What would you like for AoS 3

[Bluesummers]

59 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

So double turn is here to stay in 3rd edition. Sorry, those who hate this mechanism.

Interview showed they were focusing on keeping the game core rules simple and clear, giving more tools/advantages to the player going second and talking about core battalions to keep some armies less "unbalanced".

Hm, looks like the designers know what they're doing. What a shock !

It seems like they don't want new players to join the game. With the removal of the double turn so many players would have come back or joined for the 1st time, but no let's band-aid this horrid mechanic for one more edition! 😪

[Saturmorn Carvilli]

I have always been pretty neutral concerning the double turn.  Leaning more toward favoring its existence than not.  The limited number of games I have played of AoS with my army hasn't seen the double turn hasn't ever completely shut down my ability to win or not.  At least not as much as my opponent's list and skill did. 

However, I play a faction with very good depth of unit options which allow me to build an army that is less effected by a potential double turn.  I have certainly played opponents that had armies that lived and died on the double turn.  I also can't say they had the unit option depth to mitigate it like my army can. 

Which I think is where I am at with the double turn.  I want it to stay as I like the unpredictably it creates in games.  I am also the kinda of player that not only doesn't mind, but kinda likes the idea that sometimes a bad player with a bad list can still just win a game via dumb luck.  Though, most games are won by the player with the better list and understanding of the game.  Which I think AoS does a good job.

It sounds like AoS 3rd ed is going to try and offer or least help out where double turns can become overwhelming.  Which I hope works out.  While I am fine with a game going off the rails with a single dice roll, I have seen it time and time again in my opponent's face when their success it tuned to a double turn happening and does which basically signals the end of the game.

Outside some of the more micro-managing of close melee positioning, I really like the simplicity of AoS.  I hope the game remains much easier to play that the somewhat complicated mess that 40k is becoming.  That simplicity did often mean that AoS could be very predictable as players have near perfect control of their armies.  I know without unpredictablilty of thing like the double turn.  I can accurately know what turn my units are getting into combat, how many models with get to attack and basically how many wounds (typically +/- 1 wound) I would be inflicted to the enemy unit.  Along with how many losses I would take any given turn.  The dice pools are big enough with ways to make reliable rolls that rarely spike. 

I also think there is something to be said with the double turn either accelerating a losing game or occasionally reviving one that was otherwise known. Both are worthwhile outcomes to me.  If the game is a loss, I have no issue with double turns speeding the process along.  There just might be enough time to get in another game then.  And on the other hand, I like the idea of my opponent being able to get back into the fight after an opportune double turn.  However, I am less interested in wining and losing over a memorial game.

I will never be convinced that GW games are meant for serious tests of competition.  I think any attempt to try is always going to be met with frustration.  I also don't believe that 2000 pts vs. 2000 pts is ever going to be anywhere close to balanced gaming experience without additional framework.  No matter how we all pretend that is the case when we all know it's not. Right now even with the double turn, the better player and list tend to win more often.  They probably don't win all the time, but I like that.  I really do think everyone deserves to win a game despite themselves.  Just as long as wining and losing games isn't completely arbitrary.  Which even now in AoS 2ed is the case.  The better player is more likely to win, but they might not win every game.  Which I think is a good thing. 

My army and my skill have a definite ceiling. If I was playing regularly I know that my army would lose more often than it wins.  The army just has fatal flaws that I don't have the skill to overcome.  I win with my army because it is easy to use and very predictable in what it can do.  So often I win simply because I can plan my strategy better than my opponent.  Especially if my opponent is still trying to figure out how to best use their army.  Once an opponent does know how to use their army, though; I basically can't win games due to the inherent ceiling of my army.  I like the double turn existence for the simple fact that when facing a seasoned AoS that knows their army (and is typically a little better than my own) there is just enough unpredictably from the double turn's existence that neither of can completely know the outcome of the game. Again, I really like that.

