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.

Honestly I'm a little worried, since Lumineth really aren't a beginners army. I hope the AOS crowd is better than his 40k mafia.

 Thadin wrote:
Honestly I'm a little worried, since Lumineth really aren't a beginners army. I hope the AOS crowd is better than his 40k mafia.

I do think that Karol, from what I know of them based on their Dakka posting history, would much prefer an army that is good if the player is good than an army that is bad even if the player is good, because that means they have a goal to work towards? So even if their first games are "bad" because of a complicated army, I think that it could eventually be a "fun" army to play unlike say, Grey Knights in 40k when you're stuck with the worst units in the book, even in Karol's cutthroat meta.

Thankfully for Lumineth just bringing more battleline answers all but the most top-end builds.

 Thadin wrote:
Honestly I'm a little worried, since Lumineth really aren't a beginners army. I hope the AOS crowd is better than his 40k mafia.

Oh please.... They really aren't that difficult.
Even people who've never played a minis game in their life can do reasonably well by getting themselves a solid core of spears & archers.
(Wich is conveniently what Karol has.)

After that it's just a bit of thought & experimentation to find what mix of unit sizes/other units/spells/endless spells fit your playstyle best.

No worries guys. Had 2 days of playing AoS. First was mostly learning the rules and the differences, which maybe aren't that many, but are kind of a important, then played some 1000pts vs what ever I have games. Played against stormcasts with a lot of shoting, a grot army with a lot of trolls and witch army with a lot of snake women. In general I like the rules, the armies, not that fond of the double turn, but no one says one has to like all the rules a game has. Have some more games planed for the weekend. In general a very good expiriance.

Ah and the people are the same people that play w40k. The AoS player group is much smaller, around 10-12 people, but all of them play w40k too.

so far my experience with the double turn is just that it adds a little bit of uncertainty but hasnt massively shifted any of the games i've played. but this is with very very little experience and zero experience vs a shooting heavy army where i feel like a double turn after I've got my army out of 'defensive formation' (i.e. eels in front with the defense buffs to get them up to 2+ invuln) would be really nasty.

With melee army vs melee army when the double turn occurs after battle is joined, it's like "oh, you get to move your two units that aren't in combat and you get to make the first selection in the fight phase....ohhhh noooooo"

With melee army vs melee army when the double turn occurs after battle is joined, it's like "oh, you get to move your two units that aren't in combat and you get to make the first selection in the fight phase....ohhhh noooooo"

That first selection in the fight phase is what tends to make or break games for me. Also, if my opponent has a lot of "on the charge" special rules, like Beastclaw raiders, or hero phase mortal wound output, like Beastclaw raiders, their turn can be pretty effective. Moreso if they get two in a row.

It's pretty funny when we're rolling for double turns these days. People know I'll never take it, but they're still antsy about it, like
"Come onnn, I *need* this priority roll! Can't let you get the double turn!"
"I'm not going to take it even if I roll priority, so there's nothing on the line here..."
"Oh, right. But you MIGHT, because you need it to win"
"I won't."

Rihgu wrote:

With melee army vs melee army when the double turn occurs after battle is joined, it's like "oh, you get to move your two units that aren't in combat and you get to make the first selection in the fight phase....ohhhh noooooo"

That first selection in the fight phase is what tends to make or break games for me. Also, if my opponent has a lot of "on the charge" special rules, like Beastclaw raiders, or hero phase mortal wound output, like Beastclaw raiders, their turn can be pretty effective. Moreso if they get two in a row.

It's pretty funny when we're rolling for double turns these days. People know I'll never take it, but they're still antsy about it, like
"Come onnn, I *need* this priority roll! Can't let you get the double turn!"
"I'm not going to take it even if I roll priority, so there's nothing on the line here..."
"Oh, right. But you MIGHT, because you need it to win"
"I won't."

Quick house ruling question - when you do not play with double turn, do you tend to give the second player an extra command point each turn, or just the first turn, or what? Just curious for the inevitable game experience against a friend of mine who is keen to try the game out but doesnt like the idea of double turns so we'll probably not play with them.

 the_scotsman wrote:

Rihgu wrote:

With melee army vs melee army when the double turn occurs after battle is joined, it's like "oh, you get to move your two units that aren't in combat and you get to make the first selection in the fight phase....ohhhh noooooo"

That first selection in the fight phase is what tends to make or break games for me. Also, if my opponent has a lot of "on the charge" special rules, like Beastclaw raiders, or hero phase mortal wound output, like Beastclaw raiders, their turn can be pretty effective. Moreso if they get two in a row.

