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.

I’m excited for CoS and Skaven players. Might even pick up the boxed set for myself.


https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/cqdcnxdx/sunday-preview-chaos-and-order-battle-in-the-city-of-ash/

Also, there appears to be a Boole impostor going to faction reddits and spreading falsehoods. He stated on TGA that he has never posted on Reddit.

By the way, we haven't posted anything on any other websites — no Reddit, no YouTube, not even 4Chan

And is the double turn on the outs?

We noticed a lot of you are really interested in one thing, so we figured we should explain — about those 5 new factions

They've got one illustration, a short lore paragraph, and a pin on the map — nothing else special

Gotta say, their situation's a bit better than the silent people, but that's about it

As for the 5th core rules — we think there are some big changes

Obviously it's still built on AoS 4th, but we definitely see some 40K 10th and WHFB 8E in there

Hard to say if that's good or bad

But about the double turn…

haha, good luck to it

Double turn potently out I think is good for players recruitment. But I would be sure there some people that really do like it like it. But I think it’s mixed at best from my recent discussions on it.
But I really do think it has been a really bad rule for new players frustrating and an issue with general vibes of the game.

Losing the double turn is weaksauce.

Losing the double turn is the best thing they could do. We all like to complain about how awful "I go, you go" can be, and "I go, then I go again" is even worse.

"but about the Double Turn -- ha ha Good luck to it" doesn't 100% hint they are taking it away IMO.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Losing the double turn is weaksauce.

They should really double down on it and go for a triple turn...

 BorderCountess wrote:
Losing the double turn is the best thing they could do. We all like to complain about how awful "I go, you go" can be, and "I go, then I go again" is even worse.

The only reason it "kind of" works is that they do alternating close combat - we just need Khadorans or some other ranged focused army to double turn its way to winning multiple tournaments to kill the double turn.

Or have GW fully embrace alternate activation.

thing is they see it as a feature

 Dysartes wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Losing the double turn is weaksauce.

They should really double down on it and go for a triple turn...

At the start of a round, roll off: 50/50 on whether you or the opponent plays that turn. Sometimes it'll alternate, sometimes only one player gets to play all game. But it's perfectly balanced overall!
[GW, this is a joke. Don't.]

Double turn is a terrible idea for a game mechanic and I wouldn't even consider playing AoS until it was gone.

Double Turn is there because of popular request from the Community

People wanted IGoUGo to be gone so GW Switched from MyTurnYourTurn to random turns.

And that is a reason why it will stay as they can always claim that nobody likes MyTurnYourTurn mechanics in addition for the game to be different to 40k in its very core

While of course this is not what people meant or wanted, it is the result of not wording the wish correctly (and GW delivered as written, not as intended)

Two turns in a row in an alternating activation game is fine, it's a fun and dramatic swing in how things are going. To get it in games that allow it usually involves spending some sort of resource.

Two turns with your entire army while your opponent can do nothing in a game where there is significant shooting and models are removed on an individual basis? That's like the worst part of 40K multiplied by 2.

 Da Boss wrote:
Two turns in a row in an alternating activation game is fine, it's a fun and dramatic swing in how things are going. To get it in games that allow it usually involves spending some sort of resource.

Two turns with your entire army while your opponent can do nothing in a game where there is significant shooting and models are removed on an individual basis? That's like the worst part of 40K multiplied by 2.

You only alternate in combat. Wait until the all-Cogfort armies start blasting everything off the board.

Yeah I know, I was just noting that I don't mind double turn in proper alternating activation systems.

It's a really baffling design decision to me, but it sounds like most AoS players like it.

 Da Boss wrote:
Yeah I know, I was just noting that I don't mind double turn in proper alternating activation systems.

It's a really baffling design decision to me, but it sounds like most AoS players like it.

It stands to reason that most people who stuck with AoS, after it became a more developed game and after the designers stated that they really want to keep it going forward and thereby dispelled any illusions as to whether it might be dropped, are those who can at least live with the double turn rule. Since it's a rule that has a high potential of spoiling a whole match on a single roll, I wouldn't expect to see many people who genuinely hate the rule to (still) play.

If the consolidation of the Mortal Realms is true, hopefully it's the kind of significant shakeup that lets whoever championed the double turn to just quietly drop it. It's long overdue.

I regularly complain in our AoS group about it but all the die hard AoS fans like it. But most of them do not play other wargames.

It already shows a lot that GW tried to make double turn as unsexy as possible by introducing the new rule of not being able to use a battle tactic afterwards.

kodos wrote:Double Turn is there because of popular request from the Community

People wanted IGoUGo to be gone so GW Switched from MyTurnYourTurn to random turns.

'James Workshop I don't like how IGOUGO lets my opponent do a lot of stuff at once and I can't do anything about it'
'Seen and heard, boom, now your opponent can sometimes do it twice in a row'
'James how could you possibly think that's what I mea-'
'Another day, another banger'

Da Boss wrote:Two turns in a row in an alternating activation game is fine, it's a fun and dramatic swing in how things are going. To get it in games that allow it usually involves spending some sort of resource.

Or it's sometimes randomized- the activation system is the most unconventional part of Bolt Action, an otherwise very GW-like game. In BA if you've got five units and your opponent has eight, there are five dice of your color and eight dice of your opponent's in a cup. Whoever's gets drawn gets to activate next. It adds some real tension as you don't actually know who's going to get the next activation, but any wild swings or multiple activations in a row self-correct as they deplete the cup.

