The Rumour Thread

[Satyrical Sophist]

1 hour ago, Bosskelot said:

You know some of the statements being made by ardent double turn defenders really read like the people making them have never played any game aside from Sigmar.

I’ve played a fair number of games in my life thanks, in warhammer I’ve played warhammer fantasy back in the day, and I’ve played 40K 3rd to 5th, then 8th and 9th (not played any 10th yet) Mordheim, Warcry, Blood Bowl etc. Outside of GW stuff I’ve played a lot of board games over the years, and played a ton of magic the gathering, mainly legacy. I haven’t really played much in the way of historical war games, or warmahordes but I’d say I have a reasonable spread of games. 

 

30 minutes ago, Mayple said:

To counter the "Don't like doubleturn? Just git gud"  (paraphrased, ofc) point I saw earlier: 

Competitive player here. Win most of my games, absolutely loathe the double turn. Feels bad winning with it, feels bad losing to it. Pretty much been my only real critique of AoS as a whole since forever. Those that remember me will know I've been pretty consistent about that 😅

That being said, I do like their attempts at trying to make it work, if only because their solutions keep accidentally pushing them into "the other player gets to react" kinda territory. Curious to see how they'll try to solve it this time. 

Immediate concern: as it seems priority roll still involves the winner picks who takes the turn, I sure hope that double-turn penalty system only applies if you yourself decide to take a double-turn, and not if it is decided for you. If not, it's gonna be a lot worse, just reversed. 

Time will tell! Feel like its an obvious flaw, so suuurely they've taken it into account 😎

 

The article said “choose” to take the double, which would imply that you only lose the battle tactic if you win the roll and take the double, not have it given to you. It is WarCom though, and they can be a bit slapdash.

I do like the double, and I think the game needs the uncertainty. I think the game would be worse without it. Are there potentially better ways of doing it? Sure, but mostly they would require some fairly substantial rewrites. Honestly I think it would be interesting if they tested some of those ways in variant game modes, maybe that’s something that will be easier to do in the module based system. 
 

It’s not my intent to tell people to “git gud” but I can defend liking the way the double turn plays. 

[Sarouan]

Remember, when you poll amongst players actually playing the game, it's obvious they tend to be fond of its mechanisms. Otherwise, they wouldn't play anymore.

Makes perfect sense AoS players are mostly in favor in Double Turn and that its detractors are more amongst those who don't play the game. There are always exceptions, of course. But exceptions don't win the poll.

[Gutsu17]

10 minutes ago, Tonhel said:

I have to agree. The posts saying that double turn adds tactics and causes you to think ahead is a bit bizar as there are many games fantasy or historical that achieve the same or even better without it.

Double turn is in AoS, because GW thinks its revolutionary and gives in their opinion AoS something unique compared to other games. I am not a fan of it. As in most of our games the most important roll is the priority roll. It "currently" is to decisive in the outcome for the game.

Noone says its revolutionary, its just different from other big GW games (Old fantasy, 40k, TOW). And indeed, its mostly people from there who complain about it.

I would pick alternating activations over priority any day, but thats not what the choice is, its Priority roll or IgoUgo.
Its just as far as GW is ready to take it for now, one day they may ditch it and go AA, just as one day they may ditch d6 purity, or to hit to wound sequence for something better.

Also, just some of my barely related thouhts.

Age of sigmar is not really a tabletop wargame, neither is 40k from 8th edition onwards, they are video games, that are played on a table with dice, comparing old 40k and fantasy to modern 40k and AoS, is akin comparing Wargame:Red Dragon to Starcraft, or iracing to need for speed.
And indeed very little tabletop games are comparable to that, outside of maybe Malifaux, MCP, and maybe a couple others i fail to remember. And not that it goes unnoticed, frustration with that is often phrased by the old guard as "Magification" of the game (Magic as in MTG).