I understand it moves games into being more luck based that many players are comfortable with.  I do think their are some very limited thing that can be done to reduce (or make worst) the double turn effect.  Again, I hope AoS 3rd finds ways to soften the blow of a double turn as it can be a game changer off a single die roll.  But I do want that little nugget of chaos to remain in the game which otherwise gives players a lot of near perfect control and power over their armies.

[Dingding123]

1.) Ranged attacks being less potentially backbreaking on double turns.

2.) Bravery being potentially significantly better on a double turn.

3.) A few warscroll updates for some outlier units.

4.) Actually COOL Realm rules!

[NinthMusketeer]

Believe it or not there are any number of ways in which the double turn could be counterbalanced without removing it. That seems to be the approach GW is going for and it would be best not to judge it before we know what the actual rules are*.

*I am of course well aware people will absolutely solidify their opinion on something they know nothing about anyways, but I can try.

[Paladin of Khorne]

When is Old World coming out?

[Gaz Taylor]

1 hour ago, Paladin of Khorne said:

When is Old World coming out?

Probably another year or two. 
 

2 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

Believe it or not there are any number of ways in which the double turn could be counterbalanced without removing it. That seems to be the approach GW is going for and it would be best not to judge it before we know what the actual rules are*.

*I am of course well aware people will absolutely solidify their opinion on something they know nothing about anyways, but I can try.

100% this. I know some people hate the double turn mechanic but it’s signature rule of the game. It’s not going anywhere.

[Skreech Verminking]

43 minutes ago, Gaz Taylor said:

100% this. I know some people hate the double turn mechanic but it’s signature rule of the game. It’s not going anywhere.

....yet😜

[Brakh]

The lack of interest in current edition dragged me off from Gw for a while and pushed me towards some smaller systems. Sorry but I have to say this. Miniwise GW is still on top. Rulewise they are years behind their competition. My guess is that 3.0 will rather focus on small tweaks instead of major overhaul which is needed.

Edited May 9, 2021 by Brakh

[NinthMusketeer]

I am afraid it will be a major overhaul instead of the small tweaks that are actually needed.

[Bluesummers]

9 hours ago, Saturmorn Carvilli said:

However, I play a faction with very good depth of unit options which allow me to build an army that is less effected by a potential double turn.  I have certainly played opponents that had armies that lived and died on the double turn.  I also can't say they had the unit option depth to mitigate it like my army can.

Good read but this portion right here is why the double turn doesn't work. It's an interesting mechanic that works with SOME of the armies in the game and thats the problem. It's a "play these armies or go home" situation and it really sucks when talking about a miniatures game.

If they designed the armies and rules around that mechanic i would be cool to keep playing but sadly it doesn't seem to be the case.

[Bluesummers]

4 hours ago, Paladin of Khorne said:

When is Old World coming out?

Let's hope its 2022 since there is a gap in new edition releases. (10th ed 40K 2023, 4th ed AoS 2024 and so on if a pattern is to be followed)

[Mcthew]

They haven't yet said how they are going to manage the double-turn, so it will be premature to say whether it will be a fail or not in AoS 3.0. Sure, you can expect the worst and hope for the best until by the time AoS 3.0 lands you're done with the hobby.

Or you can keep the faith that GW won't sink all this money in to a game only to mess it up. It's up to the individual. Personally I'm going with the latter - GW have made some mistakes, but to mess up AoS 3.0 will end the careers of some in this hobby (no pressure guys). I'm confident that step changes point towards AoS 3.0 being an improvement to the experiences of most players.

My only hope is that the rules are properly play-tested by true gamers, not 'yes-men' fanboys who think GW do no wrong.