It's pretty funny when we're rolling for double turns these days. People know I'll never take it, but they're still antsy about it, like
"Come onnn, I *need* this priority roll! Can't let you get the double turn!"
"I'm not going to take it even if I roll priority, so there's nothing on the line here..."
"Oh, right. But you MIGHT, because you need it to win"
"I won't."

Quick house ruling question - when you do not play with double turn, do you tend to give the second player an extra command point each turn, or just the first turn, or what? Just curious for the inevitable game experience against a friend of mine who is keen to try the game out but doesnt like the idea of double turns so we'll probably not play with them.

So, I haven't actually played with/enforced that houserule since 3.0 and the extra command point dropped (mostly because a surge of newly interested players wanted to play just base AOS, no houserules, for our "let's try the new edition" Path to Glory campaign). I just, myself, do not take the double turn if it is presented to me. I would likely (this is untested!) play with the extra command point each turn because having the first turn each round does have some advantages, even if they're not double turns.

ok. I'll doodle around with it, see if the extra point every round for going second seems OP, and if it does I'll just make it a bonus point the first round.

On first blush though, it seems semi-reasonable, since you get a chunk of your command points at the beginning of the battle round rather than at the beginning of your turn, so getting two as the 'defending player' seems reasonable.

That's already part of the rules, no?

Player going first - 1 CP
Player going second - 2 CP

Each player then gains 1 CP if their General is alive, in each hero phase.

Or am I misunderstanding and you're wanting to have another CP given to the Second turn player?

 Thadin wrote:
That's already part of the rules, no?

Player going first - 1 CP
Player going second - 2 CP

Each player then gains 1 CP if their General is alive, in each hero phase.

Or am I misunderstanding and you're wanting to have another CP given to the Second turn player?

Nope - mostly just trying to suss out how much of that second CP is warranted based on the second player having the "threat of a double turn" vs the second player being at a natural tempo disadvantage/having to plan out some of their CP expenditure in advance.

I've played a couple games of AoS3 that went without double turns. Not a huge sample size, but the added 1 CP didn't make a huge deal in most cases. After my opponent and I went over the game and talked things out, rarely did we feel like we needed just one more CP and we could have won things.

My Skaven, where I could refund CP, generate more than normal(5+ refund, 3+ generate an extra on my turn from Warpseer) didn't feel like it was hugely outperforming my Khorne opponent who got the standard amount of CP, on the basis of using command abilities.

Currently in an Escalation League with my son. while some armies are definitely better suited to 3rd than others, we are having a blast. In addition, we've found player skill is a significant factor regardless of battletome.

 Shrapnelsmile wrote:
Currently in an Escalation League with my son. while some armies are definitely better suited to 3rd than others, we are having a blast. In addition, we've found player skill is a significant factor regardless of battletome.

That's great! And yes player skill is most definitely a thing, regardless of what the haters say

If player skill is such a significant factor, then explain why I lose so often, huh? You can't!

(kidding)

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Thadin wrote:
That's already part of the rules, no?

Player going first - 1 CP
Player going second - 2 CP

Each player then gains 1 CP if their General is alive, in each hero phase.

Or am I misunderstanding and you're wanting to have another CP given to the Second turn player?

Nope - mostly just trying to suss out how much of that second CP is warranted based on the second player having the "threat of a double turn" vs the second player being at a natural tempo disadvantage/having to plan out some of their CP expenditure in advance.

Nah the extra CP compensates for first turn advantage quite nicely. Just ignoring random initiative entirely works with no issues.

It really just removes issue with no downside, actually.

 Thadin wrote:
Honestly I'm a little worried, since Lumineth really aren't a beginners army. I hope the AOS crowd is better than his 40k mafia.

Google AoS Reminders if you haven't yet. It is an amazing resource, that will help you print a sheet of everything you need
to remember, phase by phase.

Yep, definitely a great resource for people that struggle with remembering. Personally, I don't need it for any of my armies, including lumineth, but not everyone has the time or desire to memorize armies.

In my games I never seen two turns of opponent in melee. But vs the elf player, his snake ladies got to shot for two turns back to back and his caster used spells twice because of a double turn, this let him wipe out both my units that were contesting objectives. So when it came to double turn, I think that with range units it could be a problem. With melee, no idea, did not have a double turn vs an army with little or no shoting. All in all, one mechanic you don't like in a whole system isn't bad in anyway.

