The Big Community Survey 2019

[themortalgod]

I voted strongly against the double turn. I have hated the mechanic since the beginning of AoS. It almost was the sole reason for me walking away from the game. I've had so many games utterly ruined by a double turn that I just can't see if favorably. Yeah, I get there are some tactical things you can do to mitigate it but some armies are able to do so much easier than others. For example, a slow-moving army vs a low drop gunline. If that gunline double turns early it will blow the slow-moving army off the table before anything happens. 

I've had so many games where I have a 5min first turn, then I watch for the next hour while my entire army melts away. I had one game this week where my Tomb Kings lost 1600pts before I had my second turn.  I had yet to kill a single enemy model because everything was out of range on my turn 1. I get that TKs are pretty weak relatively speaking, but I could have swapped out for my Slaanesh and the exact same thing would have happened. He knows he has fewer drops so just deploys to ensure I can't threaten turn 1, then proceeds to overwhelm with firepower.  If he gets the double turn, great, he just wins. If he doesn't, he is still in a great position.

Priority roll offers the opportunity for tactics, I agree, but in its current form, it is a source of "feels bad" moments and doesn't really solve any problems. 

Edited April 17, 2019 by themortalgod

[themortalgod]

On 4/16/2019 at 9:29 AM, tchad78 said:

Thankfully, it's almost impossible to get double turned.  Get a low drop army, choose to go second and your opponent will generally not give you the double turn if they win the turn 2 roll, and if you win, give them the turn and you go second.

So basically what you are saying is don't choose army based on what you like or what playstyle attracts you. Instead, specifically, choose one of very few armies which can 1 drop because of a horrible mechanic which creates bad play experiences? That only shows how bad of a mechanic it is. It isn't a solution.

[Mutton]

I asked that drops not be related to who goes first. With drops being SO important, it means you don't really get to play exactly how you'd like, and it means people who don't use battalions (maybe because they wanted to collect different models) are at an even bigger disadvantage.

[Blightzkrieg]

I hope we get an update in a few months on what they actually took from the survey. Obviously they'll skirt around the harsher criticism or stuff they don't want to address, but it would be nice to get some response about it.

[tchad78]

18 minutes ago, themortalgod said:

So basically what you are saying is don't choose army based on what you like or what playstyle attracts you. Instead, specifically, choose one of very few armies which can 1 drop because of a horrible mechanic which creates bad play experiences? That only shows how bad of a mechanic it is. It isn't a solution.

I mean, if you go first, I should get the chance to go first the next turn, otherwise I might never recover from a hard alpha strike.

[themortalgod]

16 minutes ago, tchad78 said:

I mean, if you go first, I should get the chance to go first the next turn, otherwise I might never recover from a hard alpha strike.

Most armies in AoS can't alpha strike that hard. Alpha Strike is more of a 40k problem where most weapons are in range turn 1. The vast majority of armies in AoS don't actually do much on turn 1 and even such. I've been playing Warhammer (40k and WHFB and now AoS)  for almost 25 years. I have never once felt alpha strike was as destructive as the double turn has been consistently in my experience. Not to say powerful alpha strikes are not a problem but double turns feel like solving a minor problem with a major problem. Its like letting a tiger loose in your house to kill a mouse. 

That said, the double turn issue is only magnified further due to the choice to go first. If going first was a fair roll off then each player has to deploy with the potential of either going first or second but when one player can deploy knowing they will be going second that already gives a huge advantage even if they don't get the double turn.

Its like lighting your house on fire (double turn), then tossing a grenade in for good measure. (lower drop choose turn order)

Side note: I do feel teleport mechanics are far too common in AoS which contributes to alpha strike problems and can often mitigate or completely offset the tactics of movement and deployment.

I'd argue a BETTER solution to alpha strike would be giving the player who is going second a "pre game" turn where they can't move or do anything offensive but can cast buffs and defensive spells and use command abilities. This would represent armies showing up to a battle already buffed and would help mitigate alpha strikes by making you less vulnerable)

 

Edited April 17, 2019 by themortalgod

[Forrix]

5 hours ago, King Taloren said:

This is a carryover from 40k and a little bit of Old Fantasy.

In 40k whoever goes first gets to shoot all of their units with full strength and deal the potential maximum damage without suffering any drawbacks. Whoever goes second is now starting their turn with a disadvantage from the loss of models or even entire units that could have shot back at the enemy. With how high damaging some armies are this can basically be the end of some armies right off the bat.