Edited May 9, 2021 by Mcthew

[MothmanDraws]

For me the double turn needs to become an option not a bonus, it should be a gamble. I would rather it be there for a side thats been beaten down to try and claw back a win vs just dumping on an already damaged opponent. The goal for GW I think is for 80% of times it comes up people refuse the double turn. Im hoping the CP regen, charge reactions, objective removal make it so a double turn becomes fighting an uphill battle to get back into the game. You will get improved priority but are fighting into a force with +1 saves, overwatch and retreats, will lose an objective in the long term for it and opponent will have more CP for inspiring presence. So hopefully you will only take it as a last big push or to execute on an enemy that has already basically lost though you run the risk that they weather your storm.

The current main issue atm though is the double turn magic+shooting. Some of which can be lessened by giving obscuring to more terrain and promoting heavier use of it, bumping prices up on offending units as its more specific units causing issues than how shooting works, better character protection will also help as well as limiting ability to shoot into combats you are not part of. 

I also think large monsters might be looked at in 3.0 with beasts being focus, just make them tougher to wound in some way and degrade less, the mortal wound spam shooting will hurt them if they dont have the improved protection that hopefully characters will get.

Only other thing is I could see summoning be dragged to slaanesh style 1 unit per turn brought in with maybe a few exceptions for death armies.

[PraetorDragoon]

I am unsure about sinking if sinking more into the double turn will improve it. The way they talked about it I got the same feeling as a coding project I did with a group. We coded a feature, which didn't really work the way we wanted it, and so we kept adding more code to it in attempts to fix it. In the end, we had a massive code abomination that still didn't really work the way it should. I hope I'm wrong though, I would like AoS3e.

On what I would love to see, increase in points and smaller max unit sizes.

GW has balanced units by reducing their points through AoS, to the point where some mediocre units cannot realistically be reduced further. Resetting that to a higher standard would make fix that and allow them to rebalance units into the future.

Smaller max unit sizes as those give a particular advantage on objectives, as well as with bufs and sustained combat. It could also allow certain horde units like Clanrats be actual hordes, compared to other units.

[Maddpainting]

2 hours ago, Mcthew said:

They haven't yet said how they are going to manage the double-turn, so it will be premature to say whether it will be a fail or not in AoS 3.0. Sure, you can expect the worst and hope for the best until by the time AoS 3.0 lands you're done with the hobby.

Or you can keep the faith that GW won't sink all this money in to a game only to mess it up. It's up to the individual. Personally I'm going with the latter - GW have made some mistakes, but to mess up AoS 3.0 will end the careers of some in this hobby (no pressure guys). I'm confident that step changes point towards AoS 3.0 being an improvement to the experiences of most players.

My only hope is that the rules are properly play-tested by true gamers, not 'yes-men' fanboys who think GW do no wrong.

They did say you get extra CP for choosing to go second, we also don't know what other changes will happen. 

The worst part of the double turn is that turns can be long and not taking your turn twice can be annoying, if they address this then I am fine with double turns.

[Saturmorn Carvilli]

3 hours ago, Bluesummers said:

Good read but this portion right here is why the double turn doesn't work. It's an interesting mechanic that works with SOME of the armies in the game and thats the problem. It's a "play these armies or go home" situation and it really sucks when talking about a miniatures game.

If they designed the armies and rules around that mechanic i would be cool to keep playing but sadly it doesn't seem to be the case.

It is possible GW could fix the army depth issue by adding more models to the factions with less depth.  I don't see that happening anytime soon, but it is fixable in a way that interests (adding more models) GW.  Given the idea that isn't likely to happen, I empathize with the 'feels bad' of getting rolled by double turn with little to minimize it.

That said, it isn't like double turns are automatic.  We tend to act like every game has two double turns (which I know does happen). I mention this as I think it is important keep in mind how often this disruption/chaos mechanic occurs.  Which I think is one of the two aspects that make double turns so despised.  The other being how much effect a single die roll has on the rest of a game.  I can very easily see how both the frequency and effect of double turns puts some players off.

I would agree that I think the frequency and effect probably are too intensive.  When a player is given the option for a double turn, there currently is very few downsides as it is a very powerful mechanic.  Well worth designing ones army to capitalize on getting one.  Which of course, often compounds a sort of 'do or die' games trying for a double turn happening or not happening basically being the win/lose conditions.

