Real Talk about the Double Turn

[heywoah_twitch]

24 minutes ago, eekamouse said:

Do people ONLY play the filth in their local meta? I get folks testing out builds for an upcoming tournament.... but folks never play random fluffy games? That's mostly what I play frankly.

If they did there would be no problem. In magic we have Formats, so I'm playing Legacy and you're playing Legacy both decks are brutally unfair, lightning fast, $3k competitive lists. We play 10 games, matchup normalized, and we'd end up with ~8 good games. If you play your Standard deck vs my Legacy deck, you will lose 10 games in a row, each one taking about 2 minutes to lose, never having a chance or really getting to play.

In MtG I own a Legacy deck to play people who own a Legacy deck and a Standard deck to play with people who only have a Standard deck. This is less feasible in AoS where buying and painting an army is not only expensive but extremely time consuming. Furthermore with army choice and lore being caught up in identity and personalization, it's probably unacceptable that some of maybe 12 choices of faction be the "weak army" or the Standard deck equivalent.

Edit: It wouldn't necessarily be okay, but it would be understandable if there were two tiers of army: Old Armies (standard), and New Updated Armies With Battletomes (legacy), as ideally, eventually the old armies would be updated and everyone's even again.

[eekamouse]

2 minutes ago, heywoah_twitch said:

If they did there would be no problem. In magic we have Formats, so I'm playing Legacy and you're playing Legacy both decks are brutally unfair, lightning fast, $3k competitive lists. We play 10 games, matchup normalized, and we'd end up with ~8 good games. If you play your Standard deck vs my Legacy deck, you will lose 10 games in a row, each one taking about 2 minutes to lose, never having a chance or really getting to play.

In MtG I own a Legacy deck to play people who own a Legacy deck and a Standard deck to play with people who only have a Standard deck. This is less feasible in AoS where buying and painting an army is not only expensive but extremely time consuming. Furthermore with army choice and lore being caught up in identity and personalization, it's probably unacceptable that some of maybe 12 choices of faction be the "weak army" or the Standard deck equivalent.

I understand that. But it seems to me the player with the uber list chasing the meta will have extra models to tone down their list... instead of the other way around. I think the player that builds one net list and sticks to that is a very small exception. I don't see it here at all. There are plenty of hyper competitive players here, but they all have good sized collections. 

[eekamouse]

1 minute ago, Auticus said:

 

I can paraphrase from various fb outbursts:

Ugh.... This sounds trite as I type it.. but man. I'm sorry for that.

That last scenario sounds kind of fun. I enjoy a good RPG now and then though. I think the "competitive mini guy" and the "story teller" don't often intersect... but that's exactly where I'm at with it.

[heywoah_twitch]

2 minutes ago, eekamouse said:

But it seems to me the player with the uber list chasing the meta will have extra models to tone down their list... instead of the other way around. I think the player that builds one net list and sticks to that is a very small exception. I don't see it here at all. There are plenty of hyper competitive players here, but they all have good sized collections. 

This is very dependent upon Local Results May Vary. As it happens, my local is as you describe; the competitive list guys have big collections and literally 'water down' their lists for fairer games against normal chaps just looking for some light dice and strats on a sunday afternoon. I get the feeling that this is the majority of locales, but that doesn't help poor people like @Auticus living in the eye of an unreasonable jerkstorm.

[Tidings]

35 minutes ago, eekamouse said:

Do people ONLY play the filth in their local meta? I get folks testing out builds for an upcoming tournament.... but folks never play random fluffy games? That's mostly what I play frankly.

My local community is small as well, only about 5 of us at the LHS each week. Maybe a pool of 8-10 players total. We just do matched play with a leaning towards competitive lists, though we are all very friendly and fun about it. I enjoy both power gaming and narrative roleplaying experiences, but most people don't seem interested in narrative games here. 

[wayniac]

3 hours ago, Auticus said:

Its exasperated by having such a small community to begin with.  Our 40k crowd has powergamers that will also weaken their list for campaign play too.  (we also have powergamers that will not under any circumstance EVER weaken their list) but we have a deep 40k community.  If our AOS community was as deep this would not be an issue.

From their perspective, its unreasonable and jerkish of me to ask them to tone down, because its moronic that one would play a competitive wargame in an uncompetitive cooperative fashion.

They also really really hate losing.

I see this mindset all the damn time.  "You're the ****** asking me to tone down my list".  I've seen people (thankfully online not in person) berate a casual player after steamrolling them during a game for "being too easy" and therefore wasting the powergamer's time by being a pushover.

