Jump to content

Double turn


Worm

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, mojojojo101 said:

Do you expect newer players to put in dozens of hours finding out what the  best lists are, optimising them, then only buy the models for that list, even if they dont like them or enjoy using them? That's an utterly ridiculous assumption and a fantastic way to drive people away from the hobby, which will result in, ultimately, the whole thing collapsing.

 

 

I only expect people to find what they like about the hobby and enjoy it, it just happened that I enjoy competetive play just as much as all other aspects of the hobby, which makes me look like a ******

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, mojojojo101 said:

Do you expect newer players to put in dozens of hours finding out what the  best lists are, optimising them, then only buy the models for that list, even if they dont like them or enjoy using them? 

 

 

Well yes.  If you want to have competitive games that is exactly what you have to do.  And then when the new generals handbook comes out, you do it all over again.  It seems to be working pretty well so far.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, XReN said:

I only expect people to find what they like about the hobby and enjoy it, it just happened that I enjoy competetive play just as much as all other aspects of the hobby, which makes me look like a ******

What I'm saying is that double turns are bot just a problem for competitive players. Just because you aren't playing a top tier list doesn't mean that you deserve to be tabled without having a chance to play with your army.

 

Also, more generally, you cant expect new people to turn up and want be ultra competitive right out the gate or even if they want to do that, how to achieve it. If new people (either to the hobby or competitive play) turn up and get tabled on double turns without actually having any fun it shouldn't then be a surprise when they just drop the game entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats why its important for communities to reach out to new players and tell them how things really are.  If a new player walks into the store and starts oggling armies like khadron overlords or slaves to darkness or any of the older models like high elves, the community should give them a fair warning before they spend any money that they are going to both get destroyed on the table, and additionally have their models removed from matched play without any notice.  

Even if players are looking at picking up unoptimal models in a normally high powered army they should be warned that they are going to have a hard time having fun.  

If they decide to do that anyway after being warned, thats entirely on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitly think its up to the local community yo embrace every new player and help show them potential pit falls before, during, and after a game. 

 

If you are playing some one less than 10 games deep into the hobby and you see them moving in such a way that a double turn will destroy them, it is up to you to speak up and explain before hand. Dont just proceed to roll them. 

 

If you new hobby friend is think of starting a KO army, it's your job to make sure they know the score. 

The double turn, and really most war gaming as it is most punishing, and most likely to keep folks from wanting to play in the first handfuls of games. 

 

I think the double turn is a very fun mechanic. That said i think a you go, i go mechanic for all phases would be best. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, XReN said:

Works like a charm, thanks for asking. What should have happened is: Anvilstrike list killing all fast/dd units turn 1

 

There were

Learn possitioning

They kicked me out for actually trying to win

SCE already were capable of it and than it got scraged

Your first line is literally “ash should have made an army that would allow him to win in the first turn”. Like this is sort of illustrating the point

 

winning the game in one super combo is kind of a bummer for both balance and fun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, stratigo said:

Your first line is literally “ash should have made an army that would allow him to win in the first turn”. Like this is sort of illustrating the point

 

winning the game in one super combo is kind of a bummer for both balance and fun

However that is how a good portion of the playerbase plays.  The reality for most of us is that we are in an environment where we are all building lists to win as fast as possible, thats how the game is structured and what is rewarded.  If that is your environment, it makes sense you'd want to see battle reports reflect that as well.

Battle reports where players are building gimp lists are not very engaging or useful for those of us who want battle reports that showcase high end level of play using high end lists so naturally you will have people make a comment on that if that goes against what they are looking for.

There needs to be more of those type of battle reports I think.  The ones showcasing high end play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

However that is how a good portion of the playerbase plays.  The reality for most of us is that we are in an environment where we are all building lists to win as fast as possible, thats how the game is structured and what is rewarded.  If that is your environment, it makes sense you'd want to see battle reports reflect that as well.

Battle reports where players are building gimp lists are not very engaging or useful for those of us who want battle reports that showcase high end level of play using high end lists so naturally you will have people make a comment on that if that goes against what they are looking for.

There needs to be more of those type of battle reports I think.  The ones showcasing high end play.

That isn’t how the game should be played. Not on a prosaic self restraint level, but on a gw writing a tighter ruleset level. Gw has given us a ruleset ripe with some hilarious abuses at the most competitive level. I literally can’t look as a skaven army now and not roll my eyes

The double turn is a part of this, but it bothers me that gw manages to tighten up 40k each pass while aos is like the Wild West where you put your three keepers on the field and end the game a thousand points up on your opponent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That isn’t how the game should be played.