I hope with AoS 3rd, that the game designers also see these issues.  Which I am sure they do as they really are more clever than we often give them credit.  Perhaps they have figured out ways to lessen the impact of double turns while keeping the mechanic as a powerful disruption/chaos/fog of war mechanic which I do think AoS needs to keep games interesting.  Certainly, whatever has been designed won't appeal to everyone, and many that are con-double turn won't see it as being enough.  Everyone has their own tastes and preferences.

I just hope that the effect of the double turn is dialed back a little.  Optimally, AoS 3rd edition has mechanics that even move away from putting so much effort in getting a double turn or always auto-choosing to take the double turn when it is presented.  That's quite a rules design challenge that I am glad I don't have to try and solve.

As I have said, I kinda like the double turn.  I think is core AoS mechanic worth keeping.  I do think it has too much of an effect on games as is.  I am hopeful that the game designers can come up mechanics to reduce that though.  Maybe not to everyone's liking but maybe where it garners the largest population of players that can be at least okay with its existence.

 

P.S. Sorry for the essays, I have been under the weather and kinda need low risk mental projects to wipe away this brain fog I have had for more than a week. So these writing are kinda more clearing the cobwebs from my brain more than anything else.  If you read this far, well... sorry and thank you.

[Bluesummers]

25 minutes ago, Saturmorn Carvilli said:

It is possible GW could fix the army depth issue by adding more models to the factions with less depth.  I don't see that happening anytime soon, but it is fixable in a way that interests (adding more models) GW.  Given the idea that isn't likely to happen, I empathize with the 'feels bad' of getting rolled by double turn with little to minimize it.

That said, it isn't like double turns are automatic.  We tend to act like every game has two double turns (which I know does happen). I mention this as I think it is important keep in mind how often this disruption/chaos mechanic occurs.  Which I think is one of the two aspects that make double turns so despised.  The other being how much effect a single die roll has on the rest of a game.  I can very easily see how both the frequency and effect of double turns puts some players off.

I would agree that I think the frequency and effect probably are too intensive.  When a player is given the option for a double turn, there currently is very few downsides as it is a very powerful mechanic.  Well worth designing ones army to capitalize on getting one.  Which of course, often compounds a sort of 'do or die' games trying for a double turn happening or not happening basically being the win/lose conditions.

I hope with AoS 3rd, that the game designers also see these issues.  Which I am sure they do as they really are more clever than we often give them credit.  Perhaps they have figured out ways to lessen the impact of double turns while keeping the mechanic as a powerful disruption/chaos/fog of war mechanic which I do think AoS needs to keep games interesting.  Certainly, whatever has been designed won't appeal to everyone, and many that are con-double turn won't see it as being enough.  Everyone has their own tastes and preferences.

I just hope that the effect of the double turn is dialed back a little.  Optimally, AoS 3rd edition has mechanics that even move away from putting so much effort in getting a double turn or always auto-choosing to take the double turn when it is presented.  That's quite a rules design challenge that I am glad I don't have to try and solve.

As I have said, I kinda like the double turn.  I think is core AoS mechanic worth keeping.  I do think it has too much of an effect on games as is.  I am hopeful that the game designers can come up mechanics to reduce that though.  Maybe not to everyone's liking but maybe where it garners the largest population of players that can be at least okay with its existence.

 

P.S. Sorry for the essays, I have been under the weather and kinda need low risk mental projects to wipe away this brain fog I have had for more than a week. So these writing are kinda more clearing the cobwebs from my brain more than anything else.  If you read this far, well... sorry and thank you.

I agree with you for the most part and we can conclude that for the double turn to be ok in AoS you need to deisgn around that (be it with army depth or careful about mechanics and units that take a huge advantage on a double).

