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:
Either way even IF they invalidate all battalions and only have the book ones, how long before they start adding them back to battletomes, thereby ruining the game's balance yet again by changing design paradigms midway through?

I can definitely seeing them adding army specific alterations to the core system in the same way DE in 40k have their Patrol modifications.

With the simplification of battalions new battleroles may come. If the new edition comes with a General's Handbook style suplement, we will have updated point costs for every unit in the game that adapt to the new mechanics, and that chart may contain additional roles to the usual Leader/Battleline/Behemoth/Artillery. We may see others like "Elite" or "Ranged Support", and this may come into the list building limitations too. There is the rumor of max unit size being more limited too, and that comes in the same type of release.

I bet "Battalions" becomes strictly a list-building thing that affect drops, CPs and artifacts but not much more, akin to... are they called detachments? in 40k. Then the concept we have of several units sharing a bonus may be a different thing, maybe strictly narrative like the regiments of renown or maybe more integrated into the faction and sub-factions rules.

 Overread wrote:
Honestly the only thing I want to move out of "matched play" is the doubleturn or turn priority as they like to brand it as

From that video it doesn't sound like it's going, unfortunately. Just sounds like another band-aid "fix" rather than them removing a fundamentally broken un-fun mechanic or shaking up the game more and utilizing a LOTR-style turn system where the priority roll actually works.

I mean a LOT of people like the double turn. Probably at least as many hate it. So I get why they keep it, even if I'm tired of it. A lot of people think it's a neat addition for some reason so at that point I think we can put any thought of it being totally removed to rest. It will have been what, 6 years of it staying in the game by then?

The only weird thing is battalions not allowed in matched play (so essentially removed from the game) and replaced with generic 40k style detachments. But given most of them are trash and only a handful good I could see it. In that case though I'm more worried it's just a hard reset and each new tome will re-add them so we end up in exactly the same situation that removing them was trying to fix.

Welp so long as double turn remains a core part of the fun fun game experience - I will continue to look elsewhere for tabletop rules.

 auticus wrote:
Welp so long as double turn remains a core part of the fun fun game experience - I will continue to look elsewhere for tabletop rules.

I really sympathize with you but I don't think it's as bad as you're making it out.

However it seems unlikely that it's ever going to be removed. So... I would not plan on playing AOS anytime soon if ever.

Double turn is the worst rule I have ever had to play with in 30+ years of tabletop gaming. Its as bad as I'm making it out lol.

Standing there for 45 min to an hour while my opponent takes two turns back to back kicking me in the balls while I just remove models with no response allowed is about the opposite of fun as it gets.

Yeah, because it's so much different to when the same thing happens from an alpha-striking monstrosity army with no double turns.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yeah, because it's so much different to when the same thing happens from an alpha-striking monstrosity army with no double turns.

Alpha striking monstrosities are equally as not fun yes.

Basically boiling it down to the root complaint:

"A game that encourages you to erase your opponent while they cannot do anything to respond is not a good game to me".

Or further simplifying it...

"People don't like losing without a chance to react."

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yeah, because it's so much different to when the same thing happens from an alpha-striking monstrosity army with no double turns.

So double alpha-striking monstrosity is not so much different than single alpha-striking monstrosity?

I'm a little confused here on this statement, unless I read the sarcasm wrong.

Yeah alpha strikes aren't good either, but doubling the downtime of a player in a game system that already has a lot of downtime because of IGUGO is a horrible design choice.

The double turn is the one singular thing that I've seen people bounce off of AOS super hard because of. It's gotten to the point where I think it's actively holding the game back and squandering its potential popularity. My local AOS community has basically not grown at all in the past 3 years and a big reason is that there's two camps formed; one which house-rules the double-turn out of existence and the other which doesn't. This dilutes the pool of potential opponents for people to play and it also makes the local AOS tournament scene practically dead. KoW gets bigger tournaments than AOS around here ffs.

AOS stans deep in their bubble really don't understand how unpopular it is.

 Overread wrote:

Rihgu wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I think the next but story turn for Skaven could be the female skaven. There's talk in their new Battletome of at least one coven of females in one of the major settlements banding together and using schemes to manipulate the males to their own gain. It wouldn't surprise me if at some stage one of the mighty brood mothers might try and make a bid for open power. It would certainly shake things up for Skaven to have a female rise above the ranks of a simple herd breeder and to command the teeming hoards.

