NinthMusketeer

Perhaps you can advise me on how to counteract when that Tzeentch lists goes second and gets a double. What do I do to win that game?

Even a Scinari Cathallar has a veil thicker than the one you put on those insults, Phasteon.

No, because the first turn advantage is not that immense. An extra CP every round is nothing to sneeze at, especially if the general dies. And most scenarios the player going second gets to pull an objective round three, a tremendous advantage. Redeploy, unleash hell, all out defense, and finest hour give more tools to combat alpha strike than the game has ever had. And again, where are these alpha strike builds that are so strong? Why is such a powerful tactic not being widely used? Why is ruining 40% of EVERYONE'S games considered an appropriate price to pay to -theoretically- combat a strategy with sparse evidence it even works? Why do I have to watch players in my community tell me they are quitting because of the double, so that you can have a completely luck based chance of beating a strategy that has a dozen and one other tools to counter? The solution you are defending is analogous combatting the current monster-hero meta by implementing a rule where players roll off at the start of every combat phase and the winner gets to fight with all their non-monster units twice. And I has strengths, but 'stops an alpha strike meta' is most definitely not one of them.

The other player putting important targets in reserve or outside of 36". If the sentinels players wants to choose first they are using low deployment drops, giving the opponent the opportunity to see where they are. Sentinels raw damage output is quite low--their strength is in being able to pick off key pieces. The bodies to hold objectives can be placed in their range to move forward and take them; even after weathering a round of fire all but the most elite factions will have no trouble outnumbering a Lumineth list with 50 sentinels. After that it is down to tools available to the army in question, and oh boy are there a lot of them. Some armies are perfectly happy to move and charge from 30+ inches away, others have anvils that can tank that level of shooting, quite a few have reserves that can teleport in and shoot or have bonuses to charge. A better question is, what do you do when that 50 sentinels player makes you go first then gets two turns to shoot you before you go again?

With all due respect, this simply is not true. I am immersed in AoS play from small scale narrative up to being part of the staff at some of the biggest tournaments in the US and the look of resigned disappointment on players faces as an otherwise close game is aborted from an early double is universal at all levels. It isn't limited to the losing party either. Non-WAAC tourney players in particular WANT to be challenged, they spend a good chunk of time and money to go to an event for some engaging high-level play only for a match to become entirely one-sided. For every game where the underdog gets a comeback from a timely double I see one where an underdog that had a slim but fighting chance get obliterated, and I see three where what would have been a contested game becomes one-sided. I see players who are invested, who have fully assembled and beautifully painted armies, who have set aside their weekend for an event, sitting at the table like it's a morning commute. Something they do to get to the next game which might be better. And quite often it IS better. The majority of games don't have a 1-2 double and the round 3 objective removal makes taking a 2-3 double a meaningful choice in relevant scenarios. AoS is a great game at its core, GHBs have consistently delivered excellent scenarios overall, and the eccentric style of GW rules design lends itself to all sorts of crazy antics and cinematic moments. More often than not early-double matches just end up as a chore players push through so they can play the real game next time.

When the game is over round 2 or 3 because of a double, people don't make battle reports about it. Battle reports are not a random sample; they are specifically tailored such that it isn't a one-sided slaughter (and justifiably so). They are the best-case scenario.

The double turn benefits the lists you are talking about more than it does the opposition. Saying random initiative is needed to combat them is literally arguing that to counter these lists the game needs a tool which makes them stronger. Maybe it's all a meta-comment within the context of the thread...?

It's strange because there are more tools than ever to counter alpha strike, and the nature of current matched scenarios with their battle tactics & grand strategies further disfavor alpha strikes as compared to a long-term approach. I don't think I have seen a single alpha-strike list meet anything near abnormal levels of success since third started. They certainly aren't dominating top tournament brackets. Unless it focuses on shooting and/or magic, that is. Also the lists most favored by double turns existing, and I'm pretty sure there's a correlation there. End of the day, if I design a list with less drops then my opponent I get to roll in knowing I'm one roll off away from having victory given to me--I don't really see it as 'winning the game' because there wasn't even a game to begin with. Better yet, if my opponent doubles me back on round 2-3 I get to remove an objective to further solidify my lead. And again, this isn't something that requires a high skill threshold to pull off.