I see far too often the following hypothetical scenario:

Jim, Steve, John and Mark play AOS casually, never too hardcore lists. One day, Bob joins the group. Bob, on purpose or not, starts to bring more powerful lists and has an easy time beating the rest of the group. As a result, everyone else has to "step up their game" and start to bring power lists, so they can avoid having a one-sided unfun slaughter when they play against Bob. Eventually, this turns the group into nothing but power lists since nobody is willing to bring a weaker list and risk getting steamrolled. After some time, Bob moves away or otherwise stops coming to play but Jim, Steve, John, Mark and anyone else who has since joined the group continue to play power lists because they are so used to it now and nobody can remember the days before Bob showed up and started the ball rolling.

As @Auticus states, all it takes is one guy deciding to play a powerlist, and after he crushes a few people it's going to start an "arms race" of sorts where you'll see nothing BUT power lists because everyone has seen that if you don't play a power list, the guy playing one will crush you.

[Tidings]

^ this this this. And that's exactly why I think the double turn inadvertently harms the game/community as a whole; because it makes OP units, imbalances in the game, and other problems so much worse than they would be in a you-go-I-go. This makes certain armies that can really capitalize on this more than other armies way more competitive. And that leads to the arms race narrowing down to a smaller pool of armies with less variety in games. The result is, in your example, Jim gets bored of always playing against Kunnin and SCE power lists, and Steve quits because his fluffy Brayherd army just flat out can't compete with the others even if he wanted to, so it's not even a fun game for him anymore. 

[Marc Wilson]

4 hours ago, Auticus said:

 

I can paraphrase from various fb outbursts:

"I bought and painted these models.  Who are you to say what I can't field if GW says its legal?"

"Let people just play without trying to restrict my list!  You'll never get good at the game if you keep the tournament lists out"  ~the kunnin rukk player, ignoring the fact that we weren't playing tourney style, we were doing a narrative campaign

"I'm tired of these ELITISTS telling me how to have fun!  I don't have fun running weak lists.  Its not my problem that you want to run weak lists."

"IM NEVER WASTING MY TIME IN ANOTHER OF YOUR DAMN EVENTS EVER AGAIN!!  YOU WASTED AN ENTIRE AFTERNOON OF MINE MAKING ME PLAY SOME GARBAGE SCENARIO!  PLAY THE GHB SCENARIOS WITHOUT ALTERING ANYTHING!"  ~ player after getting angry with one of my narrative days using a warhammer world scenario where intense heat makes you take bravery checks every turn and losing people to attrition.  You may have concluded correctly that he lost his OP units due to heat exhaustion.  Yes the tirade was in all caps.

Dude, I'm really sorry that you're having such a truly awful time with AoS, playing with a tiny cluster of people, of which 50% of them are evidently unable to operate properly in society. It really shines through in your posts. There a lot of posts from you and your negative experiences and general outlook on the game is super apparent. I'm not being funny but I think you're derailing a lot of topics by recounting either your experiences or suppositions though the prism of your small and dysfunctional group. I'm a bit tired of encountering it to be honest, it's effecting my own experiences of TGA.

[Insert sad panda face here]

[TheOtherJosh]

At least we can use the new Open War cards to make our own battleplans!

With twists and turns and everything.

[eekamouse]

Just now, TheOtherJosh said:

At least we can use the new Open War cards to make our own battleplans!

With twists and turns and everything.

I don't think this can be oversold. The continued support for more narrative and open play is what's keeping me invested. I enjoy a good no holds barred tournament match as much the next person. But, I prefer funky setups with interesting win conditions. One thing I've enjoyed most about 40k is the Maelstrom cards. I kind of hope that if the GHB doesn't have anything like that, then Frontline Gaming will spend some time coming up with Maelstrom missions like they've done for 40k. If not, I will damnit. Those are pretty dang fun.

[Ollie Grimwood]

I've found the "it only takes one" example of a power gamer altering a group to be a fallacy to be honest (although to echo Marc Wilson this is at least the second thread I've read on here in a couple of weeks that has be derailed by it). I find that if a person joins a group and has widely different expectations from the rest of the group, they simply won't find people who want to play them. Although I've found it very rare that people will absolutely only play in one way and that most will quite happily alter their play style depending on circumstances. I've always found Wargamers to be much more reasonable than sometimes portrayed on the internet (but I suppose that goes for pretty much everyone)

 

However I will reiterate from another thread, in England we do have a much easier time finding likeminded groups/events.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[wayniac]

In the USA it doesn't often work like that because you're typically playing at a store so you can't exactly shun somebody or you could risk getting kicked out of the store when they complain to the staff about it

Even if you do it discreetly after a while the person will probably suspect that it's just them.

Back to the subject of the double turn though, I think we have pretty well established the problem is not necessarily the double turn itself although it can still easily skew a game, it is the double turn in combination with the very strong shooting units that seem to be dominating right now.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

[Carnelian]

How do we put people on ignore?

