. At least the ones I know. They invest in AOS same reason they invest in 40k. Because they know they have people to play and their $1000 investment isn't going to be wasted.

If Para Bellum came out in 2015 BEFORE GW DID with a rule system that was AOS, they'd be bankrupt today and gone and forgotten. Because these other companies HAVE to make solid game systems, they don't have their name to go off of or the massive fanbase that will defend anything that they do to protect their investment.

AOS is popular because its produced by GW and the investment into the game is more guarnteed. No other game company in the world can offer that, and its hard to convince people to drop $500 - $800 on a new game when that group could just disappear. With AOS and 40k you can go to any major city in the USA and get a game in anytime. Thats why AOS is so popular. The balance, the bad rules, the wonky interactions, the double turn, those are all universally hand waived because in the end protecting the investment that a player drops, that large amount of cash, is what is the most important thing for a whole lot of people (and that is quite understandable)

Art and lore are great. And I just did a whole video review I posted in the other game channel about all of the fantasy games I've played in the past 30 years, and AOS definitely has appealing visuals and art and models and lore for me, being a heavy metal fan. The reason *I* am still here posting is beacuse I have a considerable $10,000+ investment into GW models that I'd like to use again and if you remove spam summoning, the double turn, and true line of sight, AOS wouldn't be my favorite game but I'd play it a lot and be ok with the experience.

 auticus wrote:

If Para Bellum came out in 2015 BEFORE GW DID with a rule system that was AOS, they'd be bankrupt today and gone and forgotten. Because these other companies HAVE to make solid game systems, they don't have their name to go off of or the massive fanbase that will defend anything that they do to protect their investment.

I'll be honest, I disagree with you here. I think the game system isn't really that important for a game to last - building a community and nurturing it while giving them constantly something new to strive for, that's what makes a game last over the years. It doesn't have to be a complex / good / balanced game system at all.

The reason why I think this is because I have seen lots of promising game systems slowly die and disappear over the decades just because they weren't able to give something to their community on the long term. It's a shame, really, but the sad truth is quality alone isn't important.

I miss Anima Tactics a lot. That was a really high quality game, both in miniatures, game system and material (the core book was just a beauty), and yet...it didn't matter in the end.

I think that if Para Bellum made something akind to AoS before GW, it could have last over the years as long as they managed to do the above. It doesn't even have to build a huge community, just a big enough to give profits on long term and keep the development going.

I could consider your stance if you can give me an example of a game whose system is generally seen as not very good, but is very popular.

I don't know of any, hence why my stance is what it is.

I realize and agree with you that quality alone is not important. That realization came to me many years ago when people would complain about 40k and warhammer being hot garbage but still play it regularly and buy stuff for it regularly.

I didn't realize how much BALANCE didn't matter until after I did azyr for AOS before official points tanked the fan comps.

I think other companies have the huge hurdle of ... no one has the fan base that GW does, and GW because it has the fan base it does can produce pretty much whatever it wants rules-wise and it will be popular.

 auticus wrote:
I could consider your stance if you can give me an example of a game whose system is generally seen as not very good, but is very popular.

I don't know of any, hence why my stance is what it is.

I realize and agree with you that quality alone is not important. That realization came to me many years ago when people would complain about 40k and warhammer being hot garbage but still play it regularly and buy stuff for it regularly.

I didn't realize how much BALANCE didn't matter until after I did azyr for AOS before official points tanked the fan comps.

I think other companies have the huge hurdle of ... no one has the fan base that GW does, and GW because it has the fan base it does can produce pretty much whatever it wants rules-wise and it will be popular.

The existence of Risk still nowadays should be proof enough.

Joke aside, I know some people aren't satisfied with AoS or 40k and are very critical about how GW handles the rules / see their game system. What really matters, though, is the number of people who believe the opposite and keep playing.

It's not really a question of who's right, in the end. It's just a matter of perception. I do understand it can be frustrating to see so many people still playing a game you don't see as good, but that's the reality. That doesn't mean they have bad taste or enjoy a bad game...it just means the game is satisfying for them enough to keep playing.