If you want to play a tabletop wargame as you would a video game (which is what alot of people want, and a lot of new people expect) AoS and 40k are your options due to their competetive popularity, not everyone got Infinity, or SW legions scenes, while warhammer is wastly more popular, not even talking about the amount of battlereports or any other kind of youtube videos. AoS is just simply more interesting and engaging to some people than 40k, and priority while not the sole reason, is a big part of that.

Maybe i would like to play say Battletech, the same way i play AoS, but not only the rules dont lead you into that type of thing, the popularity and community are iherently different, and playing it the same way i play starcraft, dota or mtg would be at the very least, inapropriate towards the community im playing with 
(Not native english speaker, so not sure how much of that is clearly understandable, but i think most people get what i mean)

[Sarouan]

1 minute ago, Gutsu17 said:

Age of sigmar is not really a tabletop wargame, neither is 40k from 8th edition onwards, they are video games, that are played on a table with dice, comparing old 40k and fantasy to modern 40k and AoS, is akin comparing Wargame:Red Dragon to Starcraft, or iracing to need for speed.

A game played on a table with dice can't be a video game. A video game is a game played on a video device (console, mobile, PC).

AoS is totally a tabletop wargame, whatever you're saying. You may -not- consider it like "a true tabletop wargame", depending on your personnal preference of whatever that means (mostly a consideration on the rules / tactics / strategy that you think highly or not), or think it uses rules akind to a video game you have in mind, but that doesn't mean you can use words to say what they totally don't mean.

 

[KarrWolves]

Most competitive players like/love the double turn: the only people I've met who do not like it are either not playing the game (and just criticizing) or very casual.

So it's not surprising that Matt got this answer when he asked competitive players, playtesters and influencers: he just simply didn't ask casual players, because he doesn't meet them since they don't go the the tournaments, and that's where he talks to players.

When Matt Rose ask players who really enjoy the game to the point of spending a lot of money to go play AoS for 2+ days if they like one of its defining mechanic, of course the answer is yes, otherwise they wouldn't be there.

[Sarouan]

16 minutes ago, KarrWolves said:

Most competitive players like/love the double turn: the only people I've met who do not like it are either not playing the game (and just criticizing) or very casual.

"Very casual" is more likely meant for people barely playing the game. I'm not sure they actually count as "active players".

It's like me with Kings of War. I'm "very casual" with it, like didn't play since a year. I have all the rules and all the minis to play, sure, so why don't I play it then ? Well...because I'm not really interested in the game anymore. But saying I'm "very casual" with it is certainly a more polite way to describe it...

Edited March 29 by Sarouan

[Gutsu17]

6 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

A game played on a table with dice can't be a video game. A video game is a game played on a video device (console, mobile, PC).

AoS is totally a tabletop wargame, whatever you're saying. You may -not- consider it like "a true tabletop wargame", depending on your personnal preference of whatever that means (mostly a consideration on the rules / tactics / strategy that you think highly or not), or think it uses rules akind to a video game you have in mind, but that doesn't mean you can use words to say what they totally don't mean.

 

I didnt use it literally, but more methaphorically, maybe i phrased it wrong.
a game with a very strict rules system that is played through combo-wombos, that has a theme, but not necceseraly tries to simulate what it portrais.
like for example you can have a HAZARDOUS test, or you can suffer mortals on a hit roll of 1.
In the first case it might be a better simulation and better for what i would call a proper "tabletop wargame". But in the second case you can get reroll of 1s to hit in some way, which is a combination of different mechanics that dont simulate anything (you can scream "TAKE AIM!!!" as much as you want, it wont change reliability of the equipment) but it makes for an interesting interaction.

I think it would be better to rephrase it into a tabletop game being either Strategy/Tactical game or a Simulator Wargame.

I personally attribute the booming (as i see it) popularity of Killteam for example to a combination of it being a 40k game, that gives an expirience of a Tactical game rather than a Skirmish simulator. 

