Double Turn begone! AoS should get rid of the double-turn

[JackStreicher]

19 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

there isn't really any way to play defensively in AOS currently, and that drastically reduces the tactical complexity. 

Very true. You either hurry up to get those magical circles on the board or you lose (sorry dwarves, get out of here with your short legs! Don‘t be mad, you are into angular shapes anyway!)

 

[NinthMusketeer]

I play defensively with my Nurgle all the time. It doesn't mean I get to turtle up in my deployment zone though.

[yukishiro1]

You can play a wound sponge list in AOS, but that isn't really playing defensively - an alpha bunker is actually an offensive list, not a defensive one, it just plays offensively by existing rather than by doing damage. Playing defensively is playing in a way so as to limit damage to yourself in order to prolong the match and wait for your opportunity. You can't really do that in AOS (again outside of a small handful of lists that mostly leverage reserve deployment) because of the lack of a primary cap and the ease of scoring battle tactics combined with the general inability to mitigate damage through use of terrain. If you try to play defensively in AOS you tend to just fall behind on scoring and lose and/or get picked off and lose. There are occasional matchups on specific battleplans where you can play cagey for a round or two (the vice is a good example; the one where you auto-win if you hold 4 is another) but it isn't typically an option. The AOS scoring system and most missions are very much focused on pushing both armies into the middle right from the start for a decisive engagement, to the point where any other strategy tends to be situational at best. 

Edited February 3, 2022 by yukishiro1

[Kadeton]

4 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

One example of a game with IGYG that did not invent double turns to fix their problems with the system: Chess, or any game apart from AoS really. It might be worth to think about that.

In a IGYG game you can actually plan ahead without the whole game being predictable. The ability to reliably plan ahead makes the tactical decisions meaningful. Making even this pivotal aspect random makes the whole game a gamble, nothing more (the outcome isn’t necessarily a gamble though).

Chess uses alternating activations, not IGOUGO. Or do you think that you get to move all of your pieces and then the opponent moves all of theirs? Yeah, alternating activations is a much better system, as I've already mentioned several times. Most modern wargames use it as well - often alongside random initiative.

Kings of War is an actual example of an IGOUGO game without initiative rolls, and it's not bad. The speed and lethality is toned way down compared to AoS, which is really needed to make fixed initiative work (though it wouldn't be a bad thing in AoS either). And still, if you ask any KoW player about single dice rolls affecting the outcome of the game, they'll have stories about rolling double ones on morale and failing to break an enemy unit, which then cost them the game.

And that's the fundamental reason why chess is a terrible example. Dice games are a gamble - that's the whole point of using dice. It just baffles me that in a game already packed to the gills with randomised outcomes, people focus in on initiative as if removing just this one random element would suddenly transform AoS into a game of skill.

[Lord Krungharr]

Chess isn't alternating activations.  If you lose a pawn, that pawn doesn't get to try and move to remove an enemy piece before it goes away.  Chess is the OGIGYG.

[zilberfrid]

9 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

Very true. You either hurry up to get those magical circles on the board or you lose (sorry dwarves, get out of here with your short legs! Don‘t be mad, you are into angular shapes anyway!)

Ironweld, Fyreslayers and Kharadron are fast, and Disposessed used to be before the global nerf to Cities with Endless Spells.

I'm not sure what the average time of a turn is in this edition, but only being able to save (if it's not just mw spam) or unbind (if it can) in the time it takes to play over half a game of Frostgrave, Stargrave or Rangers with an 80% chance to have lost after that doesn't really sound appealing to me. That's Monopoly level bad.

Edited February 4, 2022 by zilberfrid

[Kadeton]

1 hour ago, Lord Krungharr said:

Chess isn't alternating activations.  If you lose a pawn, that pawn doesn't get to try and move to remove an enemy piece before it goes away.  Chess is the OGIGYG.

Are we using these terms the same way?

IGOUGO: I get to act with all the forces at my disposal, then you get to respond. (e.g. AoS, 40K)

Alternating activations: We take it in turns to act with small portions of our overall forces. (e.g. Necromunda, Malifaux, Infinity)

In chess, IGOUGO would be getting to move all your pawns, minor and major pieces in one turn. Then your opponent would do the same. Alternating activations would be moving one piece, then your opponent moving one piece, and so on - the way it's normally played.

