Dead Scribe

Sounds to me like they are going the "soup" route that plagues 40k, only calling it "mercenaries". Which I have to be honest worries me.

Precisely. They are just too cheap right now (I get it, they are one of my primary armies specifically because they are too cheap and highly optimal). Bumping some point costs up they would still be highly effective. I think that the binary thought of "its either highly optimal, or its worthless" is a little too extreme.

Ok. I would be highly surprised if any paid expansion box is not matched play legal. In fact I'd go so far as to say if they released a paid expansion box that was not matched play legal, I'll eat my shoe.

I would be highly surprised if anything they put out is not matched play legal.

Yep the ally system is being revamped with the new total power expansion. We're thinking (where I am) that its going to start looking a lot like 40k now.

My description of nerfed into the ground is synonymous with useless. I don't think taking a -1 modifier to hit when trying to snipe characters as suddenly becoming useless.

Shooting nerfed to the ground is a pretty extreme statement. Its certainly not as potent, but its also certainly not entirely useless. Its just hard to optimize around as efficiently compared to what it used to be because there is a type of terrain that blocks line of sight now and hero sniping is not as easy due to look out sir. I don't think those two things nerfed it into the ground however.

But overall you don't want the army to be nerfed. You want the army to be elevated in power and you want internal balance to be stabalized.

I don't think that the old WHF armies were that much more expensive than AOS armies to be honest. I've seen people field their old armies and the model count seems fairly close if not identical to the AOS equivalents in many cases.

From what I was told, tomb kings were not very good rules-wise in warhammer even though they had nice new kits, so nobody bought them because of that. Bretonnians also from what I was told had pretty bad rules or old rules and no one wanted them because of that. I can definitely see how that would make people not buy them, especially since it seems competitive players do the most buying.

I would prefer that they update all of the factions first and even out their bad external balance and work on their equally bad internal balance before they bring back dead factions. Once they have addressed the gameplay and balance issues, feel free to bring in new races or bring back dead races turned into AOS factions better.

I guess... we have three DOK players and all three are adamant that their book is perfectly fine and that the problem is that people just don't know how to play against them properly.

No one that plays an army will willingly want it to be nerfed lol.

Point costs really. They are very cheap for what they can do which makes them VERY optimal.

Maybe. Its pretty frustrating how inconsistent it seems to be.

The regional manager (above the store manager) was here last summer and enforced that rule. We complained about it when he was there and he said it was company policy, and all he could do was enforce it. The store manager is just doing what he's being told by the regional manager, who allegedly has been told by the US manager that that is the policy.

Our local GW store manager doesnt' let anyone use the tables except for new players and recruiting games as well. Thats company policy, or recommended company policy. Also they have an hour limit on the tables, which is why none of us play or buy at the GW store.

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.

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.

Thats a great point and indicitive to me that forge world armies aren't legal armies.

I think no matter what mechanic you use there will be people trying to game it and break it.

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.

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.

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.

We must be playing different games then. Because double turns happen quite frequently in my shop and in the tournaments I play in.