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

Dead Scribe

Members
  • Content Count

    474
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

304 Celestant-Prime

About Dead Scribe

  • Rank
    Dracothian Guard

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It can also be that a lot of people "not really into AOS" that are voting they don't like double turn are "not really into AOS" because of the double turn and would be more into it if the double turn went away. But my anecdotal story is that we are all pretty into AOS and most of my group also really does not like the double turn.
  2. You're giving up standing around for two turns and giant swingy mechanic in place of a potential scenario that currently I don't see happening much at all, wherein the potential exists for who goes first should just dominate the game. If that were true, that whoever goes first would dominate the game, then I'd expect even with double turn that going first would be similar because if I can go first and alpha strike you and wipe you off the table like in 40k or shoot you off the table, then I'd do it now with double turn as well because you wouldn't have much left to hurt me with your double turn should you get it right off the bat. Also having actually watched games and played some test games with the removal of the double turn, we never had and I have never seen a turn 1 dominant victory by whoever went first in AOS.
  3. Thats a great point and indicitive to me that forge world armies aren't legal armies.
  4. I think no matter what mechanic you use there will be people trying to game it and break it.
  5. That would belong in a thread about alternate ways to change the current turn structure. The system will remain inferior to me while it is both unengaging (because you stand there for two turns in a row doing nothing but removing models) and while the game itself is heavily swung on a double turn. If I have to choose between 40k static turns, which I have watched and observed, I would take that 1000x over what we have right now despite its flaws because I've read enough places that do AOS like this anyway without having a major issue. I have also participated in some trial games where we did not use the double turn and just used static turns and I enjoyed it much better. I wouldn't mind an alternating action either but there are many ways that route can go and that doesn't belong in this thread. Convincing people that the current turn system is inferior is fruitless since its my opinion and I'm not really trying to convince you my opinion is better than your opinion. However if enough people share my opinion (via the GW survey) then it would stand to reason that they take action on that as enough people express a distaste in it that it needs changed.
  6. Thats the complaint I hear a lot in my "comic book reality" as SwampHeart likes to call it. Narrative games become unfun because of the imbalance of tournament lists in comparison to non tournament lists and the narrative people wish that the game had better balance at the top so that there were more viable builds which would benefit narrative play more.
  7. Or we can petition GW through their survey to remove it from AOS Considering Infinity is a sci fi skirmish game and 40k is a sci fi game and AOS is neither of those things.
  8. Its a combination of standing around for two turns in a row doing nothing, combined with the outcome of the game being way heavily dependent on the dice turn to see who goes next. That there is a lot of hate for it indicates something... its a controversial mechanic that is not super popular.
  9. I know in our area, if we have someone trying to run a campaign, they constantly complain because we bring strong lists. If units are not viable for competitive play, they are by default not viable for play period because competitive play is the standard for many groups... narrative or no. There should be no nonviable units in an army book period. It should be designed from a competitive standpoint where the assumption is both players breaking the game. If they designed that way, then even the narrative players would be ok because their narrative choices wouldn't be gimp or they'd have more tools at their disposal at the least.
  10. I'm not interested in perfect balance either but I think the assumed reality new players have is when they go into the store and pick a faction that they have at least a passing chance of having good games once they get the hang of the game and that everything is competitively viable in some fashion. I know that that is something we have to coach new players all the time in our store because we are all tournament players. As a tournament player there is a large part of me that just wants to win however I can win, so I usually depend on my army to carry me a lot of the way, but another part of me wants to see skill be a little more rewarded than it currently is. We have some pretty good guys that do very well all the time until they intentionally choose a less optimized list, and I don't think that should be as stark a case.
  11. External balance means that all factions are competitively viable with at least one build. Internal balance means that within a faction there are multiple choices that are viable instead of just one build. The old evocator and sequitors coming out invalidating things like liberators for example because their cost were similar or same but the evocator and sequitors were vastly better is an example of bad internal balance. The kharadron overlord book is an example of bad external balance.
  12. We must be playing different games then. Because double turns happen quite frequently in my shop and in the tournaments I play in.
  13. Updating points often doesn't change the rules to the army.
  14. In the case of updating them only every change of edition you would have battletomes dominating for YEARS. I hear thats exactly how it was in previous editions. The plus side would be that at least I wouldn't have to change my tournament army out every year, I could use the same force for years since any undercosted units would remain that way for a long long time.
  15. Thats because the double turn is a monumental negative game play experience for a lot of people, and going backwards is preferred by some over an experience that is negatively fun.
Γ—
Γ—
  • Create New...