What you're describing with the pawn sounds more like simultaneous activations?

Edited February 4, 2022 by Kadeton

[JackStreicher]

39 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

Are we using these terms the same way?

IGOUGO: I get to act with all the forces at my disposal, then you get to respond. (e.g. AoS, 40K)

Alternating activations: We take it in turns to act with small portions of our overall forces. (e.g. Necromunda, Malifaux, Infinity)

In chess, IGOUGO would be getting to move all your pawns, minor and major pieces in one turn. Then your opponent would do the same. Alternating activations would be moving one piece, then your opponent moving one piece, and so on - the way it's normally played.

What you're describing with the pawn sounds more like simultaneous activations?

@Lord Krungharr Imo IGYG is Chess, since you can only move one piece (dictated by the rules) in your turn. So they are moving with the whole force they are allowed to move. If chess had an alternating system there wouldn‘t be turns but one perpetual turn with an endless circle of alternating activations.

Alternating activations requires the players to do so within a single overarching turn. (As far as I can tell) The amount of models that is being moved isn’t relevant.

You could also have an alternating system in which you move your whole army, then the enemy moves their whole army. Then the next phase starts with shooting etc.

Edited February 4, 2022 by JackStreicher

[zilberfrid]

4 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

@Lord Krungharr Imo IGYG is Chess, since you can only move one piece (dictated by the rules) in your turn. If it was alternating there wouldn‘t be turns but one perpetual turn with an endless circle of alternating activations.

It isn't a perfect comparison, because you are not limited from just moving a single piece multiple times, but I think alternating activation is closer to chess than IGYG, but the argument that a turn is defined very diferently in chess compared to wargames is also strong.

The point (to me) is that you don't have to wait for a long time while the other player does everything.

[JackStreicher]

7 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

It isn't a perfect comparison, because you are not limited from just moving a single piece multiple times, but I think alternating activation is closer to chess than IGYG, but the argument that a turn is defined very diferently in chess compared to wargames is also strong.

The point (to me) is that you don't have to wait for a long time while the other player does everything.

It’s kind of irrelevant how exactly chess works. The argument I am making is that the one going first (or second, can’t remember and I don’t care) in chess has an advantage. They did not add a double turn to the system to fix that. Apparently it also doesn’t add more tactical depth as chess players would embrace that.  chess has been around for ages and no one had the idea to implement double turns, because that might just be a bad idea. And this goes for all alternating turns/phase systems in games I‘ve ever come to know.

Now people are suggesting the DT is good ( the rule-masterminds of GW added it to their game) is funny to me: You do actually remember what they did with Slaanesh, then Tzeentch, then Slaanesh And, oh yes, SCE Dragons?
So GW‘s

Edited February 4, 2022 by JackStreicher

[RuneBrush]

We've managed to keep this thread pretty on track so far, but I fear discussions on chess may derail it 😉

[Kadeton]

53 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

The argument I am making is that the one going first (or second, can’t remember and I don’t care) in chess has an advantage. They did not add a double turn to the system to fix that. Apparently it also doesn’t add more tactical depth as chess players would embrace that.  chess has been around for ages and no one had the idea to implement double turns, because that might just be a bad idea. And this goes for all alternating turns/phase systems in games I‘ve ever come to know.

Chess has no randomised elements at all. Nobody has "had the idea" for the Queen to roll for how far she can move or to see if she can deal enough damage to capture an opposing piece - do you think those random rolls (e.g. charge range, attacks) should be removed from AoS as well? If not, why not?

[JackStreicher]

1 hour ago, Kadeton said:

Chess has no randomised elements at all. Nobody has "had the idea" for the Queen to roll for how far she can move or to see if she can deal enough damage to capture an opposing piece - do you think those random rolls (e.g. charge range, attacks) should be removed from AoS as well? If not, why not?

The comparison is lacking. You are comparing turn sequences to model actions/interactions, which makes no sense. -> comparing apples with bananas. Apples aren’t curved so bananas shouldn’t be as well. This leads to a false conclusion.

Having random elements in a game has nothing to do with the turn order which is overarching the game as a whole. It’s also no valid argument to say: We already have random elements so making everything random is the way to solve/improve the game. Which is what you are implying.