I didn't realize there were female skaven that weren't mountains of bloated, mindless flesh. I'm happy to see that they shifted away from that horrible portrayal (even if only a bit?)

They are still mountains of bloated breeding flesh. They are basically injected and modified from birth to become mighty breeders. The difference is that in the Old World they were fully mindless and simply used for breeding. In AoS they are mostly like that, but there are hints of a few that might be smarter and hiding their intelligence to manipulate some skaven in the background. Right now its a story hook. A potential thread that GW could develop if they so chose. It would also be interesting to see it developed as I think that such a thing could be used to give Skaven some long term goals beyond just messing things up. Ergo suggesting that whilst the males in-fight all the time, the females are looking at the grander picture and longer term goals, whilst also being stable enough that they don't in-fight in the same way so that they don't undo their gains

Be an interesting new aspect of the Skaven - as long as we never get any "good" skaven......

There were a few unusual Skaven females even in the Old World - The Grey Seer Thratquee had a pair of heavily muscled and protective females that served as bodyguards as well as mates. Clever move really as it provided Thratquee with extra protection - very few skaven would consider females as a threat.

https://whfb.lexicanum.com/wiki/Thratquee

In the book the description is pretty much 10 ft tall female Sumo ratwomen

I would definitely not shed tears if they removed the double turn. But I've seen almost a 50/50 split on people that hate it and people that think it's fine (although to their discredit a lot of those start spouting the "it's fine you just need to git gud" argument which automatically dilutes their view). I have, however, seen a good amount of people that say the #1 reason they give AOS a wide berth is the double turn and if it was taken out they'd consider the game.

That alone tells me it's problematic. However it appears gw is paying too much attention to the top percentile, where it matters less (due to the skill and knowledge of minimizing the impact), and feels it's a unique selling point.

I've still yet to see a game where someone got a doubleturn and lost; unless the doubleturn appeared very late in the game or its very clear that the two players/armies are horrifically miss-matched.


By and large the "get gud" actually just amounts to "get normal" because its normal tactics like infantry screening and the like that most suggest. The doubleturn doesn't really introduce any actual additional tactics to the game and its very nature makes it impossible to plan for because the only way to avoid your opponent getting to hurt you twice in a row is to hold back and not advance into the battlefield (which means losing in a gmae that's based on mid-table objectives more or less)

I think its only working so far because ranged and magic heavy attacks are not the prime form of combat in the game right now and close combat alternates between players during each turn. So in a close combat heavy situation people don't "see" the issue even if they get two turns defining what combats start.
I think if/as ranged attacks become more and more common more might see that a double turn can be horribly broken. Heck if Khadorans were more heavily used that alone might swing the opinion against the double turn. Ranged or magic heavy armies that can attack with impunity for two whole turns gives them insane advantage.


Plus even if you argue against the balance you can't deny that in a game where a turn takes a long time; spending twice as long before you get your go is - honestly - boring. All you can do is perhaps control 1 endless spell for a bit and roll reactionary dice. Even if its your turn to attack first in the close combat it might well be only to react to the fact that your opponent chose to charge that unit using their doubleturn.

 Overread wrote:

I think its only working so far because ranged and magic heavy attacks are not the prime form of combat in the game right now and close combat alternates between players during each turn. So in a close combat heavy situation people don't "see" the issue even if they get two turns defining what combats start.
I think if/as ranged attacks become more and more common more might see that a double turn can be horribly broken. Heck if Khadorans were more heavily used that alone might swing the opinion against the double turn. Ranged or magic heavy armies that can attack with impunity for two whole turns gives them insane advantage.

Aren't Lizardmen, KO, and Lumineth top dogs at the moment specifically because of their ranged and magic dominance?

Wayniac wrote:
I would definitely not shed tears if they removed the double turn. But I've seen almost a 50/50 split on people that hate it and people that think it's fine (although to their discredit a lot of those start spouting the "it's fine you just need to git gud" argument which automatically dilutes their view). I have, however, seen a good amount of people that say the #1 reason they give AOS a wide berth is the double turn and if it was taken out they'd consider the game.

That alone tells me it's problematic. However it appears gw is paying too much attention to the top percentile, where it matters less (due to the skill and knowledge of minimizing the impact), and feels it's a unique selling point.

