Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Worm

Double turn

Recommended Posts

Just now, SerialMoM said:

I like the double turn, because in 40k getting the first turn is so important, that sometimes/ quite often the game is lost with the first roll, which decides who starts. In AoS this can change and gives you another chance to turn around the game.

Honestly double turns doesn't stop one-turn tableling unless the player with an army that can't one-turn win gets the doubleturn. If the other army gets it then bam they've won the whole game on the first two turns without question.

Turn one victory is imbalance within the game and specific armies/rules that allows an army to be too mobile and too forward with power in the first phase of the game. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not mean turn one victories , in 40k, when you shot first every turn, it is a huge advantage, you just make more damage every turn, especially with a shooty army like Tau.

Edited by SerialMoM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Overread said:

And that's part of the issue. It swings games in such a massive way that is outside of a players control. Ideal for fun open games or such but for matched play, which aims to produce a fair and balanced game for both players, its just never going to work; esp with GW's current system of whole armies. Now if it was alternate unit activation it might work out ok - two turns on one model now and then might work out (though could be confusing to record keep, esp for armies with more individual units)

This. I actually had today 2 games, one 2k 40k 1vs1 and a 3-way-free-4-all 1000pts AoS. The 40k Game was pure fun. There were really close Situations, some really neat rolls noone expected and noone could really tell who´s gonna win until the end. I lost the game pointwise but it didn´t feel like loosing. We both had an awesome game and a lot of fun.

The AoS game, despite the usual issues with multiplayer, playing caster heavy armies against armies with no magic defense, also got quite fast into a salty point where the doubleturn allowed me to simply annihilate my enemies centerpiece models without any resistance. Well, it didn´t help that I really pointed our the issues I´ve had with AoS during the 3 turns the game lasted and I firmly belive that I´ve earned todays "that guy" title at my local friends group which I ain´t proud of...I quess I have to work on my viewset of this game.

Edit: What I wanted to point out: I´ve seen today once again how the doubleturn ended the fun part of a game for a player today. Which wasn´t fun for anyone around.

Edited by Charleston

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Charleston said:

Yeah, actually thats bollocks. How do you want to prepare on a doubleturn`? Especially when you plan an slower/defensive army it is really not possible to do so. People always brag about "preparing for a Doubleturn" but never deliver any examples or tactics for it. How to stop the enemy from 2 turns shooting to pick your heroes out? How to stop your enemy from charging the most sensible units you have when he has enough time to deal with screens and position in any way he wants. Not all armies are build as a deathstar that kills the enemy on contact. 

Also, comparing it to charges is also quite an issue as you can actively play to alter the chances for a charge. Go closer to an enemy, reroll it and so on. The initiative roll is a single roll off that really can close the game in an early turn or, even worse, ruin the fun for one of the player quite hard or make him at least endure 2 turns of damage. Together with the really frustrating step in power level between newer and older books such a thing can really ruin a day.

 

For almost a year I've been playing FEC so I usually have faster core units then my opponents combined with adequate screen that can start the fight whille my summons tie up enemy shooting units, then I can send my monsters to rip and tear through enemy lines. 

What it takes to me to prepare is to stay out of threat ranges, screen the way I can trade damage by using 2 and 3 inch ranges of my monster's melee attacks, setting up chalice and commiting just enough troops to contest objectives. Also I run 4-5 drops lists so in half of my games I decide who goes first and second, taking second turn for myself therefore locking opponent from double turning me first (building a list with less drops is by far the best way to prepare)

If you build a slow defensive army you should probably rock some big guns, because it's impossible to win without ways to deal damage, you should eliminate targets at range so your slow defensive troops get a chance to contest objectives, you should be able to outrange your opponent's shooting if you want to win with that type of army. There are defensive artefacts that help against shooting and other threats like AFF units.

You should also prepare for having a double turn, without overextending, that's why I risk taking long charges - otherwise if I lose initiative when I'm banking on double turn - I lose game because I put myself in weak position. 

 

I also played against a guy who doesn't like double turn without it  in 1st edition - I won every game, against Kharadron Overlords, as Stormcast. Sometimes skill difference is all that matters.