I started playing AoS (my first wargame literally) ~3 months before the first General's Handbook and stopped when 2nd edition released. The priority roll was always intense and fun because there was a relevant balance amongst the armies we played (at least in my meta). Then came the disparity with different versions of battletomes, some armies could use battalions and go 2nd aiming for the dreaded double turn every match while others couldn't do a thing. Also as others have said shooting 2 consecutive turns is disastrous for the opponent. You can't have double turn in a game like this...

I am keen to see what changes they have implemented in 3.0, although i don't have much faith in the rules team given the history of previous releases. One interesting rule would be alternate shooting? Maybe that would fix the shooting problem. Other solutions seem too radical for GW (like alternate activations or alternate phases) though they would adress all the problems with the double turn...

Edited May 9, 2021 by Bluesummers

[Skreech Verminking]

5 hours ago, Bluesummers said:

I agree with you for the most part and we can conclude that for the double turn to be ok in AoS you need to deisgn around that (be it with army depth or careful about mechanics and units that take a huge advantage on a double).

I started playing AoS (my first wargame literally) ~3 months before the first General's Handbook and stopped when 2nd edition released. The priority roll was always intense and fun because there was a relevant balance amongst the armies we played (at least in my meta). Then came the disparity with different versions of battletomes, some armies could use battalions and go 2nd aiming for the dreaded double turn every match while others couldn't do a thing. Also as others have said shooting 2 consecutive turns is disastrous for the opponent. You can't have double turn in a game like this...

I am keen to see what changes they have implemented in 3.0, although i don't have much faith in the rules team given the history of previous releases. One interesting rule would be alternate shooting? Maybe that would fix the shooting problem. Other solutions seem too radical for GW (like alternate activations or alternate phases) though they would adress all the problems with the double turn...

The biggest question for me would be the changes to look out sir, if they changed anything about it.

 

[PivotalCar]

These ideas have probably been said, but I'd like to throw my hat into the ring. 

1- Updated unit rules. There are so many old unit that just aren't really playable. GW needs someone to just go through the app and make unplayable units playable, I'm not saying everything should be overpowered, but all units in the game should have at least a niche use. As someone whose played BoK for three years I'm not saying I just win every tourny, I just want to stop getting tabled when I bring anything that isn't 4 bloodthirsters. 

2- Changed rules. AOS is pretty convoluted at this point, and could do with some simplification. I get its a heavy wargame but there are definetly things that could be easier, refer to what other people have said in this thread. 

3- This one will not happen, but imo warscrolls, battalions, faction abilites, etc. should be free. Like if a new player wants to get into the game they shouldn't have to buy a general's handbook + a battletome just to play. Like the rules in these books can already be found online, so GW should just shove them all into an app for free. Battletomes could still be around, just cheaper and could contain things like painting schemes and lore. I mean I get GW is a company and likes money, but if they made their rules more people could play and the game could be better imo. 

4- Double turn needs changing. I'm not saying it needs to go, it can be good, it just isn't rn. I would like to actually play the game, not lose a die roll, spending half an hour watching my opponent move their toys and then repeating. It just dosen't really feel fun for me idk. 

5- As much as we love new minis and fations and cool stuff, GW needs to work on the little things before adding stuff. They are just building a tower on unstable foundations and a cool new angel won't fix that. 

 

[Clan's Cynic]

The problem with bandaiding the Double Turn(tm) is that GW have shown they cannot take their foot off the peddle when it comes to ramping up lethality and almost always overestimate defensive values. Perks are nice, but getting another crack at removing swathes of your enemy's army - particularly if you're already doing a good job of that - is always going to trump anything else. Good luck spending that bonus CP when you've lost most of what could've used it anyway.

The coding analogy's a good one - if you have to graft on so many extra features, fixes and convoluted mechanics to make it work, maybe it's better to just rip it out entirely. 

