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.

Now that is an interesting system. Have you considered doing two combat phases, and a unit can only shoot in one of them?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Now that is an interesting system. Have you considered doing two combat phases, and a unit can only shoot in one of them?

...I'm afraid I don't quite understand. So that you have as much fighting happening as in a normal game where both players are taking their turns?

See, the problem is when it's full IGOUGO with just alternating combat, we found that basically a whole lot less combat occurs on each given players turn because they'll do stuff like strategically target and charge only stuff theyre confident they can either kill or cripple before their opponent activates. The single combat phase in the "mostly AA" version is much more 'action packed' as it were, because both players want to get in and get smacking as there isn't an easy way around it.

Because we dont actually have any shooting armies to test with (this I'm only doing with a group of 4 players, and we play Idoneth, Soulblight, Skaven and Slaves with very little shooting in each army) I dont actually know if shooting is problematic in this system, but id be a little bit surprised if it was. It feels like the main issue with shooting in core rule AOS is that a shooting unit can literally stroll up 9" away from your unit and fill you full of holes, then you do nothing, then they fill you full of holes again a second time, then you FINALLY get to charge them and theyre like "Lol unleash hell"

generally we've found if shooting units arent well screened, then its pretty easy to get to them after theyve tossed off one shot.

You'd be in for a rough time if your Skaven player rocked up with a freshly painted unit of 6 Stormfiends, but that's besides the point.

Do you allow Unleash Hell in this system?

 Thadin wrote:
You'd be in for a rough time if your Skaven player rocked up with a freshly painted unit of 6 Stormfiends, but that's besides the point.

Do you allow Unleash Hell in this system?

HA, that would be sacrilege, I dont think he has a single model from this decade.

So far, yeah. It might be a thing to turn off if shooting turned out to be OP, but its literally like...

One warp cannon in the skaven army (only thing that does a normal shooting attack, everything else is like warpfire throwers)

The ballistas on my sharks, turtle, and 1 squad of reavers

...and I think literally nothing in the soulblight and slaves armies. No shooting at all.

All of that definitely helps me to understand your point of view - thank you for sharing it.

The double rule thing is a big factor that has kept me from diving into the game. There are so many interesting ways to do activations these days, "move your whole army twice in a row" seems very unpalatable.

Sadly its not just move your whole army twice in a row. Its move, magic, and shoot your whole army twice in a row lol.

 auticus wrote:
Sadly its not just move your whole army twice in a row. Its move, magic, and shoot your whole army twice in a row lol.

Sorry, yeah that's what I meant. I agree with a lot of the comments in this thread about it being some designer's pet baby they refuse to admit is ugly as hell

Actually, I've been painting my Kruleboyz and this thread makes me want to sell them. The rule just isn't good.

Oo the scary double turn. Last game I won the game because I forced opponent to take the double. Ooo scary.

As I have said. Bad players whine, good players win either way.

tneva82 wrote:
Oo the scary double turn. Last game I won the game because I forced opponent to take the double. Ooo scary.

As I have said. Bad players whine, good players win either way.

I mean it would be nice to flesh your example out with some details.

 Overread wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Oo the scary double turn. Last game I won the game because I forced opponent to take the double. Ooo scary.

As I have said. Bad players whine, good players win either way.

I mean it would be nice to flesh your example out with some details.

I see you're not familiar with tneva. He is a man concerned with efficiency. He knows how many peoples minds are changed by internet forums, and he knows that the purpose of an internet forum is to state either

-you are wrong

-i am correct

-both

and he does so, and leaves, with nary a minced word.

Can't say I found his argument convincing.

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Overread wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Oo the scary double turn. Last game I won the game because I forced opponent to take the double. Ooo scary.

As I have said. Bad players whine, good players win either way.

I mean it would be nice to flesh your example out with some details.

I see you're not familiar with tneva. He is a man concerned with efficiency. He knows how many peoples minds are changed by internet forums, and he knows that the purpose of an internet forum is to state either

-you are wrong

-i am correct

-both

and he does so, and leaves, with nary a minced word.

Exalted

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Overread wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Oo the scary double turn. Last game I won the game because I forced opponent to take the double. Ooo scary.

As I have said. Bad players whine, good players win either way.

I mean it would be nice to flesh your example out with some details.

I see you're not familiar with tneva. He is a man concerned with efficiency. He knows how many peoples minds are changed by internet forums, and he knows that the purpose of an internet forum is to state either

-you are wrong

-i am correct

-both

and he does so, and leaves, with nary a minced word.