 

Seriously, complains about double turn and igougo are the only 2 things that make me ask a question: are you sure this game is for you?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also understand peoples feelings about getting wacked by priority rolls, but I don't care since I experience the same thing just as much as everyone else. I also sometimes lose around 10 priority rolls in a row between several games on tournaments, so what?

And I'm all up to additions that will make double turn less harmful, like endless spells, giving a guy on a recieving end some benefit, making lots of reactive abilities, that should make things better for both sides of argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Charleston said:

The AoS game, despite the usual issues with multiplayer, playing caster heavy armies against armies with no magic defense, also got quite fast into a salty point where the doubleturn allowed me to simply annihilate my enemies centerpiece models without any resistance. Well, it didn´t help that I really pointed our the issues I´ve had with AoS during the 3 turns the game lasted and I firmly belive that I´ve earned todays "that guy" title at my local friends group which I ain´t proud of...I quess I have to work on my viewset of this game.

If you play with your friends and you want to have fun together, you probably should not wreck their centerpiece models during a double turn, in example that you are giving here it's clearly not rule's fault your friends had ****** game. There is also no such thing as "no magic defence" army in aos, allied mages are there, realm artefacts are also a thing, if you play magic heavy army and that is where you get your fun your friends shouldn't blame you, you as a group should communicate and figure out enjoyable balance between amount of fireballs in the face and defensive measures, otherwise you shouldn't play together.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel both sides of this argument, but the double-turn possibility makes AoS a more unique gaming experience.  Plus, if you're in combat already, you will certainly get to do a bunch of attacking even if the enemy went first in that battle round.  And some armies (Khorne comes to mind) have things to do in the enemy's turn, like attack in the hero phase or outright denying a spell.  

The endless spells could be an interesting play for double-turning too.  Some armies could very well field 6 wizards, either have a bunch of deployment drops or very few and decide to go second, take a bunch of predatory endless spells, and have crazy random fun!  I am waiting patiently for the next Tzeentch book to try that.

All that said, I am eager to try the new Apocalypse rules, and see if that system might be interesting for AoS stuff, if translatable somehow.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@XReN So basically, your tipps sound great on how to go around the issues, but a lot of armies simply can´t realise them. Summoning/Reviving is an expensive ressource for a lot of armies outside of death. Staying out of a threat range is also not easy when your enemies threatrange is way longer than your mobility. Also given the fact that the threatrange increases with the issue of a doubleturn.

Also, ranged Damage is not really a big thing for most armies. I know, Skaven and Shootcasts are a rather common view on competetive level, but most armies really do not shine here. Tell me how Nurgle, Khorne, Beasts of Chaos, any army w.o. a 2.0 BT, Fyreslayers etc. is supposed to do so? Especially as thoose have mostly quite restricted ranges.

Have you concidererd that the faction you play may be quite resilient to doubleturns? It´s not like FEC lack of something that makes them one of the favorite competetive armies, like fighting first, which is btw also a huge advantage that ususaly is granted to the player who´s turn it is, or fightning twice...or maybe that high mobility that allows you to stay out of threatranges? Therefore it might be that there are factions, especially out of competetive, which by all means is not the single way to play, that may really struggle to do what you described in such an easy way? Nevertheless thank you for your input, I will check out what of theese is applicable for my army.

As to the topic of who ruined todays game: Well, if you have to make the most possible unintuitive action possible so can´t use the advantage the game gave you, I wouldn´t really blame you for not doing it. It wasn´t like a maxed situation, it was just 5 Retributors charging unit A first, killing it in combat while calculating that Unit B will stomp them in return, but the game mechanic said "yeah, you know what would be great? We simply skip all this tradeoff thing and allow the Retributors to be AWESOME and stomp again". Such situations lead to a randomness where none shall be given. Imagine a Drag Race, two Cars going toe on toe, but one of them will turn down the engine on random. Such a race can be fun to watch, but not for the race itself but rather for the gamble.

To the Magic thing: It really rather belongs into an own topic. The Magic System currently really bothers for supermacy in the hero phase. When you can cast/unbind 3-4 Spells in a 1k game, and your enemy can c/u 1, you can contest his cast while he can only hope that you won´t make the next cast roll. This allows you to shutdown players completly. Eitherwise, you force an army w/o a mage to take one for the unbind, or to waste an artifact to get that anti-magic chance. Currently only Khorne is known for beeing able to shut this down with a ton of dispells or debuffs as a noncaster army. There should be actually a few, not many, more ways for factions to shrug off some magic. Currently, you simply are at disadvanatge when you do not have a mage, which is a drawback for listbuilding.