Adding more (/too much) randomness leads to the Gloomspite/Goblin issue: Everything is random, tactics don’t matter as much since those are very likely to fall apart with a single roll. It’s chaotic. The army might be fun to play this way, but you won’t be able to get good results based on your tactical prowess since randomness is a counterforce to planning ahead.

-> One obvious proof to this is the fact that Tournament Players prefer mechanics and armies with as little randomness as possible so their skill in planning ahead matters. You can see this in 40K: D6 damage stats are removed in favor of the more reliable D3+3 damage etc.

 

tl;dr: Other, older, more refined Gaming Systems using the IGYG System did not add a DT to fix or improve the game, which implies that it simply does not fix or improve it.

 

Now let’s step away from chess and have a look at all other more similar games.

 

 

Edited February 4, 2022 by JackStreicher

[Kadeton]

1 hour ago, JackStreicher said:

The comparison is lacking. You are comparing turn sequences to model actions/interactions, which makes no sense. -> comparing apples with bananas. Apples aren’t curved so bananas shouldn’t be as well. This leads to a false conclusion.

Chess was your comparison, dude. You brought it up. I was pointing out that it made no sense. I'm glad we're on the same page, sort of?

1 hour ago, JackStreicher said:

It’s also no valid argument to say: We already have random elements so making everything random is the way to solve/improve the game. Which is what you are implying.

Not at all. What I'm saying is that everything is already random, and picking one random element out of the crowd and saying "This one is bad! All others are good!" is nonsensical. "Because other games don't have it" (or, I suspect, "Because it wasn't in the game that this one replaced") isn't a good reason to single it out.

1 hour ago, JackStreicher said:

Adding more (/too much) randomness leads to the Gloomspite/Goblin issue: Everything is random, tactics don’t matter as much since those are very likely to fall apart with a single roll. It’s chaotic. The army might be fun to play this way, but you won’t be able to get good results based on your tactical prowess since randomness is a counterforce to planning ahead.

Sure. And removing (/not enough) randomness leads to the "I'm bored, let's do something else" issue: the game is predictable, nothing exciting or unexpected happens, and it's not much fun. The game might be more skill-based this way, but you won't get much entertainment out of it since predictability is a counterforce to engagement.

There's a sweet spot where tactical planning and random chance interact to make a fun game, and the amounts of each needed to get in the right zone will be different for everyone. It sounds like AoS is a bit too far towards the random side for your liking, but it's in the right place for mine. Perhaps a different game might work better for you? (Have you perhaps considered... chess? It's very tactical.)

1 hour ago, JackStreicher said:

One obvious proof to this is the fact that Tournament Players prefer mechanics and armies with as little randomness as possible so their skill in planning ahead matters. You can see this in 40K: D6 damage stats are removed in favor of the more reliable D3+3 damage etc.

Yes, absolutely. That is how GW could redesign the game if they wanted to cater to tournament play - minimise the gambling elements and emphasise the skill elements. You present that as if it would be an inherently good thing, but I don't think that's at all clear, as it would alienate a lot of players who are here for entertainment rather than competition. GW seems to agree, so far.

1 hour ago, JackStreicher said:

tl;dr: Other, older, more refined Gaming Systems using the IGYG System did not add a DT to fix or improve the game, which implies that it simply does not fix or improve it.

I can think of one older IGYG gaming system that did, more or less, have random initiative added to fix and improve the game: Warhammer Fantasy Battles. And it seems to have worked out well so far!

[JackStreicher]

1 hour ago, Kadeton said:

Chess was your comparison, dude. You brought it up. I was pointing out that it made no sense. I'm glad we're on the same page, sort of?

You jumped to the conclusion that, since chess has no random element one couldn't compare them at all. It does not in this case. If you look at AoS from a distance it is a IGYG System, like chess, in which Models perform certain actions/interactions. Which interactions are perfomed is irrelevant, even how they are performed is irrelevant to this comparison. Both use turns, both have the issue of whoever goes first/ or second has an advantage. AoS's solution: DTs (as people have stated), Chess disagrees. Now enough of chess, it's too often utterly misunderstood as a comparison.

 

 

1 hour ago, Kadeton said:

Not at all. What I'm saying is that everything is already random, and picking one random element out of the crowd and saying "This one is bad! All others are good!" is nonsensical. "Because other games don't have it" (or, I suspect, "Because it wasn't in the game that this one replaced") isn't a good reason to single it out.