TBH, the other companies have the hurdle of not being as big as GW and not able / not willing to invest the same amount in the recruitment of new players. You can do only that much when you give that job (and it's a real job) to third parties / to the good will of very motivated players. GW does that, that's the difference.

And yes I agree with you that GW has much more freedom about making game systems, since they can sell it more easily to their base thanks to their shops and own marketing section.

Still...with the market so bloated with new games all the time, I think it's really difficult now to have an original game system that makes it stand out in comparison to others. I mean, you can try to make a new game system with totally new mechanisms, but there are good chances that whatever you're trying to use, it already was made before in another obscure game somewhere anyway. Conquest has a lot of mechanisms that are actually inspired from previous games (their activation system is actually very similar to old AT-43 and Rag'Narok games from Rackham). Yet they try to be different so that they can be noticed upon the tsunami of games that keep being released over and over again.

It's more a frantic race for survival than trying to be a good game, in the end. The key part is building a core base of fans / players big enough to sustain the game on long term. It's really not about the quality of the game system at all.

I'd be wondering what GW does to enable the job of third parties promoting the game that other companies don't do?

I know as a Conquest Vanguard, the company gives us $100 a month in free product as well as the chance to get exclusive models not for sale to the general public.

I promoted GW like crazy for 20 years. I was an outrider for about a year and a half in the late 90s before they axed that program, and that was the only time GW really acknowledged my presence. Other than that I did what I did out of love for the game, but GW didn't really do anything to enable that.

I appreciate your answer though, because it was a lot more than "you just have to git gud" or "the balance is just fine" or "in the tournament circuit this isn't a problem, so this isn't a problem". It was more an honest answer and I really do appreciate you taking the time to give it.

 auticus wrote:
I'd be wondering what GW does to enable the job of third parties promoting the game that other companies don't do?

They actually have their own shops with their own people they pay for the job - their main purpose is recruiting new blood as well as making sales, then guiding them to the locals for long term play.

They also contact third parties like independants and clubs, but the thing is ; they don't rely on them alone. That's why GW reach so easily so many people for their games.

I know as a Conquest Vanguard, the company gives us $100 a month in free product as well as the chance to get exclusive models not for sale to the general public.

That's great, but that's not a full paid job. Like I said, there are limits to what third parties can do. Imagine what you could do if you were paid to promote and sell Conquest 5 or 6 days a week during working hours. Imagine how many more people you would be able to reach that way. That's what GW does with their shops.

I appreciate your answer though, because it was a lot more than "you just have to git gud" or "the balance is just fine" or "in the tournament circuit this isn't a problem, so this isn't a problem". It was more an honest answer and I really do appreciate you taking the time to give it.

You're welcome ! And honestly, I understand your arguments as well. I do feel there is a lot of room for improvement for AoS, but I don't see the double turn as a bad mechanism in itself. Sure, the games can be wanky and one-sided because of it, but I had really fun games with it as well when it suddenly turn the battle to a more interesting development. Will I be able to play the game without it ? I think, but I believe it will become a bit more predictable and it won't especially be for a better game in the end.

auticus wrote:

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.

Overread wrote:

 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.

I was not saying that the double turn gives the option to a worse player to win everytime they have it, I was saying that that die roll can change an entire game, and in the correct turn, a worse player can change the flow of the entire game.

I understand what is intended with the double turn, but in a competitive game it´s too bad. Maybe AoS it´s not a competitive game, but since the origins of the game the competitive ways are growing, and if you´re going to win a tournament because you´re playing great and a dice roll destroy everithing...

 ElAntiguoGuardián wrote:

I was not saying that the double turn gives the option to a worse player to win everytime they have it, I was saying that that die roll can change an entire game, and in the correct turn, a worse player can change the flow of the entire game.

But it's already the case in AoS without the double turn : a single die roll can change the outcome of the game. How many times did you win / lose because you failed / succeeded in a single crucial die roll ? It happens all the time for me, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone here.