But yeah, in general, we all agree that we play this game with the rules as they are. There is always the choice of not playing it, althrough it is a choice made harder for some of us than for others. Accepting the Doubleturn as a part of the game is a neccessery thing  for thoose who dislike it. Even for people as stubborn as me.  Nevertheless, talking about the issues is also part of community work. GW is sensitive on this topic, otherwise they wouldn´t make it part of the community survey. Therefore, if we are unhappy with it, discussions like this may be a sign for the rules designers to take our criticism and maybe to adjust the game. It already happened with the jump from 1.0 to 2.0. Warcry also showed that they toy around with different priority mechanics and that designing priority is a big point for the designers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing with the double turn mechanic is that it works with certain armies and compositions, favoring lists which got chaff/screen units to spare against it and/or fewer drops so they can aim for that double play onslaught. From my experience most armies don't do well against double turns and for that mechanic to exist they must start writing army rules and warscrolls around that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SerialMoM said:

I do not mean turn one victories , in 40k, when you shot first every turn, it is a huge advantage, you just make more damage every turn, especially with a shooty army like Tau.

It depends a lot on the terrain setup. I've seen a lot of battles where there were no LOS-blocking terrain pieces. WH40K has very strong shooting, with high damage output and high AP values (I actually think this is a huge flaw of the game). If you do not have anything to block LOS with during the first turns of the game, you may easily loose a huge part of your army. However, things change dramatically if you are forced to go to a certain position in order to shoot and then your units get tied up in melee - a good terrain setup can create such scenario.

Regarding the initiative roll - I simply accept it as the part of the game and something that makes AoS unique. If you throw in some endless spells, then this can lead to some very interesting (and difficult choices). Keep in mind that even if some player gets "double turn" it may not mean anything, especially if there are no (or very little) units with ranged weapons and/or wizards. This will basically turn to another round of hand to hand combat, where your oponnent will get to pick who fights first once again (of course, some rules or abilities may change that).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, complains about double turn and igougo are the only 2 things that make me ask a question: are you sure this game is for you?

People house rule it out and then the game is for them.

And complaining en masse lets the developers know that they may be able to do better.  A complaint here and there is usually not a big deal.  THe level of complaints double turn gets indicates that the developers could do a bit better and that the mechanic could be looked at and changed a bit.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Random poll question:

1) if you are forced into turn 1 by deployment, how often do you give up the double turn when you win priority? I find that it is actually never, and if I did, the possibility of a future double would not be enough to ever catch up, at least in a game that isn't already concession worthy. So it is a false choice.

2 how often have you won when the opponent took a 1 to 2 double turn? For me I've found the answer to be a pretty low percentage. Much lower than my average in every other turn order combination. Also note that this is a biased answer because many times they will just keep the turn order if they can't take advantage, so the 2nd player have the option for a big win if it presents itself but can also maintain the status quo.

Mostly it therefore feels like the 2nd player in the turn order gets a good choice if they win while the first player gets no such choice. 

I almost wish the rolloff determined it without the choice part. Then both players still have to play around the double possibility but the dominant position one can't use it to their advantage as much since they might end up with a useless double.

I think the strongest part of the double turn is not the turn itself but the choice which you can use to huge gain. I would love to remove that choice because I think it would make for a lot more interesting small choices along the way with how you move things if the 2nd player doesn't have that confidence.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's probably a fine mechanic for people who play a lot and can learn to plan ahead and deal with it effectively.

It's a complete disaster for casual players. Most of my games are decided by the double turn largely because I only get to play 1-2 times a month max. I could decide to just not use it but starting to chop rules out of the game is something that I don't want to get into. I would try to play AOS more if it went away.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dislike it... I don't hate it. I see what it's trying to achieve. I just don't think it does it very well.
It's a simple lazy solution to a very complex problem. 

I also think it's important to break the question down a bit more. 
"do you like the priority roll/double turn?" is WAY too broad. 