That really depends upon what the mechanic is.

There are a few who post here who're adamant about the potential double-turn. Or the summoning some armies possess. To the point where they're deal breakers as to wether to even own a Sigmar force, let alone play.
I've also seen entire old editions of Warhammer Fantasy Battle practically ruined by;
A: The magic phase
and/or
B: The rules for Characters. Don't get me wrong, I think characters (be they build-your-own or powerful named ones like Teclis or Nagash, etc) have a place in the game. But when the character rules are so OP as to render the rest of your entire army nothing but a pts/$$ tax in order to field them....

Karol wrote:
In my games I never seen two turns of opponent in melee. But vs the elf player, his snake ladies got to shot for two turns back to back and his caster used spells twice because of a double turn, this let him wipe out both my units that were contesting objectives. So when it came to double turn, I think that with range units it could be a problem. With melee, no idea, did not have a double turn vs an army with little or no shoting. All in all, one mechanic you don't like in a whole system isn't bad in anyway.

true, but what I'll never understand is if you're playing vs someone, and you don't like a mechanic in a game, and they don't like a mechanic in a game....who's hiding under your table forcing you to use that mechanic in the game?

I do this all the time with my 40k opponents. I play against a lot of the same people. I know who grouches about the new board size, and when I play vs those people, I roll out a mat of the old size and we play on that, because we like it better.

I feel like double turns are just gonna be the same for me. Only like 5 people play sigmar - i know the one guy is a big 'by the book' guy who always likes changing up his playstyle when the new edition of whatever changes something or a FAQ drops, so when I play vs him I'll be playing with double turns. But i also know another guy is not happy with double turns, so we won't play with double turns.

Everyone has different thresholds of acceptability or what they see as fun or not fun.

Your community and the people you play with are like 90% of the experience though.

If you are in a place that is purely by the book, you either like it or you move on. If you are fortunate enough to have people that aren't as worried about by the book that will change things up a little bit, that can be all it takes to get new players interested.

 auticus wrote:
Everyone has different thresholds of acceptability or what they see as fun or not fun.

Your community and the people you play with are like 90% of the experience though.

If you are in a place that is purely by the book, you either like it or you move on. If you are fortunate enough to have people that aren't as worried about by the book that will change things up a little bit, that can be all it takes to get new players interested.

yeah its amazing how much people will bring up how 'any change from the rules as written will make it LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE for new players to join your group!!!!" when we've got like 40-50 active players at any given time, the shop has to do 'reserved table space' first come first serve every week, and the shop 30min away that does pretty much purely tournament competitive can get like 30 people out when they do their 'once every two months' tournaments but has a steady crowd of the same like 6 people who come in on their regular game night to practice with their unpainted armies for the next GT.

it's weird, it's like if I didnt know any better, only ever playing 2000pts grand tournament pack and nothing else, stomping on any person who comes in with razors-edge competitive tourney lists that you change out every 3 weeks and only bother getting 3-color minimum painting when there's an event coming up would seem to make a space seem less hospitable to a new person joining in than one that focuses on playing the way you want and not judging others for their preferences.

Thing with double-turns is it isn't even a house rule to ignore them; it is entirely within the rules for the player going second to never take it and the player going first to never give it. That makes it particularly easy to factor them out.

I'm really enjoying AOS3, as is my club. Our local Sons of Behemet player though is kicking everyones dicks in though lol.

SoB have been kicking everyone's soft bits everywhere. They're just about the top dog right now.

I wonder if part of that is because most factions went up a lot in points, but Sons were already pretty high in points anyway. I don't recall their old points, but it wouldn't surprise me if other factions going up resulted in them having less, but Sons wound up with an army mostly the same size as in 2.0.

There might also be influences because now most armies are rocking around with a lot more smaller units instead of big infantry blocks. Whereas, again, Sons are not really affected themselves by that.

IIRC, you could make 4 Mega Gargant armies in 2.0 and still can in 3.0.

So they haven't really lost anything, and have gained the big boon of being an all hero-monster army.

 Thadin wrote:
IIRC, you could make 4 Mega Gargant armies in 2.0 and still can in 3.0.

So they haven't really lost anything, and have gained the big boon of being an all hero-monster army.

You couldn't in 2.0, because you needed ~500 points in mancrusher gargants for battleline. Now that the Mega Gargants are battleline, too, you can make 4 Mega Gargant lists.