Thats what happens when you have the white knight phenomenon grown so brightly. Everything is fine, super fine, great in fact.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Overread wrote:

I think its only working so far because ranged and magic heavy attacks are not the prime form of combat in the game right now and close combat alternates between players during each turn. So in a close combat heavy situation people don't "see" the issue even if they get two turns defining what combats start.
I think if/as ranged attacks become more and more common more might see that a double turn can be horribly broken. Heck if Khadorans were more heavily used that alone might swing the opinion against the double turn. Ranged or magic heavy armies that can attack with impunity for two whole turns gives them insane advantage.

Aren't Lizardmen, KO, and Lumineth top dogs at the moment specifically because of their ranged and magic dominance?

Might be, I've not kept up since Corona started. However it wouldn't surprise me if that was the case. Indeed as I said it would be exactly what I'd start to expect. Which I then expect GW to fix by making close combat armies fast and faster to the point where they can hit close combat in a single turn or so - thus making ranged armies super underpowered once more

 Charistoph wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yeah, because it's so much different to when the same thing happens from an alpha-striking monstrosity army with no double turns.

So double alpha-striking monstrosity is not so much different than single alpha-striking monstrosity?

I'm a little confused here on this statement, unless I read the sarcasm wrong.

You've read the sarcasm wrong.

Whether the double turn exists or not? There will always be something that lends itself towards people doing this kind of nonsense but at least the double turn is not something you can realistically plan to have "always on" in your list.

That alpha-striking monstrosity list is always going to be just that, damn the double turn.

I'd prefer a game where that kind of nonsense doesn't happen at all.

* remove the double turn
* remove the ability for armies to just point and click onto the table and erase what they want.

Make it a game, instead of having the ability to give one side a 30-0 lead and fast forward the game to the middle of the 4th quarter at kickoff.

Frankly, I'd rather keep the double turn seeing as how there will never realistically be a way to prevent people from making alpha striking nonsense of some variety a thing.

Remove the doubleturn so that every AoS tactics/balance thread isn't consumed by it

Then it would just switch to Endless Spells or Mortal Wounds or or or...

 Kanluwen wrote:
Frankly, I'd rather keep the double turn seeing as how there will never realistically be a way to prevent people from making alpha striking nonsense of some variety a thing.

I play plenty of games that dont have alpha striking nonsense - at least to the level of 40k and aos. The rules team has to actively not put it into the game. You shouldn't be able to teleport units wherever you want and activate them, or be able to just charge across the table in one turn and do whatever you want.

But thats neither here nor there. AOS will continue to be that kind of game. A showcase of cool models but of little tactical / strategic substance.

Which, as usual, is "good enough" for people because of the vastness of players.

I genuinely cannot think of any game where I have not been able to be alpha-striked out. Maybe Battletech?

I think really alpha strike isn't even the issue, it's alpha strike combined with how deadly most Warhammer games are it results in you pretty much going from having a fighting chance to losing in one turn, more so if your opponent gets the double turn.

And what happens if you get the double turn but weathered their alpha strike?

Seriously, for all the bad that people talk about with the double turn--there's also the possibility to flip the script and counterpunch hard on an alpha striker list.

Frankly though, pretending that alpha strike isn't an issue really isn't applicable to my tastes. People build for that. You cannot build for the double turn, despite insistence to the contrary, unless you're running weighted dice to ensure you get it.

 Kanluwen wrote:
And what happens if you get the double turn but weathered their alpha strike?

The problem is that the double turn doesn't work that way. It has no link to the actual game at all and is a simple impartial dice roll.

Some do say, in defence of the double turn, that IF you get it after your opponent hit you hard that it can rebalance the game in favour of the underdog.

However because the doubleturn has no link to the game state itself, it could equally be the case that the doubleturn takes a balanced match and turns one player into the underdog by virtue of their opponent getting the doubleturn. Heck you could weather an alphastrike and then your opponent gets a doubleturn. All those great dice rolls, all that careful moving earlier, all that positioning; everything you did to weather the alpha is thrown out because of a single dice roll.



Yes it might even an unbalanced game; yes it might unbalance a game; yes it might not happen or it might happen twice in a row or it might happen early or late game. It's disjointed to the game and unpredictable.

Right and I think that's the issue with the double turn. You can't prepare for it, and chances are, at least early on, if you get it you win and if your opponent gets it you lose. It's a very binary thing, and it's super rare where someone doesn';t get the double turn and still manages to come out ahead.