To some the double turn is kind of the “big comeback moment” a chance to deal a lot of damage to the enemy or take objectives without the enemy getting a chance to move and react in between. It’s about as good as going first in some cases.

Honestly I really don’t mind going second since it lets me control my endless spell and unless the objectives have a high scoring potential, or the enemy has a huge squad to park and stop my faster army from taking the objectives from how quickly there isn’t as much reason to go first for me.

Edited 5 hours ago by King Taloren

I can definitely see that in 40k, the extreme damage and long range of a lot of weapons really turned me off from it. I haven't encountered that level of shooting in AoS for the most part though back in 1st edition a 1 drop Tzeentch army gave me first turn then proceeded to table me with the battle round 1 to 2 double turn. I'd say that the double turn really ups the chances of a non-game occurring between ranged and melee armies though the major shooting armies are being kept pretty weak at the moment (my tinfoil hat theory says because GW realize the double turn can break games with high damage ranged armies).  

I could see the double turn being useful in making a come back with some of the super fast low drop alpha strike armies I've encountered but your by no means guaranteed it, and statistically won't get it with the player who went first winning ties on the roll off. 

[Overread]

I think for 40K the shooting issue is also because a lot of boards are too open and pepole don't know how to well place line of sight blocking terrain - and and GW doesn't make much of it. Heck even their Adepticus Titanicus terrain doesn't block much either. 

It's something I hope they improve on; not just in providing it but in giving people guides on how to best deploy terrain to produce fun and fair maps where there are areas protected from long range fire. 

[Forrix]

37 minutes ago, themortalgod said:

I'd argue a BETTER solution to alpha strike would be giving the player who is going second a "pre game" turn where they can't move or do anything offensive but can cast buffs and defensive spells and use command abilities. This would represent armies showing up to a battle already buffed and would help mitigate alpha strikes by making you less vulnerable)

I like the idea of a pre-game turn. There's a Waagh stacking, low drop Ironjaws army in my local tournament meta that absolutely requires that your army be completely wrapped in a layer of disposable chaff. Being able to get some defensive buffs going before they hit would allow for more freedom in list building.

[Shankelton]

Voted for updates to outdated armies. No specifics, will be happy so long as its someone who's been waiting for a long time! Hoping for destruction though :P.

Otherwise was a very in depth survey! 

[King Taloren]

I asked for a faster and more accessible FAQ system. Something that could provide a quicker turn around for rule questions and possible unintended rules interactions in case something is found after the two week initial FAQ on some armies.

[tchad78]

1 hour ago, themortalgod said:

Most armies in AoS can't alpha strike that hard. Alpha Strike is more of a 40k problem where most weapons are in range turn 1. The vast majority of armies in AoS don't actually do much on turn 1 and even such. I've been playing Warhammer (40k and WHFB and now AoS)  for almost 25 years. I have never once felt alpha strike was as destructive as the double turn has been consistently in my experience. Not to say powerful alpha strikes are not a problem but double turns feel like solving a minor problem with a major problem. Its like letting a tiger loose in your house to kill a mouse. 

That said, the double turn issue is only magnified further due to the choice to go first. If going first was a fair roll off then each player has to deploy with the potential of either going first or second but when one player can deploy knowing they will be going second that already gives a huge advantage even if they don't get the double turn.

Its like lighting your house on fire (double turn), then tossing a grenade in for good measure. (lower drop choose turn order)

Side note: I do feel teleport mechanics are far too common in AoS which contributes to alpha strike problems and can often mitigate or completely offset the tactics of movement and deployment.

I'd argue a BETTER solution to alpha strike would be giving the player who is going second a "pre game" turn where they can't move or do anything offensive but can cast buffs and defensive spells and use command abilities. This would represent armies showing up to a battle already buffed and would help mitigate alpha strikes by making you less vulnerable)

 

I've just never had a problem with it.  Yet the alpha strike is so awful I hate 40k.  I do think you're on to something though.  Locally most the 2nd turn haters are primarily 40k players.

My first miniatures game was AoS just when 40k 8th was coming out.  Everything about AoS, including the double turn just seemed so much faster and fresh, while 40k - even in 8th edition felt old and cumbersome.

I know people love the games they grew up with, but the double turn is a great, fun mechanic that adds excitement and depths of planning to the game.  Endless spells add even more to it, position them in ways that force your opponent to want to give you the double turn.

Also, how often are you seeing first drops going second, most want to go first to secure objectives (mission depending).  Usually I see people fighting for the turn 2 into 3 double turn.

