[Poll: Double turn]

21 minutes ago, Flippy said:

Your approach seems to be mainly on the game as a mechanism, i.e. the internal gears, how they work and how the result (scoring) is determined. Nothing wrong with this per se, but this approach can easily lead to a disconnection between what's happening on the table and how you should act to win the game (or how the winner is determined). Wrapping the game around the priority roll (as you said, it must be considered in the listbuilding stage already) and then using abstract points to balance everything out makes the experience.... weird, I guess? Like, my army got slaughtered but I still won on points. Hooray? 

I don't know how to explain this properly, but when we play AoS and the kids come to check who's winning they examine the table, not a scoring sheet - a very intuitive approach in a wargame but not very accurate for AoS.   

I think what you are saying is right, I just don't see it as a problem. To me, the ability to win on points while losing on models is an upside. It simulates the ability to achieve your mission objective in a Pyrrhic victory. "I won. But at what cost?", you know? But to be fair, the AoS could do more to make that fiction easier to grasp. I think battle tactics and objective control feeling a bit disconnected from the fiction is a very fair criticism.

I get the appeal of a game where the rules are less abstracted. Maybe the fact that I prefer more abstract games is due to my own history with gaming, where for a long time I played really detailed systems with rules for every eventuality. And then I found that, in practice, those rules either never come up, or are not as fun as you imagine. And then I played more abstracted games and just found that I was not missing the extra level of detail at all.

But this is not really about the double turn/priority anymore.

[Poll: Balance vs Gameplay]

2 minutes ago, Gitzdee said:

I think the gameflow of AoS is somewhat unintuitive from time to time. Things like the double turn, removing models from the back of a unit, battleshock, mortal wounds, making weird coherentie chains etc dont help. I dont think AoS is not a bad game, but to me it feels like things dont behave as i expect them to. 

I agree, there are a bunch of areas where the game flows badly right now which will hopefully be addressed in the next edition. Battleshock and battle tactics are some of the worst offenders, whenever they become relevant people need to pause and go "how does this work again?" or "let me look at the list of tactics for a few minutes".

For me, in many cases, I am comfortable with rules that don't really make sense in the fiction if they at least play quickly. Like the rules for moving over obstacles in AoS, where you pay movement to go up, and then down again. Yeah, it probably doesn't make much sense that Pontifex Zenestra gets carried up a sheer cliff face in her palanquin, but do I really think the game would be better or more fun if we had list defining which units can climb and which cannot, or a rule to determine whether a unit needs to climb or just walk up an incline? I personally don't think so, and I think it's good that the designers made the trade off in this case.

[Poll: Balance vs Gameplay]

On 4/1/2024 at 12:24 AM, Gitzdee said:

Hi all i want to talk about something thats been bothering me for a while. With every edition since i started playing GW games, rules have been getting easier, streamlined, watered down or balanced whatever u want to call it. Has it actually been good for the gameplay in the end? Im starting to have my doubts. I used to like my bonesplitterz better when i had more thematic artifacts/spells and dump them all on a random hero i liked, it wasnt the best, but it was flavourfull. In 40k i loved the different armour values on tanks. It was really fun when u shoot a tank from the front or rear. I miss pie plates and flamers. I miss shooting bouncy canonballs though ranks of skeletons that in turn get ressed with by a bunch of necromancers. Yes it was a balance nightmare but my immersion in the game was at its best with those kind of rules. I do like what endless spells tried to do, it added a nice element to the table. Do we think 4th edition is bringing this back or keep watering down? What u all think about the state of AoS at the moment? Do u prefer balance or gameplay?

(Sorry my english is really bad today)

Edit: also want to add that i prefer more extreme statlines to represent models better. Give those chaos warriors a bunch of armour, thats what they look like. And bring back some kind of speed stat, bring back things like fear and frenzy. I hated stupidity with a passion but it i am still talking about those moments.

I don't know if what you describe is best put in terms of gameplay and balance. It seems more like a tension between something like maybe game flow and detail. By "game flow" I mean the desire to have the game run smoothly and not be interrupted by having to look up stuff or people stumbling over hard to use rules. And by "detail" I mean the desire to represent what is happening in the fiction closely by having dedicated rules and systems.

I think you always want both in every game. You want the game to play fluidly, but you also want the rules to reflect the flavour of the fiction. But when doing both at the same time is not possible, you need to come down on one side or the other. I think AoS comes down on the side of game flow (or at least tries to; it's not always successful) rather than detail most of the time. Older editions of WHFB and to an extent also TOW err on the side of detail more often.