[wayniac]

4 minutes ago, Carnelian said:

How do we put people on ignore?

Hover over their name, it will be an option.

[Carnelian]

Just now, wayniac said:

Hover over their name, it will be an option.

Ah ok thanks I'll check it out my pc rather than do it on mobile 

[KingCheops]

10 minutes ago, wayniac said:

Hover over their name, it will be an option.

Thanks!

[Mikosan]

1 hour ago, Auticus said:

A good example most recent.  We're trying to wrap up a campaign that got derailed due to tournament lists and the above fb posts going off on an all caps tangent about elitism.  I asked that we keep the lists out of tournament land for the final game.  Stormcast player is bringing tournament stormcast and no one else wants to say anything about it and will just show up for their rolling (or they'll show up with tournament lists themselves, more likely) 

He refuses to play in any other way, and that game is going to be pointless to play because he's going to have an easy win.

Is he the majority of our players?  Hell no, its really just two guys that do this, but here is the situation that we have to live with here.  If I rock up to that campaign game with my chaos dwarves, I might as well not play because that list cannot take on tournament stormcast by any stretch of the imagination.  I have to drop the list that I enjoy playing to field something equally filthy to have a good game.  

Yes that is a side track but I'm curious as to the fallacy.  This is why I am so vocal about the game tightening itself.   From the context of the double turn, once he gets his first double turn, whoever is across from him is dead.  

WIthout the double turn he'd likely still have an easy game.  With the double turn, its a trivial matter of just showing up and drawing breath.  

Can you provide the Stormcast tournament list for context please?  I get that in a campaign setting there are certainly some undesirable types of lists but not all "tournament" lists are equal. 

It sounds to me like you are just as competitive as these guys you speak of, for instance throwing your hands up without ever rolling dice just by judging your opponents list, but wish to dictate what constitutes broken to other folks. I know you have a math formula by a Phd but I am starting to think that you have a really liberal idea of what is filth. For instance complaining about judicators in some past thread.  Like everyone else I feel bad that your area is ruled by power gamers, but as I said before your idea of a good game is coming across as pretty rigid as well here.  Maybe some lists for context will help, but I have never refused a game of Warhammer because my opponents list was tuned up.  And the only game I have ever not had fun was against a double Rukk, but I lived through it and went on to have 2 fantastic games against fairly strong lists.  Note that the Rukk player didn't win the tourney, that was won by a mixed order player with fyreslayers and seraphon, so the idea that you might as well not play IS kinda an elitist attitude.  The mixed order player also runs a FEC army that I have read here is non-competitive yet he beats all the big nasty lists with it.  Every time. Truth is I don't think he has lost a game locally and does it with lists I've seen dismissed by internet wisdom.

My current Stormcast list is LCoD, 2x Relictors, 3x5 Liberators, 2x2 Tempestors, 2x2 Fulminators, and 6 Longstrikes.  I have had great games with it and no one locally has a problem because it's weakness is pretty easy to exploit being low model count and any concentrated mortal wounds will kneecap any of the units easily.   Most tuned up tourney lists will eat it alive, but Dracoths are pretty much my spirit animal so I put in as many as I could.  Is this list welcome at any of your campaigns?

[Ollie Grimwood]

How exactly is it a fallacy if thats exactly what happens?

Most wargamers *are* reasonable.  

However at least here in my region, competitive play is the cornerstone of why you even wargame in the first place, so few are going to shun the guy that wants to play hardnose competitive all the time.   Typically the people that DONT want to play hardnose competitive all the time are in the stark minority.

A good example most recent.  We're trying to wrap up a campaign that got derailed due to tournament lists and the above fb posts going off on an all caps tangent about elitism.  I asked that we keep the lists out of tournament land for the final game.  Stormcast player is bringing tournament stormcast and no one else wants to say anything about it and will just show up for their rolling (or they'll show up with tournament lists themselves, more likely) 

He refuses to play in any other way, and that game is going to be pointless to play because he's going to have an easy win.

Is he the majority of our players?  Hell no, its really just two guys that do this, but here is the situation that we have to live with here.  If I rock up to that campaign game with my chaos dwarves, I might as well not play because that list cannot take on tournament stormcast by any stretch of the imagination.  I have to drop the list that I enjoy playing to field something equally filthy to have a good game.  

So again I ask what exactly the fallacy is?

Yes that is a side track but I'm curious as to the fallacy.  This is why I am so vocal about the game tightening itself.   From the context of the double turn, once he gets his first double turn, whoever is across from him is dead.  

WIthout the double turn he'd likely still have an easy game.  With the double turn, its a trivial matter of just showing up and drawing breath.  