You need to ask things like:  
"Do you like the priority roll and what type of gamer are you (Open/Narrative/Matched)?"
"Do you like the priority roll and what army do you primarily play?" 
"What percentage of games result in a win to the player who gets a Round 2 double turn"
"What percentage of games result in a win to the player who gets a Round 3 double turn" 
"What percentage of games with Army X are won when they get a Round X double turn"

I feel like if you split the players based on their main armies and what type of games they play, you'll get very different answers. 
It's just too hard to make such broad statements when you're talking about 20+ factions at VARIOUS power levels. There's lots of situations and armies that benefit far more from a double turn than some others do. 

As a matched play players who currently plays a fairly weak army (Nighthaunt), I dislike the priority roll. I also dislike first turn going to which ever army has the best battalions. Nighthaunt struggle to get anything close to low drops so I'm almost always given the first turn. I think in the last 2 tournaments I played, I never went second. Which means I never get the chance of a Round 2 double turn.  
All my spells are less than 18in range (even with Arkhan), so apart from some lucky summoning and 9+ charges or a lucky black coach power level roll, there's literally nothing I can do on turn 1. 
So my tactical choices are 
1) stay mostly still and wait for the opponent - giving them extra time to shoot me or letting them take middle objectives first thus giving them a points advantage
2) move forward, maybe get some objective points, risk long charges (if the opponent even lets me summon/deploy near them) and risk being double turned. 

The problem here is that even if I choose to sit back and not move at all... a double turn would still allow most aggressive armies to hit me (either in melee or ranged/magic). 
So sitting back can be just as risky as moving forward. 
I'm by no means some super experienced AOS player but I also play a lot of other games with all sorts of different turn orders so I can see the pros and cons of different systems. 

I constantly hear people defending the double turn/priority roll as an important tactical choice and how you can prepare for it and play around it. 
I'm yet to see anyone properly and logically explain how.   
They sometimes give specific examples like "I screen my Terrogheist with ghouls, and now I'm ready to either double turn or be safe from it". 
That's great... it works in some limited situations where you have an overpowered 400pt monster and cheap chaff. Espeically when that monster can double pile in. Not every army can do that. Screening expensive units and heroes isn't a tactic that's specific to the priority roll or even alpha strikes. 

I wouldn't mind the priority roll if there was enough incentive to  go second. There are some niche cases like with endless spells or the Relocation Orb. 
But at the same time there's cases like  Places of Arcane Power, Scorched Earth, Duality of Death, and Knife to the Heart where going first in a round gives you a significant advantage on victory points. If the player pulls ahead on points early Round 2, there's often not enough time or opportunity to claw those points back in later turns... at that point it can be too late.  

I'd say in roughly 80% of my matched play games, the priority roll has determined the winner. If not instantly then at least in hindsight. Sometimes it's not as obvious but quite often, if my opponent double turns me in round 2 and then I don't get the double turn in round 3, it's pretty much over. They've done too much damage and usually scored too many points without me getting an opportunity to do the same. 

I have had close games and I've had games where the priority roll has been interesting (even games where there have been actual choices about going second) but those are rare.  I've even had games where the priority roll didn't matter, or games where no one got the double turn. Those often end up being the closest games. That's probably one of biggest arguments against the priority roll. The randomness can sometimes even things out, and probably stops higher power level armies from being too dominant, but it does the opposite just as often. And that's the problem. 
 
I don't think we need to necessarily get rid of priority rolls.... but there should be a better way of doing it. 
Perhaps something like only the army that goes second gets a command point in the hero phase.... that could change up list building a bit, making that extra 50pt command point more important for armies that need to go first. 
Or providing some sort of bonus to armies that go second like +1 save or reroll saves if you go second and be on the receiving end of a charge? 

Right now, most of the time, it's just too strong to have a double turn, regardless of what your opponent does to protect against it. The only time a double turn is wasted, is if the aggressor is too placid. But if you're playing a fast, hard hitting low drop army, you're often dictating the first turn anyway and you can easily play for the double turn with very little risk. 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
  • LOVE IT! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont like it at all.

Both from balance perspective - too much emphasis on random dice roll and gameplay perspective- players sitting idle for too long, You can add from a theme/fluff perspective too.

Anyways, i still play the game. but I think its a stupid mechanic.  