[themortalgod]

Just now, tchad78 said:

I've just never had a problem with it.  Yet the alpha strike is so awful I hate 40k.  I do think you're on to something though.  Locally most the 2nd turn haters are primarily 40k players.

My first miniatures game was AoS just when 40k 8th was coming out.  Everything about AoS, including the double turn just seemed so much faster and fresh, while 40k - even in 8th edition felt old and cumbersome.

I know people love the games they grew up with, but the double turn is a great, fun mechanic that adds excitement and depths of planning to the game.  Endless spells add even more to it, position them in ways that force your opponent to want to give you the double turn.

Also, how often are you seeing first drops going second, most want to go first to secure objectives (mission depending).  Usually I see people fighting for the turn 2 into 3 double turn.

Most armies in my meta either shoot you or beta strike you so hard with a double turn that no one ever wants first turn. I'd say at least 20% of the games I play end after a turn 1 double turn where one player just gets obliterated. In my last 5 games, it has happened 3 times. I don't find it exciting at all to show up to a game, set my army up, have an uneventful first turn, then spend the next hour taking my models off the board, then pack up and go home. 

[tchad78]

1 minute ago, themortalgod said:

Most armies in my meta either shoot you or beta strike you so hard with a double turn that no one ever wants first turn. I'd say at least 20% of the games I play end after a turn 1 double turn where one player just gets obliterated. In my last 5 games, it has happened 3 times. I don't find it exciting at all to show up to a game, set my army up, have an uneventful first turn, then spend the next hour taking my models off the board, then pack up and go home. 

Dang, that's rough.  Very different metas.

We use a disgusting amount of line of sight blocking terrain there is almost zero shooting, outside of the poor ko guy who I don't wins much.  Usually turn 2 double turn means our chaffe is dead.

[King Taloren]

A good point to make is if you are having that kind of trouble with shooting you need more terrain. That generally will solve about 90% of getting shot off the table turn 1-2. The other 10% is deep striking Stormcast bolt-throwers which is a little harder to deal with.

[Vextol]

I think Igougo would need serious help.  Offensive wizards have finally come back into their own.  That's down the tubes.

Shooting would get an even bigger boost.  I don't understand why people who worry about shooting are anti double turn.  Get rid of it and now you just get shot incrementally at a distance you can't bridge instead of all at once with a chance of double moving.

Slower melee units gets a swift kick to the groin.  I feel like people don't remember how it was.  There was this stupid standoff where everyone stayed at just enough of a distance that if you move, you have to make a ridiculous charge or else on my turn, I could move in and kill you.   So combat was this weird little dance where everyone kind of waited for the other guy to mess up.  All the while, wizards tried to inch in and the opposition just backed away or sideways a little.  What did this lead to?  Shooting armies.   The only units that could do anything.  Or crazy defensive armies that could take that first hit when you inevitably failed your charge.

It's definitely a step backwards. 

Edited April 18, 2019 by Vextol

[Mayple]

34 minutes ago, Vextol said:

Shooting would get an even bigger boost.  I don't understand why people who worry about shooting are anti double turn.  Get rid of it and now you just get shot incrementally at a distance you can't bridge instead of all at once with a chance of double moving.

Shooting benefits more from doubleturns remaining than from removing them. Same with spellcasting. 

34 minutes ago, Vextol said:

Slower melee units gets a swift kick to the groin.  I feel like people don't remember how it was.  There was this stupid standoff where everyone stayed at just enough of a distance that if you move, you have to make a ridiculous charge or else on my turn, I could move in and kill you.   So combat was this weird little dance where everyone kind of waited for the other guy to mess up.  All the while, wizards tried to inch in and the opposition just backed away or sideways a little.  What did this lead to?  Shooting armies.   The only units that could do anything.  Or crazy defensive armies that could take that first hit when you inevitably failed your charge.

That was not caused by a lack of doubleturn -- but because shooting armies were, at the time, slightly (or very, depending on your mileage) overtuned. Things like Skyfires, Kurnoth Hunters, and units like them (as well as a few outliers) were pushing a shooting meta pretty strongly up until the cost adjustments that put them where we see today (as well as a few other adjustments that factored in, such as more expensive chaff for tzeentch, for example). 