The thing is we only have a very bare bones ruleset to go off of.  How it should or should not be played will be up to the players.  Many many players play it this way.  If it should not be played in this manner, then GW needs to write rules that do not allow for it to happen or reward players for playing in this manner.  As they do reward players for playing in this manner, it can be concluded that it is at the very least one way that the game should be played.

I reinforce that point by pointing out that the AOS designers are they themselves heavy competitive players that build armies like the three keeper of secrets army (Ben Johnson has pictures on the internet of his three keeper army that he plays at tournaments very recently for example)

If the lead designer is playing the game this way, I would also therefore conclude that the game is intended and designed to be played exactly that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dead Scribe said:

 

 

The thing is we only have a very bare bones ruleset to go off of.  How it should or should not be played will be up to the players.  Many many players play it this way.  If it should not be played in this manner, then GW needs to write rules that do not allow for it to happen or reward players for playing in this manner.  As they do reward players for playing in this manner, it can be concluded that it is at the very least one way that the game should be played.

I reinforce that point by pointing out that the AOS designers are they themselves heavy competitive players that build armies like the three keeper of secrets army (Ben Johnson has pictures on the internet of his three keeper army that he plays at tournaments very recently for example)

If the lead designer is playing the game this way, I would also therefore conclude that the game is intended and designed to be played exactly that way.

 

Yes, I in fact did say that GW needs to tighten up their rules set. The game should NOT be allowed to be played like this. That GW allows it makes the game worse. It is less fun. AoS has dropped off to nearly nothing in my local shop, and my shop is one of the busiest in America. A little over a year ago, we had a dozen people competing in the NOVA open AoS GT. This year we had... two I think. Maybe three. And for all of them, one of the biggest factors was... the game's balance fell apart. 

 

And these are quite competitive people. We've all largely jumped ship to Middle Earth SBG because the systems are tighter. And it would be a hard road to get AoS to be as well written as SBG, but it can at least be as well written as 40k. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, stratigo said:

but it can at least be as well written as 40k

I honestly don't feel this is true. 40k is just as bathed in win as fast as possible smash your opponent into the groung as anything else, and if it's not that, it's last all game unkillable hordes. Sounds kinda familiar to me. With the stagnet initiative you never even have a chance to get back into the game against an alpha list that breaks half your army on the first turn, or a if your opponent has a super horde and goes first take up most of the table, and stay there all game. 

Theres a reason ironhands are better than ultramarines and that's because devastor doctrine takes effect turn 1, and that's about it. 

From there mono faction is near undoable in 40k outside of the new space marine rules they just released. Where as AoS encourages you to go monofaction, but allows to multifaction stuff when you look at list like pheonix temple, and now all the new city books. 

The above is not to mention that to make the game even approachable ITC implements ALOT of house rules to make the game even playable in a competitive setting.  No line of sight bottom floor, Allowing charges to measure 3" up to count as being in combat, 100% 3rd party missions,  etc. And 2 of those are to get around the power of ranged shooting and a turn 1 alpha strike breaking the game. 

I think all the various board games can be propped up on brought down by a different prospective, and a difference of what you want out of your games.

 

 

3 hours ago, stratigo said:

This year we had... two I think. Maybe three. And for all of them, one of the biggest factors was... the game's balance fell apart. 

This is simply anecdotal.  2017 nova had ~50 people, 2018 had ~85 people, and 2019 had ~100 people + and RTT, and all 3 years had a doubles event. LVO also had some 20-30% year to year growth in AoS participants.  

Groups turn on and off of game systems. That's just how it works. AoS and 40k have a lot of back and forth as GW shops tend to lean toward this, but other gaming shops also carrying both products.  Folks get tired for one reason or another and swap games.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, stratigo said:

Your first line is literally “ash should have made an army that would allow him to win in the first turn”. Like this is sort of illustrating the point

 

winning the game in one super combo is kind of a bummer for both balance and fun

That was to represent what BoC vs SCE really is on power level, Ash is an entertainer and even though I'd prefer to see more competetive games, he does his job well and he has his audience, I don't blame him for bringing weak lists.

In my book competetive gaming is not about balance and fun (in broad sense) some people enjoy cracking a tough list eventually, after beign crushed many times over, some don't.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, stratigo said:

That isn’t how the game should be played. Not on a prosaic self restraint level, but on a gw writing a tighter ruleset level. Gw has given us a ruleset ripe with some hilarious abuses at the most competitive level. I literally can’t look as a skaven army now and not roll my eyes

The double turn is a part of this, but it bothers me that gw manages to tighten up 40k each pass while aos is like the Wild West where you put your three keepers on the field and end the game a thousand points up on your opponent. 