[Jagged Red Lines]

1 hour ago, Grungnisson said:

I finally realised that it wasn't the game's fault, it was mine.

These are pearls of wisdom. I've been playing a netlist recently. It's a mixed arms ogor list. It's copied from a guy who is one of the best players in the world. He's beaten all the top armies in the meta with this list, and it's largely remained unchanged.

First three games with it, I lost every single game. But I'm slowly starting to understand how to play it.

It's taught me that player skill is most often the only variable that counts. Its not because of the army, or your opponent's army, or because of the double turn, or your sh**ty dice rolls - the fault is almost always down to poor decision making an planning. 

This is part of what makes the game incredibly fun. Failing ever upwards, learning from your mistakes. If you blame anything other than yourself you stop learning. 

[Sarouan]

6 minutes ago, Gutsu17 said:

I didnt use it literally, but more methaphorically, maybe i phrased it wrong.
a game with a very strict rules system that is played through combo-wombos, that has a theme, but not necceseraly tries to simulate what it portrais.
like for example you can have a HAZARDOUS test, or you can suffer mortals on a hit roll of 1.
In the first case it might be a better simulation and better for what i would call a proper "tabletop wargame". But in the second case you can get reroll of 1s to hit in some way, which is a combination of different mechanics that dont simulate anything (you can scream "TAKE AIM!!!" as much as you want, it wont change reliability of the equipment) but it makes for an interesting interaction.

I think it would be better to rephrase it into a tabletop game being either Strategy/Tactical game or a Simulator Wargame.

I personally attribute the booming (as i see it) popularity of Killteam for example to a combination of it being a 40k game, that gives an expirience of a Tactical game rather than a Skirmish simulator. 

Tabletop wargame has nothing to do with the degree of realism in a simulation or how hazard plays a role in it. This is a question of player personnal preference.

Rules are meant to have a common corpus players agree on so that they can play together. Nothing more, nothing less. What people like as mechanisms depend on their own tastes and what they're expecting from such a said game.

Killteam's popularity can't be explained on rules alone. Universe plays a role (40k is still highly popular), scale as well (you don't need a huge army of hundred of miniatures or a big table to play, so it's an easier entry), and community does help too (you have better chances to find players interested in Killteam given the huge pool thanks to GW and 40k in particular, in comparison to an obscure "indie" game only seen in Kickstarters or Adepticon). Perceived quality of the game can be a piece in the puzzle, but it's not necessary. After all, fans of a game will always find it awesome no matter what game critics can say on it.

[01rtb01]

Personally I love the double turn. Glad it stays. Clearly different views exist but it's staying regardless.

[Sception]

29 minutes ago, 01rtb01 said:

Personally I love the double turn. Glad it stays. Clearly different views exist but it's staying regardless.

I could take or leave it in matched play games.  Would prefer an alternating activation 'we go' system like middle earth, or like we already have in the combat phase, but if separate player turns remain I don't mind the double overmuch.  It becomes more problematic in lower point games where there's less you can do to play around it, so hopefully spearhead has some targeted mitigation, especially as the battle tactics thing doesn't apply there.  We'll see.  My fingers are crossed pretty hard for spearhead, I really want it to be good.

[Tonhel]

Maybe we should stop speaking for others. I can only say that I played AoS two times a month with the same group of friends since AoS 2, we skipped AoS1. I stopped playing AoS since TOW dropped. I am ofcourse quite excited what AoS 4 can bring (especially the mini's). That said I never liked the double turn, maybe I am not a good player, but for me it feels that to many games were decided who could do a double turn. Mid game, the priority roll becomes the most important roll. Ofcourse playing a game that uses dice, has a huge factor of luck with it, but in my experience the priority roll, has way to much impact. A single dice roll... . My main opponents were Soulblight, OBR and Idoneth (I played CoS before the new battletome and StD). I.e to endure two shooting phases in a row hurts. There is nothing tactical about it and this is all decided by a single dice. Imo, that is bad game design.