Wrong. Not everything is random. Your move stat and other stats are constant. You don't roll for your normal moves. So the base interaction of moving is in its core not random. AoS adds randomness to the game whenever a die roll is required. This factor of randomness varies from the roll required and the sort of Dice being cast (D3 VS D6).
the DT is not a random pick of a random element. It is the only random element present in the Turn System, which again, is a seperate thing from model interactions. Does adding a DT add more depth or value to the game? As other, better, older, more sofisticated games have not included such a mechanic, it is implied that it does not.

to summarize: It appears likely that the double turn does not fix  IGYG issues nor does add more tactical depth according to games that had a way longer period to develop, which never made use of such a mechanic.

1 hour ago, Kadeton said:

Sure. And removing (/not enough) randomness leads to the "I'm bored, let's do something else" issue: the game is predictable, nothing exciting or unexpected happens, and it's not much fun. The game might be more skill-based this way, but you won't get much entertainment out of it since predictability is a counterforce to engagement.

There's a sweet spot where tactical planning and random chance interact to make a fun game, and the amounts of each needed to get in the right zone will be different for everyone. It sounds like AoS is a bit too far towards the random side for your liking, but it's in the right place for mine. Perhaps a different game might work better for you? (Have you perhaps considered... chess? It's very tactical.)

I don't know where that idea of a predictable game comes from to be honest. No AoS game is entirely predictable due to the randomness factor of model actions/interactions. Let's for a moment assume the DT did not exist:
- You get into position to hold an objective on the right, intending to destroy a unit in the middle so you can pose a threat to the opponent's unit trying to take the right objective from you.
- You roll badly, fail to slay the unit in the middle -> out of a sudden the whole situation has changed and you have to adapt.
It is not predictable in the way you are claiming it to be.

Suggesting that AoS is nothing for me is an insult and a bold claim, I'll discard that comment. I like the randomness of AoS, the DT however adds nothing to the game imo, it adds an unfair advantage to a game with a random factor since you can't really plan ahead.
If you like the DT it's fine, however it does not belong into the "Matched Play" Category since that mechanic makes games "Mismatched" due to the way it works.

 

1 hour ago, Kadeton said:

I can think of one older IGYG gaming system that did, more or less, have random initiative added to fix and improve the game: Warhammer Fantasy Battles. And it seems to have worked out well so far!

I am not sure if this is sarcasm that failed to deliver the message or a serious comment: Did you ever play the game? It died, that had little to to with the initative though, it had lore and other reasons (imo the whole system was just bad, ASoIaF is so much better). Players rolled off at the Start of the game, setting the order of turns for the rest of the battle. This is the way AoS should be. You can actually plan ahead and get an equal amount of phases in a row. Yet there are the same random elements concerning model interactions/actions which make the game rather unpredictable.

 

Tl;dr if you like the DT it's fine, it should be a narrative or open play mechanic but not a matched play mechanic since it makes games mismatched by the way it works.

[Kadeton]

7 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

You jumped to the conclusion that, since chess has no random element one couldn't compare them at all.

Adding a single random element to a game that has absolutely none is a completely different prospect to removing one particular random element from a game that has literally hundreds of others. They are not comparable.

7 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

AoS adds randomness to the game whenever a die roll is required. It is the only random element present in the Turn System, which again, is a seperate thing from model interactions.

Sounds like randomness was required in the turn system, then. Do you think the designers added it to the rules by accident?

7 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

to summarize: It appears likely that the double turn does not fix  IGYG issues nor does add more tactical depth according to games that had a way longer period to develop, which never made use of such a mechanic.

This is a traditional, conservative mindset. "Nobody's tried it before, so it must be bad." This mental framework stifles new ideas and impedes progress. Let the experiment run its course - so far, AoS is proving to be popular, and its turn structure has to be considered part of that.

7 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

I don't know where that idea of a predictable game comes from to be honest. No AoS game is entirely predictable due to the randomness factor of model actions/interactions.

That's not what I'm saying. There's a spectrum - completely random, unpredictable games at the "Unpredictable" end (e.g. Snakes & Ladders), completely non-random, solvable games at the "Predictable" end (e.g. chess). Everyone will have preferences for the types of games they like to play, and where those games fall on that spectrum is a major factor in that preference. (And it may be different games for different purposes - I play chess when I want a competitive, cerebral experience where I don't want to get screwed over by dice rolls, and I play AoS when I want a dramatic, entertaining experience where I just want to relax and socialise, for instance.)