 

3 hours ago, stratigo said:

Yes, I in fact did say that GW needs to tighten up their rules set. The game should NOT be allowed to be played like this. That GW allows it makes the game worse. It is less fun. AoS has dropped off to nearly nothing in my local shop, and my shop is one of the busiest in America. A little over a year ago, we had a dozen people competing in the NOVA open AoS GT. This year we had... two I think. Maybe three. And for all of them, one of the biggest factors was... the game's balance fell apart. 

 

And these are quite competitive people. We've all largely jumped ship to Middle Earth SBG because the systems are tighter. And it would be a hard road to get AoS to be as well written as SBG, but it can at least be as well written as 40k. 

I find it hillarious that (presumably) grown up people need other people to police them to enjoy playing plastic soldiers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, XReN said:

That was to represent what BoC vs SCE really is on power level, Ash is an entertainer and even though I'd prefer to see more competetive games, he does his job well and he has his audience, I don't blame him for bringing weak lists.

In my book competetive gaming is not about balance and fun (in broad sense) some people enjoy cracking a tough list eventually, after beign crushed many times over, some don't.

 

Here's a secret, a game isn't competitive if it isn't balanced. Feeling good you can lean entirely on lists is bad for being a competitive gamer. 

 

25 minutes ago, mmimzie said:

I honestly don't feel this is true. 40k is just as bathed in win as fast as possible smash your opponent into the groung as anything else, and if it's not that, it's last all game unkillable hordes. Sounds kinda familiar to me. With the stagnet initiative you never even have a chance to get back into the game against an alpha list that breaks half your army on the first turn, or a if your opponent has a super horde and goes first take up most of the table, and stay there all game. 

Theres a reason ironhands are better than ultramarines and that's because devastor doctrine takes effect turn 1, and that's about it. 

From there mono faction is near undoable in 40k outside of the new space marine rules they just released. Where as AoS encourages you to go monofaction, but allows to multifaction stuff when you look at list like pheonix temple, and now all the new city books. 

The above is not to mention that to make the game even approachable ITC implements ALOT of house rules to make the game even playable in a competitive setting.  No line of sight bottom floor, Allowing charges to measure 3" up to count as being in combat, 100% 3rd party missions,  etc. And 2 of those are to get around the power of ranged shooting and a turn 1 alpha strike breaking the game. 

I think all the various board games can be propped up on brought down by a different prospective, and a difference of what you want out of your games.

 

 

This is simply anecdotal.  2017 nova had ~50 people, 2018 had ~85 people, and 2019 had ~100 people + and RTT, and all 3 years had a doubles event. LVO also had some 20-30% year to year growth in AoS participants.  

Groups turn on and off of game systems. That's just how it works. AoS and 40k have a lot of back and forth as GW shops tend to lean toward this, but other gaming shops also carrying both products.  Folks get tired for one reason or another and swap games.  

40K isn't though. Its outliers get wacked way faster than AoS. The last too good list was forgeworld custodes. It lasted for a couple months. And then was nerfed. 

 

The game has increasingly implemented rules to make the first turn is no longer the dominating position. Extra saves, deep striking, scoring at the bottom of 2 have all helped. It will always, of course, have the problem that I go you go has where getting the opportunity to kill the enemy before they can act. But, like, AoS has that issue EVEN more. Every issue in 40k is magnified in the current AoS balance. And then there's the addition of things like free summoning being a further spanner in the works of balance that, let's be frank, GW has not gotten remotely right. 

 

And then there's the double turn which takes all the balance issues and obfuscates them with just a random roll that has such an overwhelming effect on the game so that when things fall apart is it cause a double turn happened, or because something like skaven are just a ridiculous book?

 

AoS needs an overall balance pass. And it needs to get rid of the double turn to facilitate the ability to even do balance.

 

4 minutes ago, XReN said:

 

I find it hillarious that (presumably) grown up people need other people to police them to enjoy playing plastic soldiers.