 

Because that's what I've found in my experience, the same reason you think it's the complete truth. Not too sure your anecdote proves your point very well but I see someone else has raised that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Trout]

I think the opposite of what people have been pointing out here in regards to the double turn amplifying powerful lists is actually true. The double turn is actually what helps equalize the situation. A powerful list against a casual list without a double turn will always win. The odds will always be in the powerful list's favor and they will roll over the casual list every time. Getting a double turn does not make that list more likely to win, it just makes the inevitable outcome occur quicker. But the casual list getting a double turn at an opportune time can turn things around for them and equalize the situation.

 

I think if you ran a test to see how often a weak list will win against a powerful one with a double turn and without, you would find that the double turn increases the weak list's odds and helps equalize the situation.

[eekamouse]

I'd rather play balanced lists.

[Killax]

In addition GH2017 is doing its best I believe to present a balance for everybody. Better put, making cost directly related to power. Frankly speaking AoS allready has a really decent balance for it's Matched Play design. Something I believe will be even better in the upcomming book.

Which leads to what wiser men have said about the AoS Core Rules before, something will eventually need to change for them in order to bring this game to the next level for the more hardcore gamer. The prime reason for this is that I still firmly believe nobody that spends its time into building 2000 points worth of models and painting them likes to lose against a random double turn.

As GH2017 is likely not touching on such core rules I hope GH2018 will.

[Ollie Grimwood]

Ah but the difference in stating something from your experience (which is just as anecdotal as mine) and claiming a fallacy is that on one hand you acknowledge that experiences can differ (which I do) and the other you are claiming that the experience that differs from yours is illogical and not real.

Well I can only go on what you say and it doesn't add up to what you claim. I mean crikey you claim not to be competitive yourself and yet seem mortally offended by the prospect of losing a game to one player (again only going off what you say).

As much as I've enjoyed your shoehorning of the double turn as the cause of competitive list building, I think I'm going to take the advice you gave to Marc. Cheerio.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Trout]

10 minutes ago, Auticus said:

While certainly the double turn helps any army, it exponentially helps the OP army over the weak one.

Depends on what you mean by "helps". Helps them to do more damage and win quicker? No doubt. But helps them increase their odds of winning? I don't think so. The powerful lists' odds of winning against a weak list without random initiative are close to 100. Their odds of winning with random initiative will go down because the weaker army now has the chance to get double turns.

 

Basically, an army that is far more powerful than its opposing army doesn't need the double turn, so introducing that randomness can only hurt its odds. But a weaker list does need the boost a double turn can give them, so random initiative will increase their odds of winning.

[Tidings]

29 minutes ago, Trout said:

I think the opposite of what people have been pointing out here in regards to the double turn amplifying powerful lists is actually true. The double turn is actually what helps equalize the situation. A powerful list against a casual list without a double turn will always win. The odds will always be in the powerful list's favor and they will roll over the casual list every time. Getting a double turn does not make that list more likely to win, it just makes the inevitable outcome occur quicker. But the casual list getting a double turn at an opportune time can turn things around for them and equalize the situation.

 

I think if you ran a test to see how often a weak list will win against a powerful one with a double turn and without, you would find that the double turn increases the weak list's odds and helps equalize the situation.

This is actually a really interesting perspective and is very relevant to the discussion. I hadn't thought about it this way before, and I think there's definitely something to be said for it. My Wanderers are never as likely to win against SCE as they are against me. A SCE double turn means I lose, which was already somewhat likely to happen. If I get a double turn, then I am in a position to make the game more balanced. 

However, most or all of the really competitive armies that abuse the double turn mechanic are doing so by deploying in 1-3 drops or so. My Wanderers have no way of doing that, so I'm always stuck going first. Meaning the double turn isn't ever going to actually help me until it's too late (after he double turns and puts himself way ahead).

On the surface or in a more casual scenario, I think there's a lot of truth to your point. It's definitely an interesting perspective. But the WAY the double turn works right now just exacerbates problems more than it balances them. In a game without double turns, sure I'd be likely to lose, but at least I could play the games out instead of scooping before my 2nd turn 50% of the time. Playing the game out would be fun even if I lost, where as the double turn literally makes half the games not fun. 

[eekamouse]

Just to throw it out there. The play experience of being on the receiving end of a Double Turn is poor regardless of balance. IGOUGO is one thing. But, IGOIGOUGO exasperates the down time for the player on the receiving end. Sure you get to call up a couple of close combats... but regardless of outcome, just sitting there on the waiting for your opponent to do stuff two turns in a row.... I mean.. frankly it doesn't bother me as much as others.... but MOST people would call that "bad game design" in regards to the experience and level of engagement for all players at the table.