It had very little (if anything) to do with the implementation of doubleturns. As a sidenote, is my memory deceiving me, or did we not already have doubleturns at that time? It is not important to the overall point, but I'd be grateful if anyone could clear up my memory on that

 

The meta has developed quite a bit since then, and people have since realised that investing heavily into a shooting army leads to a lack of ability to actually -take- and hold objectives, and most people know how to play against heavy magic and heavy shooting nowadays without relying on a doubleturn to do so.

Not that doubleturning into a shooting army does anything to alleviate getting shot in the face whatsoever beyond running into a chaff wall and then promptly getting shot in the face right after, with the potential for a devastating double-turn barrage as a follow up  

34 minutes ago, Vextol said:

It's definitely a step backwards. 

And two steps forward!

 

Edit: 
If you end up making a point for point reply (or something in that direction), and have some kind of shooting faction in mind regarding the points above, please mention which one you're thinking about for ease of discussion If you don't have anything in mind, then there's no such need. 

Edited April 18, 2019 by Mayple

[Vextol]

On 4/17/2019 at 8:44 PM, Mayple said:

Shooting benefits more from doubleturns remaining than from removing them. Same with spellcasting. 

That was not caused by a lack of doubleturn -- but because shooting armies were, at the time, ...

...Not that doubleturning into a shooting army does anything to alleviate getting shot in the face whatsoever beyond running into a chaff wall and then promptly getting shot in the face right after, with the potential for a devastating double-turn barrage as a follow up

You're not going back far enough.  I'm going back to fantasy days.  We've done my turn your turn.  It's bad.

And yes, I agree about magic.  That was my point.  Magic was so weak before the double turn potential.  It still struggles offensively which is why you only see long range spells or buffs most of the time.  Nagash doesn't count... 

And to say shooting benefits more from the double turn... I have to disagree.  You may feel better about yourself because less of your units die as quickly, but shooting definitely benefits from the ability to always be one step back from you.  I'm very likely to get within 18 inches of you if I know you can't charge me.  I'm much less likely to do that if I think you may get to move twice.  Not to mention as a defender if you get any defensive spells off (the only consistent useful spells if I can't get a double turn) , you have to get them off two times. 

Edit: Removed nonsense.

Edited April 23, 2019 by Vextol

[Mayple]

2 minutes ago, Vextol said:

I don't do point by point replies 😉

Youre not going back far enough.  I'm going back to fantasy days.  We've done my turn your turn.  It's bad.

Semantically accurate, I suppose (it does make it easier to avoid misunderstandings though, so feel free to consider it in a far far future ). I'll correct myself then: I need you to tell me what factions you're refering to that is currently at a disadvantage due to doubleturns existing, or would be at an advantage if they stopped existing.

I'll concede that I've had the pleasure* of never having done the fantasy days, so then that's a fair point. Wildly different game though, I've gathered that much.                 *From what I hear this seems accurate.

9 minutes ago, Vextol said:

And to say shooting benefits more from the double turn... I have to disagree.  You may feel better about yourself because less of your units die as quickly, but shooting definitely benefits from the ability to always be one step back from you.  I'm very likely to get within 18 inches of you if I know you can't charge me.  I'm much less likely to do that if I think you may get to move twice.  Not to mention as a defender if you get any defensive spells off (the only consistent useful spells if I can't get a double turn) , you have to get them off two times. 

You are free to disagree. 

Why wouldn't you move within 18 inches regardless? What are you shooting with? There's not a whole lot of things that have greater range than that, and most of those either have a low volume of fire, or an active interest in actually moving forward, or they're an artillery piece, which should not be handled by running straight at them. Camping a corner doesn't work in Age of Sigmar, due to the nature of the objective game. You'd still bubblewrap your lines, and someone double-moving to get within range to charge those are not going to avoid getting the brunt of your shooting in return. 

Not that I see why someone would want to run straight at you like that anyway, but I suspect that becomes more clear once I know what faction you're refering to.

[themortalgod]

2 hours ago, Vextol said:

I think Igougo would need serious help.  Offensive wizards have finally come back into their own.  That's down the tubes.

Shooting would get an even bigger boost.  I don't understand why people who worry about shooting are anti double turn.  Get rid of it and now you just get shot incrementally at a distance you can't bridge instead of all at once with a chance of double moving.

Slower melee units gets a swift kick to the groin.  I feel like people don't remember how it was.  There was this stupid standoff where everyone stayed at just enough of a distance that if you move, you have to make a ridiculous charge or else on my turn, I could move in and kill you.   So combat was this weird little dance where everyone kind of waited for the other guy to mess up.  All the while, wizards tried to inch in and the opposition just backed away or sideways a little.  What did this lead to?  Shooting armies.   The only units that could do anything.  Or crazy defensive armies that could take that first hit when you inevitably failed your charge.