 

[ScionOfOssia]

25 minutes ago, Sception said:

I could take or leave it in matched play games.  Would prefer an alternating activation 'we go' system like middle earth, or like we already have in the combat phase, but if separate player turns remain I don't mind the double overmuch.  It becomes more problematic in lower point games where there's less you can do to play around it, so hopefully spearhead has some targeted mitigation, especially as the battle tactics thing doesn't apply there.  We'll see.  My fingers are crossed pretty hard for spearhead, I really want it to be good.

Low points games are already unbalanced and unless they do points adjustments for lower level games, I don’t see that changing any time soon. Their new 1k points rules are an okay start, but since it’s pretty much what my current league runs at 1k, it’s gonna skew hard into either hyperaggro or hyperdefense and some stuff will just win. 

[Ejecutor]

1 hour ago, KarrWolves said:

Most competitive players like/love the double turn: the only people I've met who do not like it are either not playing the game (and just criticizing) or very casual.

So it's not surprising that Matt got this answer when he asked competitive players, playtesters and influencers: he just simply didn't ask casual players, because he doesn't meet them since they don't go the the tournaments, and that's where he talks to players.

When Matt Rose ask players who really enjoy the game to the point of spending a lot of money to go play AoS for 2+ days if they like one of its defining mechanic, of course the answer is yes, otherwise they wouldn't be there.

It could also depend on the country you ask. In the WhatsApp groups I am part of (where most of the users are "pro players" who are in the groups to get the top tier list) the consensus is that they don't like it.

[Sception]

24 minutes ago, ScionOfOssia said:

Low points games are already unbalanced and unless they do points adjustments for lower level games, I don’t see that changing any time soon. Their new 1k points rules are an okay start, but since it’s pretty much what my current league runs at 1k, it’s gonna skew hard into either hyperaggro or hyperdefense and some stuff will just win. 

1k is low points games.  The game is balanced for 2k points.  That's the size of all the events that they draw data and feedback from for new battle scrolls, ghbs, points balance updates, and apparently for writing this new edition.

At 2k you can play around the double - you can minimize your chance of being subject to it by limiting your drops in list construction, you always know in advance with at least one player turn to prepare if you're in danger of it coming, and you can use that time to pre-measure around danger ranges, set up layered screens, clog up enemy movement by tagging units with fast sacrificial charges & body blockers, set up 'until your next turn' buffs and debuffs, you could just focus down on scoring what you can while making it difficult for the opponent to do the same - it's not unheard of in this game to get tabled on turn four but still be so far ahead on points that you win the game anyway.  And IF you get doubled then that automatically puts you in a position where you could potentially double your opponent back.  Tough factions like OBR and Fireslayers can build to weather the storm and counterpunch.

What mitigations you have available varies from faction to faction and needs to be considered in both list construction and deployment.  Once you're playing big enough games that you can lose two whole units without the game being over then the double doesn't decide games early so much as it *prevents* them from being decided early.  If you play 40k or tOW, think how often you can look at the game state at the end of round 2, heck even at the end of deployment sometimes, and just know how the rest of the game is going to play out.  It shouldn't be surprising then that when the devs asked a bunch of players, presumably at competitive 2k tournament events, whether they should keep the double turn, the players they asked overwhelmingly said 'yes'.

None of that works at 1,000 points.  Even at 1,500 it's iffy, but at 1,000 points & below if you get doubled and lose two units then your army is just gone and there's no fighting back from that.

Edited March 29 by Sception

[Sception]

And as much as I agree that the double is bad in 1,000 point games, IMO it's not even the worst thing about small games of AoS right now!  IMO the worst part of AoS 3e in games of 1k or below is the suggested table size - the current already small standard size cut in half down the middle for a weird long rectangle.  This tiny table size typically has opposing armies starting 15" away from each other - in some cases as little as 12", and suddenly /every/ army is an alpha rush army, and games are often fully decided in the first half of the first battle round, before there's even a chance for a double turn.