Some say the initiative roll for first turn in 40k already decide the outcome of the game. In some cases, that's true.

Sure, the roll for double turn is just another one of them, but GW games were always about crucial dice rolls deciding the outcome of the game. Removing double turn won't change that.

And I don't believe in that "worse player" narrative. If a player was really that bad, having a double turn won't make him magically win - especially if the other player is "better" and knows what a double turn is, and play accordingly. Maybe the other was not that good if he can't ready himself for the possibility, and maybe his opponent wasn't that worse in the end to use his advantage to win the battle.

I think it's more a question of the frustration felt when the battle slips out of your control when it turns to your disadvantage. You think you're good, you believe your victory was stolen by a worse player because he was lucky, that's how you see it as a mechanism to allow "worse players to win".

The difference is that a normal single good roll affefts one model or unit. That unit has to be in the right place at the right time to swing the battle either for or against the player. Thus that moment is built from the choices and play of both players up to that point.


The doulble turn has nothing of that, it is pure luck of a single dice roll that in no way is influenced by the game it self. It changes the whole course of the game butis in no way a part of the choices of either player.

Its not the same as failing one ssve roll and losing your most powerful unit, its not even being part of the dice roll and suddenly losing your entire turn. Your entire chance to reply in the dance of the game is gone.

I still fail to also see who it is even fun for most.
For those who get it it almost makesbthe game an automatic win, for those who it is used against its the opposite and worse they spend double the length of time only able to react to game state. The only agncy they ,ightget is swapped control of an emdless spell. Otherwise they can only react to what theopponent does

I have won far, far more games because of a double than lost because of a double. That is a not-insignificant part of why I dislike it so much.

 ElAntiguoGuardián wrote:

auticus wrote:

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.

Overread wrote:

 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.

I was not saying that the double turn gives the option to a worse player to win everytime they have it, I was saying that that die roll can change an entire game, and in the correct turn, a worse player can change the flow of the entire game.

I understand what is intended with the double turn, but in a competitive game it´s too bad. Maybe AoS it´s not a competitive game, but since the origins of the game the competitive ways are growing, and if you´re going to win a tournament because you´re playing great and a dice roll destroy everithing...

They don't even stick to this conceit though. So many armies in AoS revolve around being able to move the entirety of a game board in a single turn and cripple the enemy entirely in that one turn, so the double turn really doesn't actually matter. You go first and win. An issue they're actually tackling in 40k, but they have done the opposite of tackle in AoS. They continue to reinforce it. They just nerfed the one army that trivially tanked anyone's alpha strike (by trivially tanking literally everything in the game because they were too good), but the armies that continue to revolve around the alpha strike haven't really changed.

Sarouan wrote:

 ElAntiguoGuardián wrote:

I was not saying that the double turn gives the option to a worse player to win everytime they have it, I was saying that that die roll can change an entire game, and in the correct turn, a worse player can change the flow of the entire game.

But it's already the case in AoS without the double turn : a single die roll can change the outcome of the game. How many times did you win / lose because you failed / succeeded in a single crucial die roll ? It happens all the time for me, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone here.

Some say the initiative roll for first turn in 40k already decide the outcome of the game. In some cases, that's true.

Sure, the roll for double turn is just another one of them, but GW games were always about crucial dice rolls deciding the outcome of the game. Removing double turn won't change that.

And I don't believe in that "worse player" narrative. If a player was really that bad, having a double turn won't make him magically win - especially if the other player is "better" and knows what a double turn is, and play accordingly. Maybe the other was not that good if he can't ready himself for the possibility, and maybe his opponent wasn't that worse in the end to use his advantage to win the battle.

I think it's more a question of the frustration felt when the battle slips out of your control when it turns to your disadvantage. You think you're good, you believe your victory was stolen by a worse player because he was lucky, that's how you see it as a mechanism to allow "worse players to win".

I play kharadrons (on the occaision that I play). How does a KO army both win a game and play around a double turn?

No, I play kharadrons. How do my opponents survive me getting a double turn? I mean provided the enemy army couldn't traverse the entire board in a single turn and has already killed all my stuff.