It's definitely a step backwards. 

Because a double turn can create a situation where a shooting army destroys almost my entire army before I can respond whereas incrementally I have a chance to act  before my army is blown to pieces.

[themortalgod]

5 hours ago, tchad78 said:

Dang, that's rough.  Very different metas.

We use a disgusting amount of line of sight blocking terrain there is almost zero shooting, outside of the poor ko guy who I don't wins much.  Usually turn 2 double turn means our chaffe is dead.

Fair, though, even lots of terrain can work against us. There is one guy in my meta who runs a SCE gunline supported by those trumpeter heroes that spam mortal wounds onto anything near a terrain piece. His strategy is basically gun anything down that is in the open and blast anything hiding behind terrain with mortal wounds. 

[themortalgod]

 

 

 

 

 

4

50 minutes ago, Mayple said:

Semantically accurate, I suppose (it does make it easier to avoid misunderstandings though, so feel free to consider it in a far far future ). I'll correct myself then: I need you to tell me what factions you're refering to that is currently at a disadvantage due to doubleturns existing, or would be at an advantage if they stopped existing.

I'll concede that I've had the pleasure* of never having done the fantasy days, so then that's a fair point. Wildly different game though, I've gathered that much.                 *From what I hear this seems accurate.

You are free to disagree. 

I played fantasy for 20 years. I never once felt that turn by turn was a problem. There were times I felt certain armies could alpha strike too powerfully but the solution to that was tuning the alpha strike, not introducing a mechanic that flips the problem in a much worse way. The double turn was the first time where I encountered games where I felt that I was losing (or in other cases winning) simply because of a priority roll which allowed one of the armies to blow their opponent off the board.

[Mayple]

6 minutes ago, themortalgod said:

Fair, though, even lots of terrain can work against us. There is one guy in my meta who runs a SCE gunline supported by those trumpeter heroes that spam mortal wounds onto anything near a terrain piece. His strategy is basically gun anything down that is in the open and blast anything hiding behind terrain with mortal wounds. 

Haha! I like his problem solving approach though Gotta give him that. "Oh you're gonna block my shots, huh? Well.." 

[themortalgod]

8 minutes ago, Mayple said:

Haha! I like his problem solving approach though Gotta give him that. "Oh you're gonna block my shots, huh? Well.." 

For sure, he is certainly a clever player.  And I think the army would do just fine without the double turn. He is very aware that his army composition leads to this situation:

1. If he wins the priority role on the first turn, in many cases he simply wins as most opponents can't stand up to two turns of his firepower with enough strength to threaten him.

2. If he loses the priority role he isn't in a bad position but he now has to work for the win.

(Though he also knows if he ever goes up against Sylvaneth he is going to just lose which is why I think these sorts of armies don't see frequent tournament play)

Another example is a Seraphon player we have who maxes out on razordons and salamanders along with the thunderquake starhost. He uses a slaan to give them all flying and boosts movement with cogs. If he double turns you, your army is taking a gargantuan amount of fire and when you get your turn back you have a giant wall of skinks standing between your army and his firepower. That one is generally less powerful than the SCE one but as a Daemon and Death player the fact that so much Seraphon stuff gets big damage buffs against my armies it often feels like a harder match up. I've had game with him where I lose almost 2000pts in the turn 1 double turn. 

Edited April 18, 2019 by themortalgod

[Mayple]

2 minutes ago, themortalgod said:

For sure, he is certainly a clever player.  And I think the army would do just fine without the double turn. He is very aware that his army composition leads to this situation:

1. If he wins the priority role on the first turn, in many cases he simply wins as most opponents can't stand up to two turns of his firepower with enough strength to threaten him.

2. If he loses the priority role he isn't in a bad position but he now has to work for the win.

(Though he also knows if he ever goes up against Sylvaneth he is going to just lose which is why I think these sorts of armies don't see frequent tournament play)

 

 

Yeah, that certainly tends to be the weakness of lists like that. Absolutely murders certain type of armies, while auto-loosing versus others by the one-sided nature of its construction. Beastclaw Raiders comes up as a fitting comparison to having that kind of problem, I think. 

I assume the Stormcast player is running the shooty Stormcast chamber with full assortment of ballistas and such. If you don't mind indulging me; what kind of things are his opponents bringing? Just the jist of it. Purely out of curiosity