 

You're one of those people. I don't begrudge someone using all the tools in the game to win, but I do begrudge the rules writers for allowing them abusive tools. You're not going to restrain your play, and why should you? It is in the rules. But GW should write a ruleset that helps emphasize skill and positioning and not whether your wombo combo went off first or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, stratigo said:

Yes, I in fact did say that GW needs to tighten up their rules set. The game should NOT be allowed to be played like this. That GW allows it makes the game worse. It is less fun. AoS has dropped off to nearly nothing in my local shop, and my shop is one of the busiest in America. A little over a year ago, we had a dozen people competing in the NOVA open AoS GT. This year we had... two I think. Maybe three. And for all of them, one of the biggest factors was... the game's balance fell apart. 

And these are quite competitive people. We've all largely jumped ship to Middle Earth SBG because the systems are tighter. And it would be a hard road to get AoS to be as well written as SBG, but it can at least be as well written as 40k. 

That's a really interesting comment as over in the UK, the AoS scene is generally getting larger (it's going to vary from store to store as hobbyists are a bit like butterflies).  I also do think that GW are trying to fulfil their competitive offering by introducing different games such as Underworlds.

35 minutes ago, stratigo said:

Here's a secret, a game isn't competitive if it isn't balanced. Feeling good you can lean entirely on lists is bad for being a competitive gamer. 

I'm going to be honest and say that I'm not sure GW ever really intended for AoS to be balanced/competitive - I expect there's more than meets the eye why they picked the term "matched play" over "competitive play".

I think there's a couple of things to consider too - firstly what do we actually mean when we say "competitive"?  I fully expect my terminology is going to be different to yours.  This leads into the second point that everybody plays AoS for different reasons.  My own experience is that I know more people who are looking for a relaxed game with friends than bringing their "A" game along to the table.  That's going to vary from location to location and your own reason for playing is going to be influenced by the people you play with.  We all change too, if there's something in a game system that is generally disliked the choice is to houserule* it or move to a different game system. 

* When I started playing 20+ years ago, houserules were something everybody used and you'd have a discussion with your opponent which ones were in play.  This allowed you to really fine tune the game to fit your own particular armies/gangs/warband and play styles.  The current thinking is that houserules should never be needed.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

Thats why its important for communities to reach out to new players and tell them how things really are.  If a new player walks into the store and starts oggling armies like khadron overlords or slaves to darkness or any of the older models like high elves, the community should give them a fair warning before they spend any money that they are going to both get destroyed on the table, and additionally have their models removed from matched play without any notice.  

Even if players are looking at picking up unoptimal models in a normally high powered army they should be warned that they are going to have a hard time having fun.  

If they decide to do that anyway after being warned, thats entirely on them.

I think this is a completely wrong approach - actually, I have seen this approach driving people away from the game. Someone enters the store, wants to buy some models, and usually does that based on the look of the models and some backstory (if he read some fluff). Then, some guy shows up and tells him that his choices are not good, they are not optimal, and that there are better choices or - in some cases - even better armies. The poor new player is now confused, his first experience is automatically ruined - he leaves store either confused, or with models he is not so happy about any more. In most cases, he drops the game completely and does not show up again.

I have seen this happening in our Warmachine/Hordes scene. I've also seen players making fun of other players who play "casual" lists. Now, I've been competitive WM player for a long time and I've won both big and small events, so I know that what you say is true - if you don't play certain combinations of models, you will lose; some things are simply better than the other. However, I believe that people should come to that conclusion on their own - without anyone telling them that they are not "playing the game properly". Many people buy their first model because they like the look of it, or because they want to tell a specific story - I really doubt that many players consider high-end play when they are making their first purchases.

I think that more competitive/more experienced players should handicap themselves when they are playing less experienced people. Don't play your strongest list - make some changes, so your opponent stands a chance. My best friend plays Free Peoples and has very limited amount of models - he simply does not want to buy multiples of any unit, because he sees his army in a specific way (and he invested a lot of time in painting). He is also not very experienced player and does not read blogs, forums or articles describing tactics. If I play my strongest Khorne/Sylvaneth lists against him, he would loose almost every single game we play - which is something I would like to avoid. So, I play different combination of units every time - I take some strong choices, but not everything I could use. This gives him a chance and the games are much closer. I truly believe that this is the way to go - less experienced players should be mentored, not crushed and ridiculed  because they are playing sub-optimal army list.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, stratigo said:

And these are quite competitive people. We've all largely jumped ship to Middle Earth SBG because the systems are tighter. And it would be a hard road to get AoS to be as well written as SBG, but it can at least be as well written as 40k. 