As generally pleasant as Scandinavians tend to be, it's also funny that he is the frontrunner in the "GIT GUD" movement.

chaos0xomega wrote:
More than half are neutral or positive on the rule, with only a minority (26 votes to 20) being negative on it, and a relative minority (10 votes, less than 25% of the total) actually rating it awful (who I assume are people who have never actually played AoS )

111 people rated it 0-5. 37 people rated it 6-10. By far the most popular option was 0 with the second most popular option being 5. 51 people chose the lowest possible option while 10 people chose the highest. Yea, sounds like everyone loves it! /s

 Just Tony wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Overread wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Oo the scary double turn. Last game I won the game because I forced opponent to take the double. Ooo scary.

As I have said. Bad players whine, good players win either way.

I mean it would be nice to flesh your example out with some details.

I see you're not familiar with tneva. He is a man concerned with efficiency. He knows how many peoples minds are changed by internet forums, and he knows that the purpose of an internet forum is to state either

-you are wrong

-i am correct

-both

and he does so, and leaves, with nary a minced word.

As generally pleasant as Scandinavians tend to be, it's also funny that he is the frontrunner in the "GIT GUD" movement.

Finland isn't really part of Scandinavia (though Americans tend to lump them in together).

 Toofast wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
More than half are neutral or positive on the rule, with only a minority (26 votes to 20) being negative on it, and a relative minority (10 votes, less than 25% of the total) actually rating it awful (who I assume are people who have never actually played AoS )

111 people rated it 0-5. 37 people rated it 6-10. By far the most popular option was 0 with the second most popular option being 5. 51 people chose the lowest possible option while 10 people chose the highest. Yea, sounds like everyone loves it! /s

Why are you counting "5" as a negative when its decidedly neutral? Doing so gives the "negative" a range of 6 whereas "positive" only has a range of 5.

Note, I myself voted a 5. I do not feel 5 is a "negative" score and did not treat it as such when I decided where to place my vote.

Yeah, out f 10, 5 is complete neutral, 4 slightly less so and 6 slightly more so.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Overread wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Oo the scary double turn. Last game I won the game because I forced opponent to take the double. Ooo scary.

As I have said. Bad players whine, good players win either way.

I mean it would be nice to flesh your example out with some details.

I see you're not familiar with tneva. He is a man concerned with efficiency. He knows how many peoples minds are changed by internet forums, and he knows that the purpose of an internet forum is to state either

-you are wrong

-i am correct

-both

and he does so, and leaves, with nary a minced word.

As generally pleasant as Scandinavians tend to be, it's also funny that he is the frontrunner in the "GIT GUD" movement.

Finland isn't really part of Scandinavia (though Americans tend to lump them in together).

 Toofast wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
More than half are neutral or positive on the rule, with only a minority (26 votes to 20) being negative on it, and a relative minority (10 votes, less than 25% of the total) actually rating it awful (who I assume are people who have never actually played AoS )

111 people rated it 0-5. 37 people rated it 6-10. By far the most popular option was 0 with the second most popular option being 5. 51 people chose the lowest possible option while 10 people chose the highest. Yea, sounds like everyone loves it! /s

Why are you counting "5" as a negative when its decidedly neutral? Doing so gives the "negative" a range of 6 whereas "positive" only has a range of 5.

Note, I myself voted a 5. I do not feel 5 is a "negative" score and did not treat it as such when I decided where to place my vote.

Ok then let's make it fair and leave out everyone on the fence. 0-4 had 85 votes, 6-10 had 38. If that doesn't show you a negative sentiment, it's only because you don't want to see one. If I had a performance review at work and those were my scores from 150 co-workers, do you think I'm getting a promotion?

25% like it (6-10)
57% dislike it (0-4)
And 34% voted 0

It's not just that over 50% (half) dislike the mechanic, but also that its just more than double that of the number of people who really like the mechanic. Removing the middle-ground element shows that the mechanic itself really isn't (at least for users voting on this poll) pulling in a huge number of out and out fans.

In addition 50% disliking it is a BIG percentage. That's a lot of dislike which translates to lost sales and disgruntled players.

That the heaviest end of the negative is right at the bottom, 0, is also very important to note. It shows significant dislike not just a general disgruntlement that then tapers off.

And while I know handfuls of people that won't touch AOS while there is a double turn mechanic, I don't know a single person that plays AOS that would be so upset that they'd quit if the double turn were to officially go away.