Really hope* that gets addressed in some way for Spearhead.  Either by not locking table sizes to the war cry boards, or at least via scenarios that have opposing sides deploy on the short edges so there's some actual distance between deployment zones.

*not sarcastic.  I have high hopes for Spearhead.  I'm legit excited for it, and am working on getting spearheads painted for each of the undead factions.

Edited March 29 by Sception

[Bosskelot]

3 hours ago, Tonhel said:

I have to agree. The posts saying that double turn adds tactics and causes you to think ahead is a bit bizar as there are many games fantasy or historical that achieve the same or even better without it.

Double turn is in AoS, because GW thinks its revolutionary and gives in their opinion AoS something unique compared to other games. I am not a fan of it. As in most of our games the most important roll is the priority roll. It "currently" is to decisive in the outcome for the game.

Oh it's not even that, sure it can add its own type of tactical depth, it's people making wild statements about other games that don't have the double turn mechanic. 

Someone said that 40k, and by extension any pure IGOUGO game, is solved in turn 1 and you just have to execute your plan is pure delusion. It speaks as someone who literally only plays Age of Sigmar.

[Gitzdee]

43 minutes ago, Sception said:

And as much as I agree that the double is bad in 1,000 point games, IMO it's not even the worst thing about small games of AoS right now!  IMO the worst part of AoS 3e in games of 1k or below is the suggested table size - the current already small standard size cut in half down the middle for a weird long rectangle.  This tiny table size typically has opposing armies starting 15" away from each other - in some cases as little as 12", and suddenly /every/ army is an alpha rush army, and games are often fully decided in the first half of the first battle round, before there's even a chance for a double turn.

Really hope* that gets addressed in some way for Spearhead.  Either by not locking table sizes to the war cry boards, or at least via scenarios that have opposing sides deploy on the short edges so there's some actual distance between deployment zones.

*not sarcastic.  I have high hopes for Spearhead.  I'm legit excited for it, and am working on getting spearheads painted for each of the undead factions.

My problem with the design of smaller games lies with the scaling of the battleplans etc. Most of them dont downscale very well. Objectives are very close to eachother and it just feels a bit off to the point where i just make up my own stuff now. I would prefer a well designed smaller game experience though 750/1000 points. Mainly due to tablesize limitations.

[dmorley21]

4 hours ago, Bosskelot said:

You know some of the statements being made by ardent double turn defenders really read like the people making them have never played any game aside from Sigmar.

If this is about me, more or less fair. I used to play WHFB, dabbled in 40k once upon a time, and have looked into TOW. But AoS is the only tabletop game I’ve played regularly in the past 5 years. 

Like I said - it’s different for different people. I live in a small town in Michigan (US). People I’ve taught AoS to in my small town like the double turn. People in my larger region of West MI are 50/50. People in the state of MI are very pro double turn. I know this because there’s three sizable AoS clubs in the state, and I run into people from those clubs at GTs and RTTs. 

I’m also part of a Midwest (region in the US) gaming group that mainly plays AoS, Magic, and TOW that loves the double turn. 

My favorite YouTubers all enjoy the double turn. And I’d agree that most competitive players skip taking the double turn unless it guarantees their win - which is rare. 

Overall, doesn’t matter. It’s here for at least the next three years. 
 

Looking forward to having different things to discuss next week or when the next rumor drops 😂 

[Sception]

13 minutes ago, Gitzdee said:

My problem with the design of smaller games lies with the scaling of the battleplans etc. Most of them dont downscale very well. Objectives are very close to eachother and it just feels a bit off to the point where i just make up my own stuff now. I would prefer a well designed smaller game experience though 750/1000 points. Mainly due to tablesize limitations.

Pretty much yeah.  There's so much potential for improvement of the small game experience just in designing battleplans specifically for it.  It's why I have so much hope for Spearhead.  Actually ~trying~ to design something specifically for smaller games instead of downscaling rules & scenarios meant for 2k games can easily improve so much.