I think thats good on you all for jumping to a game that you can all enjoy.  AOS has dropped heavily where I am as well, and 40k is dominating everything.  I looked at playing 40k and am not interested in getting into it.  If we had Middle Earth going here I'd look at that too but I have never seen it played outside of Adepticon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

n my book competetive gaming is not about balance and fun 

I would second this (though more on the its not about balance part, competitive players find it great fun to unbalance the game because its a puzzle we are trying to solve).  Competitive gaming is definitely anti-balance unless you are forced to do so because of event rules or game rules.  

Quote

I'm going to be honest and say that I'm not sure GW ever really intended for AoS to be balanced/competitive

I fully agree based on what they have produced and based on what they have said.  Balance is not really their concern.

 When I started playing 20+ years ago, houserules were something everybody used and you'd have a discussion with your opponent which ones were in play.  This allowed you to really fine tune the game to fit your own particular armies/gangs/warband and play styles.  The current thinking is that houserules should never be needed.

20+ years ago tournament gaming was not the industry that it is today.  House rules are fine in a private setting.  Tournament gaming has made it where the desire for a standard ruleset that we do not deviate from is absolutely a requirement (at least I can say that in American culture, I have never played over in the UK).

Edited by Dead Scribe
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Painbringer said:

I think this is a completely wrong approach - actually, I have seen this approach driving people away from the game. Someone enters the store, wants to buy some models, and usually does that based on the look of the models and some backstory (if he read some fluff). Then, some guy shows up and tells him that his choices are not good, they are not optimal, and that there are better choices or - in some cases - even better armies. The poor new player is now confused, his first experience is automatically ruined - he leaves store either confused, or with models he is not so happy about any more. In most cases, he drops the game completely and does not show up again.

It drives away people not interested in top level play.  What a community needs to retain those type of people are players playing in narrative or casual ways.  That is a difficult prospect in game stores, where the default is competitive, so will require more legwork from the players.

Quote

I think that more competitive/more experienced players should handicap themselves when they are playing less experienced people. Don't play your strongest list - make some changes, so your opponent stands a chance. 

I and the people I play with have a limited time to play, and when we play it is to practice for a tournament, or to be in a tournament.  I simply don't have time to handicap myself and waste time playing in a way I don't find fun and to be honest some people would find that insulting to play against a good player to find out that that player played down to them.  That would also drive people away.

Quote

This gives him a chance and the games are much closer. I truly believe that this is the way to go - less experienced players should be mentored, not crushed and ridiculed  because they are playing sub-optimal army list.

I don't believe anyone should be ridiculed.  We'll just scratch that one off the list, if someone is ridiculing someone in the hobby that person needs to be talked to and if that doesn't work, ejected from the store.

I do however believe that being crushed is part of being mentored and helps you be a better player.  Otherwise if you need games that are closer, I strongly recommend playing a different game like Kings of War or 9th age or something where the designers put a lot of effort into the balance aspect of the game.

Trying to play AOS in a balanced manner is the whole square peg into round hole scenario to me.  Just accept that the game will never be balanced and that the designers have no intention of actually making it balanced, that their lead designer really enjoys things like the triple keeper of secrets builds that are the opposite of balance, and that while venting is something I can appreciate, won't really do anyone any real good.

The only thing that will matter in the long run is people paying for the products.  So long as AOS continues to be a financial success, there is no reason to change the direction the team is going on.

Edited by Dead Scribe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

I would second this (though more on the its not about balance part, competitive players find it great fun to unbalance the game because its a puzzle we are trying to solve).  Competitive gaming is definitely anti-balance unless you are forced to do so because of event rules or game rules.  

I don't think Competitive people at large find it fun to unbalance the game so much as they seek out the greatest gain for their army or for the whole game and play with that. However in general (esp once you remove vast cash prizes and sponsorship deals) many competitive people want to win because THEY are better not because their tools are. Because the skill is in them, that it is something they have achieved. 

In wargames I think there's a portion of the playerbase who have grown up with online and in shop discussions that have focused far too much on the list building to the point where many see it as the only place where they can "solve the puzzle". Thus they mistake and think that its the only place that there is a puzzle; they then downplay heavily on the concepts of tactics on the table. This is oftne reinforced with things like not using enough terrain and limits to no objectives etc.... Basically they don't quite realise that the real puzzle is on the table and that the list building is one one part of the whole puzzle that is the game. Furthermore having a balanced system so that the gains in a good list are not insanely above the powercurve of the rest of the factions in the game; means that the puzzle balances out far better. You get MORE enjoyment from the game and more competitive situations because now its not just how you build its how you play. Furthermore how you build loses its impact when there's so much information exchange online. If someone spots a "power combo" its known about a week later by everyone. Even if you don't tell anyone the first time you run it it will be noticed and copied. So there's hardly any unique flare opportunities and variations (esp since Warhammer games have far fewer options on that line than, say, a magic the gathering game). If you find that the power build is a Flesheater army with a lot of ghouls, 3 regents and a dragon then - well -that's it you're done. If, however, the power gain with a good list is far more muted then there's far more room for experimentation where the tactical gain and loss of varying the models is less dramatic. It produces a system where you really have to hunt for the small variations in power; where power varies on situation a bit more and where you've got more open variety within the game.