Of the 25% of the people here that "like it" I am confident most if not all of them would happily play the game after an official removal of the double turn whereas with the people that dislike it, of whom more than double the people that like it, many of those won't play the game or buy product at all.

 auticus wrote:
And while I know handfuls of people that won't touch AOS while there is a double turn mechanic, I don't know a single person that plays AOS that would be so upset that they'd quit if the double turn were to officially go away.

Of the 25% of the people here that "like it" I am confident most if not all of them would happily play the game after an official removal of the double turn whereas with the people that dislike it, of whom more than double the people that like it, many of those won't play the game or buy product at all.

In 2nd I would have been very upset for it to go away, but now with monster rampages, new CP (like Redeploy and Unleash), Heroic actions, and how new Endless spells work, I am fine with it going away.

Before without it the game was way to predictable, on turn 2 you would basically know who would have won, there is no fear, nothing holding you back.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Before without it the game was way to predictable, on turn 2 you would basically know who would have won, there is no fear, nothing holding you back.

I've never liked that justification because it boils down to "you can predict who will win based on army composition, unless the weaker side wins a single dice roll and then they win" kind of angle. Ergo yes it introduces unpredictability, but its so swingy its all or nothing. That and it never actually worked in favour of the underdog. It was only chance if it did and it had equal chance to give the more powerful side even more advantage.

The thing is that the game was way too predictable either way. Most of the games I played we were pretty solidly able to determine the winner just by looking at the two armies lined up and seeing the terrain on the table.

Barring bad dice of course which happens to anyone.

Army composition is and always has been king in age of sigmar.

If they put in alternate activation then I wouldn't have minded it so much because any mechanic that makes someone stand there for upwards of an hour doing nothing but reacting will never be a good mechanic to me.

If the problem truly was "without the double turn the game is too predictable because army composition" then there should be a strong surge by the players to have the authors of the game fix their damn game and make it so 2000 points is 2000 points so that a double turn mechanic introducing some off the wall unpredictability was never needed in the first place. What GW proved though was that people will shovel money at them pretty much no matter what so why fix it if its generating dump trucks of money?

 Overread wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Before without it the game was way to predictable, on turn 2 you would basically know who would have won, there is no fear, nothing holding you back.

I've never liked that justification because it boils down to "you can predict who will win based on army composition, unless the weaker side wins a single dice roll and then they win" kind of angle. Ergo yes it introduces unpredictability, but its so swingy its all or nothing. That and it never actually worked in favour of the underdog. It was only chance if it did and it had equal chance to give the more powerful side even more advantage.

Even after being repeatedly pushed for evidence to back that opinion it has yet to be produced. And "before"? AoS always had the double, and it isn't like the rules are remotely comparable to WHFB.

 auticus wrote:

If the problem truly was "without the double turn the game is too predictable because army composition" then there should be a strong surge by the players to have the authors of the game fix their damn game and make it so 2000 points is 2000 points so that a double turn mechanic introducing some off the wall unpredictability was never needed in the first place. What GW proved though was that people will shovel money at them pretty much no matter what so why fix it if its generating dump trucks of money?

Has it occurred to you that for the majority of the players out there in the real world Double Turn/No Double Turn just isn't that big a deal?
It's not a deal breaker. They like the game & the models well enough and either don't care about this rule, or can work around it.
Ex;
Most of the people I play with & at the local shops are just "Eh" about it. It's not viewed as good or bad. Just a part (oddity?) of this game.
There's a few people actively dislike it. Ok, it's easy enough to house-rule out when playing against them.... So not a problem.
One of those who dislikes it ALSO plays in tournaments! His attitude is that he'll play by whatever rules the tourney runs on, but for casual play he'd prefer not to use the Double Turn.

See for a mechanic that GW clearly sees as a big cornerstone when the average person is "meh" and the most passionate/serious are "I don't like it" that strongly suggests there's a problem.

EVEN if it were a balanced mechanic (which is it not), a lot of people disliking to not caring about it suggests there is something fundamentally wrong about it as a core feature.

People get excited about their movement turn; their shooting; their spells - but the double turn leaves them more on the neutral to negative. That is not what you want. If it were a good mechanic (even if it weren't balanced) you'd instead expect an overwhelming majority to be excited about it.