When you emphasise or de-emphasise randomness in a particular game by changing the rules, it pushes that game along the spectrum in one direction or the other. I'm happy with where AoS is now in terms of how random it is. If it gets pushed too far towards the "predictable" end of the spectrum, I will lose interest because that's not the experience I'm looking for from this game.

The thing that puzzles me is when people treat AoS as if it would be anywhere near the "Predictable" end of the spectrum if it wasn't for that pesky double turn. I don't know why anyone would persist with it if that was the experience they were looking for.

7 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

Suggesting that AoS is nothing for me is an insult and a bold claim, I'll discard that comment.

If you say so - it wasn't intended as an insult, so I apologise if it came across that way. There are tons of great games out there, I just don't know why you'd play AoS if one of its most fundamental mechanics is not to your liking. Why not pick up a game that works the way you want instead?

7 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

I am not sure if this is sarcasm that failed to deliver the message or a serious comment: Did you ever play the game? It died, that had little to to with the initative though, it had lore and other reasons (imo the whole system was just bad, ASoIaF is so much better). Players rolled off at the Start of the game, setting the order of turns for the rest of the battle. This is the way AoS should be. You can actually plan ahead and get an equal amount of phases in a row. Yet there are the same random elements concerning model interactions/actions which make the game rather unpredictable.

I still play it from time to time, in fact - there's been a serious revival at my local club, and for a "dead" game it's currently more popular than 40K around here.

And that's kind of my point. If you want the WHFB experience, that's still available. Let AoS do its own thing.

7 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

Tl;dr if you like the DT it's fine, it should be a narrative or open play mechanic but not a matched play mechanic since it makes games mismatched by the way it works.

Hmm. I don't agree, but I can see where you're coming from.

[NinthMusketeer]

20 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

You can play a wound sponge list in AOS, but that isn't really playing defensively - an alpha bunker is actually an offensive list, not a defensive one, it just plays offensively by existing rather than by doing damage. Playing defensively is playing in a way so as to limit damage to yourself in order to prolong the match and wait for your opportunity. You can't really do that in AOS (again outside of a small handful of lists that mostly leverage reserve deployment) because of the lack of a primary cap and the ease of scoring battle tactics combined with the general inability to mitigate damage through use of terrain. If you try to play defensively in AOS you tend to just fall behind on scoring and lose and/or get picked off and lose. There are occasional matchups on specific battleplans where you can play cagey for a round or two (the vice is a good example; the one where you auto-win if you hold 4 is another) but it isn't typically an option. The AOS scoring system and most missions are very much focused on pushing both armies into the middle right from the start for a decisive engagement, to the point where any other strategy tends to be situational at best. 

That seems like a No True Scotsman to me--if I show up with a melee army and never declare a charge chances are it's pretty defensive. Moving forward to hold objectives is not mutually exclusive with playing defensively, nor is mobility. Just like playing offensively means more than running forward blindly, playing defensively has tactical nuance.

[yukishiro1]

I don't think it's No True Scotsmen, because that's not what I'm referring to when I refer to playing defensively. If you want to call the alpha bunker a different way of playing defensively that's fine, I don't really care about that - but it doesn't change the point that you can't play defensively in AOS in the way I'm describing, a way that is a core element of most other game systems. Even compared to a game like 40k that's not exactly a tactical masterpiece either, AOS gives you far less options for avoiding engagements and playing for a five-turn game (and whenever GW screws up and empowers alpha lists in 40k like they did with ad mech and orks, they inevitably get nerfed a few months down the road - because everyone recognizes that isn't how the game ought to be played).

Almost all of the mechanics in AOS are geared towards forcing both armies to the middle from T1. Scoring, terrain, threat ranges - all of these are set up in AOS to mush armies together from the very start of T1 (with rare exceptions).  Even the lack of cheap objective-cappers feeds into this - in 40k there are lots of units that are sub-50 points that you can use as sacrificial scorers that you don't really care about losing while keeping the rest of your army safe, whereas in AOS there are literally no units in the game under 50 points, and the definition of a "cheap" unit is basically something under 100ish points rather than under 50ish. The cost of throwing something away in AOS is therefore roughly double what it is in 40k. 