 

Also its important to remember that hte vast majority of people (Even in teh competitive end) are not army flipping every new Battletome/Codex/Rule update. If the rules are heavily unbalanced and an army is left behind then those players stay behind and might be more likely to leave than to build a new army. A smoother balance curve, a more even game in numbers produces far more tactical awareness and a far better environment. 

 

I think GW sort of knows this now, but at the same time their rules writers are still the same people and they seem to be very casual minded in how they approach writing and constructing rules. It's improved a lot ,but I still get the feeling that a technical writer and a few more beta tests would improve things no end. It liekly doesn't help that the way GW often beta tests (from what I've heard) is to send out pre-written lists for the beta testers to try out. This inherently removes the army building phase and means that the results are flawed because the builds sent out are all that can be tested - they can't be easily "abused" to show up issues. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don 't know that it has really improved a lot.  The same issues with balance people were complaining about three years ago are still basically here today, only the names and armies have changed.  

A smoother bell curve would be great.  But I have given up on that a long time ago and I just make sure that my army is one of the top lists you can build so that I am not at a severe disadvantage in competition because others will be bringing those  high end lists too and as much as people want to say there is a lot of skill in the game past the lists, I don't really see much of that.  It is mostly about hooking the math in your favor with good odds and removing the weight of dice from being able to stick it to you and a minor sundry of other checklist items you need (like make sure you are screened, make sure you know what all your buffs do, things like that)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest improvement over the past editions of the game is that GW has released all the armies at the same time and worked on updating their rules within a roughly 1.5 year period (since 2.0). That in itself is a huge difference over hte past editions where armies could wait years for a rules update and some wouldn't even get a new set of rules before the rule edition itself would end and there'd be a whole new phase of rules released. 

So that plus the GHB and the fast and updated FAQ and Errata have made huge gains. In the past some armies could go so many years without an update that (in rarer cases) they could miss out two whole editions. Back then new models and rules were at the same time with a new codex/battletome so that could mean years upon years of not just no rules but no (or very few) new toys as well. Seriously hammering the popularity of an army. 

 

GW has made huge changes there both in terms of splitting rules nad model releases; but also in having both big launches of armies and drip fed models; the latter of which means that they are far more open to updating armies without needing a big bulk release. 

 

I think that 2.0 won't be the edition we see massive flattening of the curve, but at least establishing a system that will allow for it. 3.0 I think will be the one where we will hopefully see the curve flatten out some more; where the game iwll start out from a very strong position. Heck 3.0 might not even be the old time "here's an entirely new set of rules" but more a "here we've collected and tided up the last 5 years of GHB additions and FAQ/Errata changes and new model additions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

20+ years ago tournament gaming was not the industry that it is today.  House rules are fine in a private setting.  Tournament gaming has made it where the desire for a standard ruleset that we do not deviate from is absolutely a requirement (at least I can say that in American culture, I have never played over in the UK).

Completely agree, tournaments were something that teenage me saw were only really for people who were super serious about gaming.  Now there are loads of events and tournaments about (to the point we're getting clashes on the calendar now!) to cater for a huge range of gaming attitudes. 

I think for me it seems that people are super reluctant to even consider house ruling things that they don't like when playing at home or round a local club/store - even people who have no intention of ever playing at a tournament shy away from having a punt at doing something that's not written down.  I think the double turn is a great example for people to have a play and see if some of the suggestions put forward would actually make the game more enjoyable for them - ignore the hype, arguments, debates etc and just get some dice rolling.

I do completely get where you're coming from though on the lack of time - I've managed a pitiful 7 games this year (2 not at an event), so certainly wouldn't want to be testing out houserules for those 😆

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have looked at some alternate activation rules that others have posted up.  Some of them look neat.  I do agree with the premise of an alternate activation (maybe even as benign as what middle earth does) simply for the removal of standing there doing nothing for two full turns.  

I am interested to see if anything comes down the pipe to change up how things are concerning double-turn.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...