And that's honestly supported by the Dakka poll too - a large number in the middle and a greater proportion of passionate people in the disliking category.

ccs wrote:

 auticus wrote:

If the problem truly was "without the double turn the game is too predictable because army composition" then there should be a strong surge by the players to have the authors of the game fix their damn game and make it so 2000 points is 2000 points so that a double turn mechanic introducing some off the wall unpredictability was never needed in the first place. What GW proved though was that people will shovel money at them pretty much no matter what so why fix it if its generating dump trucks of money?

Has it occurred to you that for the majority of the players out there in the real world Double Turn/No Double Turn just isn't that big a deal?
It's not a deal breaker. They like the game & the models well enough and either don't care about this rule, or can work around it.
Ex;
Most of the people I play with & at the local shops are just "Eh" about it. It's not viewed as good or bad. Just a part (oddity?) of this game.
There's a few people actively dislike it. Ok, it's easy enough to house-rule out when playing against them.... So not a problem.
One of those who dislikes it ALSO plays in tournaments! His attitude is that he'll play by whatever rules the tourney runs on, but for casual play he'd prefer not to use the Double Turn.

I'm responding directly to someone that has in the past said the balance is fine and good enough and then states that the double turn is required because the balance is so bad that without double turn you can predict the outcome of the games without it.

"The majority of the players out there in the real world Double Turn isn't that big a deal" - there is no evidence to support that. The majority of the players that actively play AOS I would agree wtih you, they don't care thats why they are still playing. The majority of players in the real world - I would disagree with you. Even in polls that I have seen time and time again, the number of people that like it are almost always in the minority save for the tga polls back when you had to be positive or be banned days. The polls I have seen time and again show a large number of people that don't like it, or at best are meh with it.

I do agree with you that most GW fans don't care about game balance too much. Thats not a priority for anyone that is a gw fan, and anyone wanting to participate in gw games largely can't care too too much about balance because well. You know why.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Before without it the game was way to predictable, on turn 2 you would basically know who would have won, there is no fear, nothing holding you back.

I've never liked that justification because it boils down to "you can predict who will win based on army composition, unless the weaker side wins a single dice roll and then they win" kind of angle. Ergo yes it introduces unpredictability, but its so swingy its all or nothing. That and it never actually worked in favour of the underdog. It was only chance if it did and it had equal chance to give the more powerful side even more advantage.

Even after being repeatedly pushed for evidence to back that opinion it has yet to be produced. And "before"? AoS always had the double, and it isn't like the rules are remotely comparable to WHFB.

My evidence is playing well over 100's of games in 2nd. Many from player that didn't do the double turns as a friendly rule. (I literally have a 24/7 club I go to and pay a monthly fee for a table so I try to get multiple games in a week, I get an average of 80 games a year at this club, not counting the events I go to or the other club time to time)

Sorry if my experience isn't good enough for you, its my opinions from my experience and I stand by it.

ccs wrote:

 auticus wrote:

If the problem truly was "without the double turn the game is too predictable because army composition" then there should be a strong surge by the players to have the authors of the game fix their damn game and make it so 2000 points is 2000 points so that a double turn mechanic introducing some off the wall unpredictability was never needed in the first place. What GW proved though was that people will shovel money at them pretty much no matter what so why fix it if its generating dump trucks of money?

Has it occurred to you that for the majority of the players out there in the real world Double Turn/No Double Turn just isn't that big a deal?

Has it occured to you that a majority of people don't like it, and of that majority a huge portion see it as among AoS' worst rules?

 auticus wrote:
And while I know handfuls of people that won't touch AOS while there is a double turn mechanic, I don't know a single person that plays AOS that would be so upset that they'd quit if the double turn were to officially go away.
ll.

This. This is it in a nutshell. At best it is "tolerable". At worst, it actively repels many new players. There's a word for why the Design team stubbornly keeps it in the game: hubris. It's just wrong-headed to cling to a problematic mechanic that holds back growth of the game. In fact I think people would find the game even more fun with a more interesting and less punitive activation mechanic.

When 3rd came out and they left it in, I was so disheartened knowing it's a few more years before they snap out of it and fix it (if they ever do).

EDIT TO ADD

Given the models are awesome and the rest of the rules are fun...

It's like they took the time to make an amazing, delicious bowl of soup - served in the best bowl and silver cutlery. Maybe a sprig of parsley for garnish.

Then they drop a dead fly in the middle of it.

Sure, you can try to eat around it (house rule). Some eat it because the rest is so tasty. A very few folks LIKE the fly ("makes the soup so unique!"). But a hell of a lot of people just push the bowl away and say "no thanks I'll eat something else".