I wouldn't expect anything so bold from GW, but with the design studio willing to modernize their rulesets at least somewhat, I doubt they'd revert to pure IGOUGO either. I could see AA by regiment, or a shared turn a la MESBG.

The double turn always seemed to me to be like mana-screw in Magic: The Gathering, a bad mechanic you keep because it lets weaker players sometimes beat stronger ones.

It's an important feature in competitive games because if you design a game to where the more skilled player always wins it delivers some brutal tournaments and a tough scene to maintain for TOs.

I would say people mentioning Bolt Action with fully random activation or MESBG with initiative being random for the phases, is where GW got the idea for doing random turns

the other point is by people asking for more interaction to make things less "boring" this adds time to each turn and therefore adding waiting time without doing much to reduce the "boring" side
(while other games just try to keep the turns as short as possible so even if you don't have nothing to do while your opponents "Go" it doesn't get boring because it only lasts 10 minutes anyway)

HidaO-Win wrote:
The double turn always seemed to me to be like mana-screw in Magic: The Gathering, a bad mechanic you keep because it lets weaker players sometimes beat stronger ones.

It's an important feature in competitive games because if you design a game to where the more skilled player always wins it delivers some brutal tournaments and a tough scene to maintain for TOs.

A bad player will never be able to leverage the double turn against a good player to turn an instant loss into a potential win. A good player will have played in such a way to not be screwed by a double turn. The only time it would make a difference is two equally skilled players on the lower end of the skill scale.

I've always assumed the double turn was designed as a way to mitigate first turn advantage. You can only get double turned when you go first. The problem is really that the game doesn't (and probably shouldn't) reliably allow the first play to get the first strike, which leads to a lot of scenarios where second player has an advantage the double turn doubles down on.

It's really not as devestating most of the time as people assume just because of the way that combat works. Granted, my main gripe about AoS is just that it feels like there's not a lot of agency or decision making and its largely about resolving combat. It definitely doesn't help when the double turn gives your opponent total control of where the battles happen.

My impression of original AoS rules is that the goal was to design a game where what you do does not matter. The rules have pointless distinctions like choosing between to hit 3+ and to wound 4+ and to hit 4+ and to wound 3+, or between high attack or high damage, which nevertheless spills so it is the same. Shooting cannot be shut down by melee, and it is pointless plan ahead as you don't even know who has the next turn.

It is a game for moving around models and rolling dice, where you are really not supposed to think tactics.

I know it has gotten better since, but the utterly terrible core still remains. I wish they redid from the ground up.

 Crimson wrote:
My impression of original AoS rules is that the goal was to design a game where what you do does not matter. The rules have pointless distinctions like choosing between to hit 3+ and to wound 4+ and to hit 4+ and to wound 3+, or between high attack or high damage, which nevertheless spills so it is the same. Shooting cannot be shut down by melee, and it is pointless plan ahead as you don't even know who has the next turn.

It is a game for moving around models and rolling dice, where you are really not supposed to think tactics.

I know it has gotten better since, but the utterly terrible core still remains. I wish they redid from the ground up.

It's called, "Warhammer: The Old World"

While there's a lot I wish would get better, I do think you are a bit unfair there, even with your caveat at the end.

The game in its current state has issues, but it's still a thriving tournament game, which doesn't happen for games that have no proper skill expression.

TOW isn't AoS redone from the ground up but just the old Warhammer rules put together by "what looks cool" the same way how the base of AoS was created

Very different games, and both with flaws in the very core making none better than the other

 Da Boss wrote:
Double turn is a terrible idea for a game mechanic and I wouldn't even consider playing AoS until it was gone.

Then what are you doing in an AoS news and rumors thread?

I personally do not like the double turn like Da Boss said as well. But I would like to change it because AoS is GW's primary fantasy system and I collect Cities of Sigmar.
It would be nice to be able to have games with them using a better rules system for AoS.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Double turn is a terrible idea for a game mechanic and I wouldn't even consider playing AoS until it was gone.

Then what are you doing in an AoS news and rumors thread?

What are you, the fething thread police? I'm following the game because I have a vague interest in it, and as this rumour suggests they might well get rid of Double Turn, then I might become interested in playing the game. In any case, I sometimes buy the models for use in other games and most rumours are about model releases.

Good enough for you, officer?

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Double turn is a terrible idea for a game mechanic and I wouldn't even consider playing AoS until it was gone.

Then what are you doing in an AoS news and rumors thread?

Because there is a rumor that it may go away as a mechanic so people are expressing their feelings about that mechanic.

In the double turn’s defense, they have made it so you can’t score the local equivalent of secondaries doing it, amongst other things. Still a bit of feels bad moment imo.

 RaptorusRex wrote:
In the double turn’s defense, they have made it so you can’t score the local equivalent of secondaries doing it, amongst other things. Still a bit of feels bad moment imo.

Thing is to make it work they have to keep twisting all the rest of the game around it in strange ways.

GW seems to like it because it gets people talking and because its "unique" however many of us argue that its unique because at its core its just a really bad idea; so no one else does it.

I know when I've had periods of watching battle reports on youtube it was honestly very rare to see any whoever whoever got the doubleturn lost