[FlatTooth]

For double turn to work well not only would the core rules need to account for them but every battletome would need to interact with it. Currently a lot of folks want to call it an integral rule to the game but there is basically no interaction with it as a rule other than rolling a single die. There are no decision points outside of “do I want to take a turn again?”  
 

in case I’m not being clear- I don’t think it is currently an important rule because currently so little of the game interacts with it. If you got rid of double turns I’m not sure if a single other part of the game would stop working. 

[Skreech Verminking]

Well In total I think we should actually wait till, we know what will happen in the edition in total.

yes it is true that some armies can be devastating at a double turn (for example ko, fyreslayers with their we pile in double battailons and almost impossible to kill berserkers and so on)

But depending on how the game changes it might get better? (Maybe?)

currently we only know that the person who goes second after rolling of gains more cp, whatever that means, and that there will be core battalions.

then there were rumours that any battalions in the different battletomes and campaign books will get banned to open and narrative play, and some other stuff like new command abilities, and the stand and shoot reaction from the old days coming back. Although take it with a grain of salt, rumors are sadly just rumors and could be false.

So there isn’t actually much to know how the game will change in a better or worse way.

The only thing we can currently do is wait till they announce some more stuff and hope that they do see the biggest problems aos is facing right now (For example 5wound heroes that are currently just a tax. When they can’t get a 4+ shrug (and look out sir being a useless rule).

 

[AaronWilson]

I often here people only call it the double turn, which is a shame as I think the priority roll mechanic is genuinely very good and I think I must of given away the priority roll as many times as I've taken, especially with mechanics like endless spell and the new scenarios and allowing you to manipulate objective control. The priority roll does undoubtedly lead to quick, short and rather poor games but it also allows for some absolutely nail biting games where one player would be straight out of the game without it.

Really glad to hear it's still in and by the sounds it with even more advantages being handed to the player who does not have the priority it should keep developing as a genuinely ingenious mechanic. I'm excited to see how the new command points will work and will hopefully give the player without priority some more agency.

Core battalions sound like a great idea, though from the video I was unsure if they're going to completely replace the current named battalions we have in battletomes or simply be along side them.   

[RuneBrush]

23 hours ago, Bluesummers said:

Let's hope its 2022 since there is a gap in new edition releases. (10th ed 40K 2023, 4th ed AoS 2024 and so on if a pattern is to be followed)

I think the original hope may have been 2022 (possibly taking that specialist games November slot), but we don't know the impact that the pandemic has had on the design team.  I don't think I'm on my own being happy to wait an extra few years for a ruleset that's polished rather than rushed.

6 hours ago, PivotalCar said:

3- This one will not happen, but imo warscrolls, battalions, faction abilites, etc. should be free. Like if a new player wants to get into the game they shouldn't have to buy a general's handbook + a battletome just to play. Like the rules in these books can already be found online, so GW should just shove them all into an app for free. Battletomes could still be around, just cheaper and could contain things like painting schemes and lore. I mean I get GW is a company and likes money, but if they made their rules more people could play and the game could be better imo. 

I fear you may well be waiting for this one!

A new player doesn't have to buy the generals handbook or even the battletome to play either.  There's free battleplans available and all of the points and warscrolls are available for free.  The battletome will add additional rules and things like artefacts (which you certainly don't need for your first games) along with providing lots of information and lore on your chosen army.  The generals handbook you only realistically need if you're starting to do organised events.  Yes both books are really nice to have, but far from essential for your first runs into AoS.

[TheTuninator]

On 5/9/2021 at 4:52 AM, Bluesummers said:

Let's hope its 2022 since there is a gap in new edition releases. (10th ed 40K 2023, 4th ed AoS 2024 and so on if a pattern is to be followed)

I am pretty confident that the target for TOW is probably the end of 2022 (although this may have slipped because of COVID). This lines up roughly with the estimate they gave in November 2019, and they need to get TOW out during the peak of TWWH3's release cycle in order to maximize the number of people they can draw into the hobby through brand synergy, and TWWH will have been out for about a year at that point, leaving several years' worth of peak hype for GW to ride.