So many armies in AoS revolve around being able to move the entirety of a game board in a single turn and cripple the enemy entirely in that one turn

Also an experience I have seen in many AOS games, which is why one of my complaints is that AOS removed the importance of maneuver from the game for the most part. (you can get down to that fiddly level where it matters like in combat when people are positioning their guys 0.25" away from something to prevent a counter strike)

However the counter to this I am told many times is that this is "more exciting". And makes melee armies "viable" because they weren't viable before because shooting could shoot you in turn 1, but melee couldn't. Now it can.

 auticus wrote:

So many armies in AoS revolve around being able to move the entirety of a game board in a single turn and cripple the enemy entirely in that one turn

Also an experience I have seen in many AOS games, which is why one of my complaints is that AOS removed the importance of maneuver from the game for the most part. (you can get down to that fiddly level where it matters like in combat when people are positioning their guys 0.25" away from something to prevent a counter strike)

However the counter to this I am told many times is that this is "more exciting". And makes melee armies "viable" because they weren't viable before because shooting could shoot you in turn 1, but melee couldn't. Now it can.

Most shooting armies couldn't really shoot you in turn one to any appreciable extent until they got their own super movement nonsense. Or got super good long range shooting (As an aside, boy am I not looking forward to 5 plus mortal wound shooting archers of the new elves now that I'm looking at AoS again in hopes KO are in a good place finally.)

Again, as a KO player, I can do appreciable shooting out to about 18 inches. That's not turn one shooting territory (unless I go second, but by turn 2 people are on me). And then I got the ability to teleport pretty much my entire army wherever.

A fair few of the best armies in the game currently are shooting heavy armies. KO is showing strong results at tournament play as of late. And of course, there's Tzeentch Flamers shooting, Seraphon laser lizard artillery, Skaven shooting, Stormcast shooting, CoS Artillery. Though, CoS and Stormcast aren't doing as well, their long-range shooting is still worth mentioning as they're quite strong.

Either these armies need a knock to their power (simplest is removing double turn) or, TO's/garage hammer hosts need to be putting more LOS blocking terrain chunks on the board. The last AoS tournament I went to, the boards looked more akin to the barren WHFB style boards.

Shooting is OP, i 100% agree with that.

 Thadin wrote:
A fair few of the best armies in the game currently are shooting heavy armies. KO is showing strong results at tournament play as of late. And of course, there's Tzeentch Flamers shooting, Seraphon laser lizard artillery, Skaven shooting, Stormcast shooting, CoS Artillery. Though, CoS and Stormcast aren't doing as well, their long-range shooting is still worth mentioning as they're quite strong.

Either these armies need a knock to their power (simplest is removing double turn) or, TO's/garage hammer hosts need to be putting more LOS blocking terrain chunks on the board. The last AoS tournament I went to, the boards looked more akin to the barren WHFB style boards.

Does not help as much as one might think; note how all of those listed except Stormcast and CoS have movement shenanigans to get shooters the firing lines they need.

The ease of moving wherever you want to go is very much a thing in AoS, and few performing armies go without. CoS looked to have like a crazy lock on a shoot/magic murder army. But that never translated to actual performance because they lack the speed to maneuver their compact shooting block onto objectives and score (And CoS get significantly worse if they aren't compact).

KO, seraphon, skaven? They just literally teleport about. The difference between shooting and melee is pretty much nonexistent if you can be in melee from anywhere on the board, or move your shooting assets to pretty much anywhere on the board.

There is a difference between melee and shooting. It's about being able to interact. Most armies in melee have to alternate between their forces, and the enemy forces attacking one unit at a time. Also why Double turn effects shooting armies more than melee.

stratigo wrote:

I play kharadrons (on the occaision that I play). How does a KO army both win a game and play around a double turn?

No, I play kharadrons. How do my opponents survive me getting a double turn? I mean provided the enemy army couldn't traverse the entire board in a single turn and has already killed all my stuff.

You miss/fail to wound on enough of your rolls.
They make enough of their saves.