I have played in tournaments, won tournaments, and now run them regularly. I can remember every game in which I got a 1-2 double then lost, because all four times I made a critical mistake. My dislike of the double comes not from losing to it, my dislike comes from having a ~40% chance to auto-win because I had less deployment drops than my opponent. If there was skill involved it would be one thing, but all I had to do was not mess up. I'm not the greatest player out there and it's absurd how easy a 1-2 double makes it to win against opponents who are legitimately better than me.

Extra unpopular opinion: you have it backwards. It isn't that unskilled players can't beat a double, it is that skilled players don't lose with one. If one loses after a double, then broudly speaking the game was already decided, some crazy luck happened, or they screwed up. The opponent only has a chance to come back from a double if the door was left open for them. I can say from ample experience that taking a round 1-2 double and doing it right, it doesn't matter if the opponent is a newbie or tourney veteran they will not have the tools to win. What's said here in this quote, that's what unskilled players tell themselves after losing with a double. They say 'oh my opponent outplayed me because skilled players can overcome' instead of admitting they were the ones who screwed up to create that opening in the first place.

Move over Slaanesh, your depravity is merely second fiddle.

The double turn is an abomination of rule design that ruins games and keeps out potential players.

Gordrakk? Khorgos? Olynder? Katakros? Radukar?

Kragnos is an old world character?

That's saying that the less balanced a system gets the more fun actual gameplay is; Archaon vs a clanrat would be the height of entertainment! What I think is meant here is 'cutting flavor in the name of balance tends not to be worth it.'

There must be some mistake; I was informed quite vigorously in this very thread that SCE were non-viable at tournaments without drakes and/or translocation.

So while GW definitely pulled a classic pendulum swing from bloat to drought when it comes to options, I definitely feel like certain aspects are where they should be. Artifacts for both SCE and OWC seem like an appropriate number to me, and I can see how GW has capitalized on the availability of core enhancements to let army-specific ones be more specialized. And tbh I don't feel like the number of viable artifacts has actually gone down--we just no longer have to sort through three crappy ones for every useful one.

This line of discussion is veering away from the thread topic, so perhaps we can reign it back.

@Melbar don't dwell too much on the ratio of positive to negative posts; it's human nature for discussion to center around complaints rather than compliments. Think about it this way; if people are voicing criticisms (generally speaking) that means they still care. While internet toxicity is easily dragged in the core sentiment of voicing criticism is an entirely reasonable avenue for discussion. Positive sentiment is there, but usually drowned out under discussion of flaws. Thus this thread, so positive can have it's own space where it doesn't need to compete.

While I lament the loss of details present in earlier tomes I do really like the fluff of the new ones. They are a lot more units to cover in the same amount of space, but the briefer rundownds feel like the best elements were taken and mediocre ones left out. They also seem to have tomed back the 'propaganda' a bit so the armies aren't described as unstoppable god mode all the time where even thoe lowliest mook is capable of murdering whole units by themselves (looking at you Slaanesh).

I am commenting on how to best use them (and certainly I do not intend to suggest 1" range is a GOOD thing, what I mean is there are factors which act as partial compensation for the disadvantage). I am not saying they are better than the other options, and as I stated I feel that right now they aren't. Point costs change, so how good the unit is in relation to others will likely be different a year from now. The warscroll and it's ideal use, on the other hand, is likely to remain the same. Anti-horde is not a role I would put them in for an army; it is a tactical option they have available but as part of an overall strategy they will fall flat if that is all they are there for. They are flexible, and like other flexible units the strength is in the tactics.

Mental image of big stabbas, but they are carrying a giant rocket instead of a spear.

Even with the 5+ it isn't something to do automatically, it really depends on the situation. They can also retreat, then rally in the opponent's subsequent hero phase should it prove advantageous.

It's for attrition combat. There are a lot of other units in the army who will want to swing early in the combat phase more than them, but vanquishers can safely be picked later in the phase because when the enemy kills models there's no loss of offense; those guys weren't attacking anyways. The unit is self-sufficient and can just go off on their own without needing support from the rest of the army, while being offensive enough to deal meaningful damage (especially with exploding when they die) and disproportionately difficult to fully eliminate. Two surviving vanquishers left alone can easily multiply into a threat again within a round as rally can happen in both players' hero phases. For such a straightforward stat block the unit is surprisingly high on the skill curve to get good use of them.

Vanquishers are fine, the problem is Vindictors are simply delivering more for the point cost.