The result is that defense in AOS tends to rely more on unit stats and less on avoiding the line of fire in the first place. By and large there is no option in AOS to take a "null turn" where you just keep the vast majority of your forces in safe positions they can't be engaged on the opponent's next turn; that's just not how the game is set up. 

The T1/T2 double turn would be much less decisive if there was a viable way to take the top of T1 that didn't put you straight in the firing line of the enemy army. But by and large there isn't. So the T1/T2 double turn tends to be decisive. 

 

Edited February 4, 2022 by yukishiro1

[Orbei]

On 2/4/2022 at 9:52 AM, Kadeton said:

Let the experiment run its course - so far, AoS is proving to be popular, and its turn structure has to be considered part of that.

 

On 2/4/2022 at 9:52 AM, Kadeton said:

If you say so - it wasn't intended as an insult, so I apologise if it came across that way. There are tons of great games out there, I just don't know why you'd play AoS if one of its most fundamental mechanics is not to your liking. Why not pick up a game that works the way you want instead?

The turn structure absolutely does not have to be considered a reason why AoS is popular. With that mindset you could point at any aspect of the game and apply the same logic. Was the old battalion system a component of why the game was popular in 2nd? There are a wide variety of contributing factors as to the popularity of a game. Its entirely possible that the game is popular in spite of the turn structure, not partly because of it.

People play AoS for a variety of reasons. Its the most widely played fantasy themed miniatures wargame, for starters, and the easiest to find games for. I might prefer other rule sets but good luck finding games for them. There's also the lovely models and very good lore surrounding the game that people get invested in. The double turn is also just one aspect of the game - an impactful part of the game, sure, but still just one component of it. People can easily not like that rule but still generally enjoy the game and hobby.

Questioning why someone plays a game when they dislike one this core rule isn't really fair. This thread alone shows that the community is pretty split on the double turn, but all of the people posting here enjoy AoS. Do you enjoy every aspect of the game, and all your hobbies? Can nothing be improved? Personally I've played Warhammer for 20 years and thought I go you go was terrible game design for about 19 of them.

[Kadeton]

9 hours ago, Orbei said:

The turn structure absolutely does not have to be considered a reason why AoS is popular. With that mindset you could point at any aspect of the game and apply the same logic. Was the old battalion system a component of why the game was popular in 2nd? There are a wide variety of contributing factors as to the popularity of a game. Its entirely possible that the game is popular in spite of the turn structure, not partly because of it.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I don't think AoS is popular because of the double turn, but the double is part of the game, and the game is popular. Even if AoS is popular in spite of the double turn, its popularity indicates that in that case, the double turn isn't enough of a hurdle to prevent it from becoming popular. In other words, for most players it's, at worst, a minor issue which is easily overshadowed by the game's good points. If it was a major problem, the game wouldn't be popular.

9 hours ago, Orbei said:

Questioning why someone plays a game when they dislike one this core rule isn't really fair. This thread alone shows that the community is pretty split on the double turn, but all of the people posting here enjoy AoS. Do you enjoy every aspect of the game, and all your hobbies? Can nothing be improved?

That's what I'm generally aiming for, yeah - not so much "nothing can be improved" but "there are flaws I'm content to live with", since that's a more reasonable goal. When a particular game stops being fun for me, I stop playing it and look for something else to take a similar role in my gaming repertoire.

Sometimes, when I'm really invested in a game but I'm not enjoying it any more, it can be difficult to get a sense of perspective and see that it's time for a change. This can lead to the kind of self-reinforcing negative mindset that seems common in threads like these - often focused on one particular "flaw" in the game which is "ruining" everything else. At those times, it can be helpful for someone else to step in and say "You seem pretty upset about this, are you still having fun with this game?" I cannot understand how that's "unfair" or "rude". I don't mind if the answer is "Yes, I'm having a great time, I just needed to vent about this one thing," that's cool - the point is to check in.

9 hours ago, Orbei said:

Personally I've played Warhammer for 20 years and thought I go you go was terrible game design for about 19 of them.

IGYG is certainly one of those flaws I'm content to live with. If GW changes AoS to a structure built on alternating activations, I'll be overjoyed; if they don't, I don't mind. If it really starts to bother me, I'll switch to a different game - probably after complaining about it a bunch, and having someone prompt me to consider whether I'm still having fun.