Not a surprise people try to one drop armies to control it

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Used to loathe it. Now I love it. At the same time though, I'd appreciate it if factions had a more consistent spread of battalions so they can invest in controlling priority if they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dislike the double turn. Even when I get it and stomp my opponent it seems a hollow victory because they just watched while I played. As many others have said you can prepare for it, field endless spells, chaff etc and it doesnt break the game.

The real awfulness though is when it combines with fighting first abilities. That makes the game even less interactive as the defending player watches a portion of his army get wrecked, rolls 1 dice and then watches the rest get wrecked without response or opportunity to do anything except attack back with mostly depleted units. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+++ MOD HAT +++

Am right on the line whether or not to lock this thread due to the sheer amount of "hate it" comments I've just been exposed to...

However, I'm feeling slightly generous (or the heat has got to me) and leaving it open.  Just a few general pointers:

  • Let's keep this a discussion 
  • Ranting has no place on this forum
  • What your local group does isn't representative of the rest of the gaming world
  • AoS is a game with multiple ways to play, if you don't like something house rule it and see what it's like
  • Disagreeing with each other is fine - but everybody is entitled to their own opinion (there's no such thing as a "right" opinion)
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Charleston said:

@XReN So basically, your tipps sound great on how to go around the issues, but a lot of armies simply can´t realise them. Summoning/Reviving is an expensive ressource for a lot of armies outside of death. Staying out of a threat range is also not easy when your enemies threatrange is way longer than your mobility. Also given the fact that the threatrange increases with the issue of a doubleturn.

Also, ranged Damage is not really a big thing for most armies. I know, Skaven and Shootcasts are a rather common view on competetive level, but most armies really do not shine here. Tell me how Nurgle, Khorne, Beasts of Chaos, any army w.o. a 2.0 BT, Fyreslayers etc. is supposed to do so? Especially as thoose have mostly quite restricted ranges.

Have you concidererd that the faction you play may be quite resilient to doubleturns? It´s not like FEC lack of something that makes them one of the favorite competetive armies, like fighting first, which is btw also a huge advantage that ususaly is granted to the player who´s turn it is, or fightning twice...or maybe that high mobility that allows you to stay out of threatranges? Therefore it might be that there are factions, especially out of competetive, which by all means is not the single way to play, that may really struggle to do what you described in such an easy way? Nevertheless thank you for your input, I will check out what of theese is applicable for my army.

As to the topic of who ruined todays game: Well, if you have to make the most possible unintuitive action possible so can´t use the advantage the game gave you, I wouldn´t really blame you for not doing it. It wasn´t like a maxed situation, it was just 5 Retributors charging unit A first, killing it in combat while calculating that Unit B will stomp them in return, but the game mechanic said "yeah, you know what would be great? We simply skip all this tradeoff thing and allow the Retributors to be AWESOME and stomp again". Such situations lead to a randomness where none shall be given. Imagine a Drag Race, two Cars going toe on toe, but one of them will turn down the engine on random. Such a race can be fun to watch, but not for the race itself but rather for the gamble.

To the Magic thing: It really rather belongs into an own topic. The Magic System currently really bothers for supermacy in the hero phase. When you can cast/unbind 3-4 Spells in a 1k game, and your enemy can c/u 1, you can contest his cast while he can only hope that you won´t make the next cast roll. This allows you to shutdown players completly. Eitherwise, you force an army w/o a mage to take one for the unbind, or to waste an artifact to get that anti-magic chance. Currently only Khorne is known for beeing able to shut this down with a ton of dispells or debuffs as a noncaster army. There should be actually a few, not many, more ways for factions to shrug off some magic. Currently, you simply are at disadvanatge when you do not have a mage, which is a drawback for listbuilding.

But yeah, in general, we all agree that we play this game with the rules as they are. There is always the choice of not playing it, althrough it is a choice made harder for some of us than for others. Accepting the Doubleturn as a part of the game is a neccessery thing  for thoose who dislike it. Even for people as stubborn as me.  Nevertheless, talking about the issues is also part of community work. GW is sensitive on this topic, otherwise they wouldn´t make it part of the community survey. Therefore, if we are unhappy with it, discussions like this may be a sign for the rules designers to take our criticism and maybe to adjust the game. It already happened with the jump from 1.0 to 2.0. Warcry also showed that they toy around with different priority mechanics and that designing priority is a big point for the designers.