[Mayple]

3 hours ago, Satyrical Sophist said:

It’s not my intent to tell people to “git gud” but I can defend liking the way the double turn plays. 

No worries! Your intent was not misread, and you absolutely can 

49 minutes ago, Bosskelot said:

Oh it's not even that, sure it can add its own type of tactical depth, it's people making wild statements about other games that don't have the double turn mechanic. 

Someone said that 40k, and by extension any pure IGOUGO game, is solved in turn 1 and you just have to execute your plan is pure delusion. It speaks as someone who literally only plays Age of Sigmar.

One of the greatest joys of having bought into 40k while coming from AoS was experiencing how horrifyingly quick any plan was laid to waste. In AoS, I can pretty accurately predict how each turn is going to play out, even with doubleturn, and unless I'm playing someone completely unhinged (love em), that's usually how it'll go. Not saying AoS is a predictable game by design, but it doesn't really take much to figure out the flow of it, and the double turn doesn't really shake up expectations/predictability as much as one would think. 

40k, while not having any kind of double turn, is almost impossible to predict. Very much a "the best laid plans of mice and men" kinda game, because almost everyone can shoot you, bomb you, or just.. do crazy stuff, and it takes very little to turn everything to chaos (not the heretic kind) - Very enjoyable. I'm an awful 40k player. Lose all the time. Love it. I think HH is better though, but that's neither here nor there.

All that to say, yeah, you are very much on point.

[Peacaf]

The same old cries with the double shift.

A single initiative roll is more decisive and dooms a game. You just have to look at the winning ratio of white and black in Chess. Who starts first, hits first.

Furthermore, are those "great" strategists who never prepare for the worst really an opinion worth taking into account?

And finally, Age of Shitmar is not as perfect as Fantasy/TOW that a few bad rolls on psychology checks, without even entering combat, could destroy a game. Not to mention the classic failed charge, which at least in AoS can be repeated.

[GloomkingWortwazi]

I'm going to put my work hat on for a second and offer the perspective of someone in the games industry:

I don't want to join the discourse directly, so I am not weighing in with my opinion on the double turn - but just keep in mind: different games have different mechanics to appeal to the different values of different people.

It's OK to like the mechanic and it's OK not to like the mechanic.
You decide if you enjoy the game and play it with the existence of said mechanic, or not. We shouldn't be so vitriolic over a difference in what we enjoy. No one here is right. There is no ultimate objective truth to if it is good or bad design, it is just a design on a sliding scale of enjoyment. We're focusing on the mechanics here, but it includes art as well.

For those that enjoy that mechanic, it's great that you have a system to enjoy here and it's understandable to be emotive in defense of what you enjoy when you feel it is being attacked - likewise it's understandable to be emotive when you love a lot about a system but a fundamental mechanic impedes that enjoyment.

We should be mature enough to respect what each other enjoy so long as it isn't harming us and if you don't like something fundamental about a system, you have the option of playing something else and lobbying the designers with rational input in an attempt to catalyze change when appropriate via official channels. For those who do enjoy it, a rational and calm explanation of why you value a mechanic is way more helpful in changing minds and hearts than, "You are wrong and bad".

We make games for different people and that's one of the wonderful things about creative industries. It would be a shame to further homogenize them.

Edited March 30 by GloomkingWortwazi

[GloomkingWortwazi]

Now back to rumor-mongering...

Blowpipe? Night/Gutter Runners nod, or just a Master Assassin leading some rats? 🤔

Edited March 30 by GloomkingWortwazi

[Gitzdee]

23 minutes ago, GloomkingWortwazi said:

Now back to rumor-mongering...

Blowpipe? Night/Gutter Runners nod, or just a Master Assassin leading some rats? 🤔

Spiderfang! Some kind of stinger? 

Edited March 30 by Gitzdee