[Beliman]

As a casual player (or a new player), a Double Turn will not be good experience (even if it has not a big impact on the table). Just waiting for 20-40 minuts to play your turn untill knowing that you need to wait 20 minutes or more again...

As another example, KO games can be frustating too. Playing through all your phases in less than 2 minuts until you reach your shooting phase. The opponent just gets bored with all your shooting (even if your whole turn is faster). It's not the same but people will not enjoy this type of mechanics because they are not fun.

You need to do something inbetween all this actions or the game becomes a bit tedious. I think All out Attack/Defense are the first step in the right direction, but I still think that it needs a lot more.

[Harioch]

1 hour ago, Beliman said:

As a casual player (or a new player), a Double Turn will not be good experience (even if it has not a big impact on the table). Just waiting for 20-40 minuts to play your turn untill knowing that you need to wait 20 minutes or more again...

As another example, KO games can be frustating too. Playing through all your phases in less than 2 minuts until you reach your shooting phase. The opponent just gets bored with all your shooting (even if your whole turn is faster). It's not the same but people will not enjoy this type of mechanics because they are not fun.

You need to do something inbetween all this actions or the game becomes a bit tedious. I think All out Attack/Defense are the first step in the right direction, but I still think that it needs a lot more.

I think some of the designers know about the issue of waiting your opponent since they implemented command you can use during the enemy turn, as you said. 

I have yet to play a game of AoS (more of a hobbyist as of now since I can't play unpainted models....and slow painter) but the Double Turn was a thing that made me consider playing 40k instead (the problems 40k has are too many stratagem and power creep). Why ? Because if it happens...I'll be waiting way too long before playing myself. I like when games are fast paced and interactive. Waiting two turns that one player finish the other seems like the opposite of fun to me.

The mechanic is not fun to me and not well thought. To me it's like playing against the game and not the player I face. You deploy and react accordingly to a mechanic that could harm you or benefit you and that none of both players can count on (unlike command abilities) and gives you a game breaker bonus...seems a bit dull to me.

[The World Tree]

23 minutes ago, Harioch said:

I think some of the designers know about the issue of waiting your opponent since they implemented command you can use during the enemy turn, as you said. 

I have yet to play a game of AoS (more of a hobbyist as of now since I can't play unpainted models....and slow painter) but the Double Turn was a thing that made me consider playing 40k instead (the problems 40k has are too many stratagem and power creep). Why ? Because if it happens...I'll be waiting way too long before playing myself. I like when games are fast paced and interactive. Waiting two turns that one player finish the other seems like the opposite of fun to me.

The mechanic is not fun to me and not well thought. To me it's like playing against the game and not the player I face. You deploy and react accordingly to a mechanic that could harm you or benefit you and that none of both players can count on (unlike command abilities) and gives you a game breaker bonus...seems a bit dull to me.

I don't mean to be dismissive but it is hard to take your view seriously given that you have not played it...

[yukishiro1]

I actually think the point of view of people who haven't played the game is hugely important, because it's one of the most common reasons you hear from people - "I'd try the game but the double turn."  I understand that can be frustrating for AOS players to hear, but from a game design perspective, a feature that alienates a significant portion of your potential player base is probably something you want to think twice about. 

I used to be hardcore against the double turn, now I'm less against it as I've played more AOS - but I do think it still needs some work to lower the impact it can have, particularly on the T1/T2 double. I would be really interested to try how "the first player to be doubled in the game gets to remove an objective" would play out, as opposed to the current "player going 2nd on T3 gets to remove an objective." 

Edited February 7, 2022 by yukishiro1

[Marcvs]

8 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

I actually think the point of view of people who haven't played the game is hugely important, because it's one of the most common reasons you hear from people - "I'd try the game but the double turn."  I understand that can be frustrating for AOS players to hear, but from a game design perspective, a feature that alienates a significant portion of your potential player base is probably something you want to think twice about.

I don't much care for defending the double turn at all costs (the game could be better designed with or without it) but I don't think this is a valid argument. A significant portion? How significant? Based on which piece of opinion poll, market research, anything?

If it's the anecdotal evidence of your gaming group, I am experiencing the opposite at mine: people are wary to try 40k because they heard about power creep and imbalance, but they didn't hear such a thing (whether this is correct or not) about AoS.