About summoning and reviving - Legions have it easy, but FEC do not, we pay points tax for everything, it is obviously included in cost of units, if you want to check for yourself - start comparing FEC troops to other troops with similar cost. Our only cost efficient units are GKoTG and AAR, no mystery why we play them and not ghoul or knight heavy lists.

There are mercenary cannons in the game, you can have 2 and cogsmith. Nurgle can just weather the double turn, I know it for a fact because I play against a very skilled nurgle player and get rekt most of the time. Khorne has threat range 38" skull cannons, BoC have summoning and flanking reserves to put enough pressure of enemy to force them into attacking whatever dispossable thing was thrown at them. Fyreslayers sound like they are tough as nails, but we don't have people who play them regulary here. Any other examples you need?

My lists are usually around 100 wounds with 60 of them being ghouls, so mostly 6+ save, then some 4+ saves for heroes, I can't say it is resilient, if hit hard enough my army will shatter. Fighting first also was nerfed so it doesn't help reactively and I haven't even used it too often as I find Feast Day and +2 cast AAR more appealing. Also, outside of pure tournament play every army with battletome can play just fine if you communicate with each other.

I do not take things like "the game gave me opportunity" as an arguement, it's not the game that makes decisions for you, it's you. I also do not care about how strange giving up on those opportunities look, it's your friends, it's your personalresponsibility to figure out how to have fun together, the game provided you with endless ways of doing so and it's you who choose to take double turn. 

Magic is the part of the game, you have tools to deal with it, the army you decided to collect is your choice. For some, probably irrelevant, reason people seem to ignore those tools. I used to take dimensional blade from Ulgu on my haunter courtier for just the chance of running into 2+ save SCE list, because I figured out that I need it. Same goes for Doppelganger Cloak that was nerfed for no reason and Savage Strike that was nerfed for a reason, but no one actually bothered to try and counter it on list building stage as far as I can tell.

And I'm annoyed by complains about double turn because I haven't seen a single thread named something like "what can be changed with priority roll to make it less impactfull" it's only "What do you guys think" which spirals down into pointless repetetive arguements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, sirbrokensword said:

It's a garbage rule, and a major part of the reason I'm probably not going to play Aos.  It's existence means AoS can't be a serious game.  it's just beer and pretzels.

Get off this forum. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it to be more of a tactical feature than a game changer. If I get a double turn then great, if I don't then usually doesn't turn out to be a huge deal as I tend to prepare for it a little bit. I do believe however that for old armies or 1st edition armies like my dispossessed it can make a much more marked difference. Especially because dispo are so slow it really helps to get up the board and put more pressure on with our ranged units. I can see why people dislike it though, especially against armies with insane damage output or attacks like FeC and Slaanesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It feels good when you get it and bad when your opponent gets it. When someone always feels bad its kind of a sucky thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Playing different armies and setups I've found it to be an interesting mechanic when it's two melee armies facing off against one another but rather poor if either side is shooting heavy. Alternating combat activations can somewhat rob it of it's sting but getting two back to back magic and shooting phases with a 9 Jezzail, caster heavy, Skaven list means I've won. 

I'd prefer it wasn't there as winning or losing like that off one dice roll really doesn't feel great (even winning feels like ****** when you opponent has obviously had a very bad time). 

Edited by MrZakalwe
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One could argue that as its a feature that creates quite a powerful divide in many communities/groups and as something that people either really like or really dislike; it should be retired to Open Play as a mechanic that is optional for games on agreement with your opponent. Which whilst that is how ALL AoS games function; in general moving it to open play makes that choice more overt; whilst in matched play things are often seen as being default included when its part of the core game rules. 

 

Thing is I think GW hasn't got the gumption to make a ruling on it. I think they might change it with a new rules edition; but as the rules stand now I get a feeling that GW would rather treat it like they do bases and "wishy washy" keep it in with a hand wave.

Edited by Overread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, sirbrokensword said:

It's a garbage rule, and a major part of the reason I'm probably not going to play Aos.  It's existence means AoS can't be a serious game.  it's just beer and pretzels.

Did you make an account just to post this 😂

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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...