Personally, I prefer leaning into good game flow more, which is why I like AoS better than older WHFB editions.

[Poll: Double turn]

On 3/31/2024 at 12:53 PM, Clan's Cynic said:

I've said this on various other threads before, but my point still stands. I've never known as many people get turned off AoS as when they find out or remember that Double Turn is a thing. Ultimately, if you're struggling to get people through the door due to a single mechanic that is already controversial among people actually playing the game, something is up. No amount of "trust me bro, you'll totally get used to it after you've played the game at 2000pts for a while!" is going to convince people who were already looking for an excuse to keep playing 40k or going to another game instead.

I also find the argument that people who dislike Double Turn need to "git good" very much contrary to what I've seen many of the same people try and sell AoS on - that it's a far more accessible, casual friendly, relaxed wargame compared to 40k.

Frankly, if the designers believe Double Turn is this amazing, unique mechanic that all their playtesters and influencers adore, why I have I pretty much never seen anybody pushback or gripe when it's been increasingly neutered every edition going forward? Everybody knows a GW hobbyist's favourite thing to do is complain about basically everything, so it's funny that - anecdotal as my experience may be - watering it down is largely seen as a positive. Why do they feel the need to do that if it's so good as the marketing insists?

I think this is a good point. It would definitely be better for double turn enjoyers to be more enthusiastic about it. I think people are too defensive when talking about the mechanic: For me, it's not just "you get used to it", I actually think it's interesting and fun. I think the game is better for having the priority mechanics it has.

But of course, taking two turns in a row is super strong. And, accordingly, you should have to pay a price to do it. This is already the case right now, by having to take Battle Regiment and being forced to give away the first turn.

I think the new rule where you also can't score a battle tactic is a good addition, too, because I think the double turn has a problem that is mainly psychological: If you are on the receiving end of a double, you feel like you have probably just lost the game. In my experience, that's not actually true most of the time and if you play the game all the way until turn 5, there is always a chance to still win. I hope the fact that the player taking the double needs to give up points to get it will make people feel like they have more of a chance to still win when it happens. Because I think that's how it is in reality.

[Thoughts on 4.0's New Rules]

20 hours ago, Big Kim Woof-Woof said:

My assumption was that something will replace the current Battleshock system. Surely there's gotta be something that reflects the psychological side of losing a fight. No? Maybe I'm too set in my ways. 

Including morale in the game as definitely one of the big innovations of WHFB. I think for AoS, though, it's less of an obviously good match in terms of what the game is trying to be. I don' think AoS needs battleshock (because it has historically been pretty irrelevant), and I think we are getting an objective control stat instead of bravery this time around, so maybe they have just decided that the juice was not worth the squeeze with psychology.

[The Rumour Thread]

9 minutes ago, Nezzhil said:

Building lists is gonna change, armies will be less constraint and it will be more FUN™ to build lists.

I hope so. I like AoS in the role of the Warhammer game where list building has a lot of freedom to it. Especially now that TOW exists.

[Thoughts on 4.0's New Rules]

55 minutes ago, Bosskelot said:

I can tell you for a fact that everytime I ask people why they haven't gotten into AOS despite showing interest, or they tried it initially and stopped, it is always ALWAYS the double turn.

It's a difficult situation, because on the one hand, I want AoS to be a game with a low barrier to entry, but I also think the priority system of AoS has a lot of good effects, adresses problems that are turn based games traditionally have and leads to interesting decisions in game. I think a lot (not all) new players could learn to like it if they gave it a real chance.

There are so many "I go, you go" games out there. Can't there be room for one game with a double turn mechanic?

1 hour ago, Bosskelot said:

At the end of the day it sort of depends what is the overall feedback they get about AOS and what their goals are for 4th. 40k had a player survey done on it halfway through the ed, but 3rd never got that, so all the designers ever speak to it seems are hardcore event players and seemingly have little to no feedback from the wider playerbase. They definitely pulled out a little bit of that "simplified not simple" phrasing for the announcement so there is at least a concern of new player attraction and retention

Wasn't "simplified, not simple" a phrase they used in the lead up to 3rd already? Regardless, I feel it's a phrase that mostly appeals to what players think they want, rather than what they actually want. I seriously think people generally overestimate the level of cognitive load and rules conplexity they can handle at the table. Or even, the level that is actually fun. Especially in Warhammer games, where you can take months just thinking about your army before actually playing.

[Poll: Double turn]

The double turn can be pretty contentious at times, but we should not lose sight of the actual mechanic everyone truly hates: Mysterious terrain.

The one mechanic in AoS that everyone just always ignores without discussion and coordination, even though it's right there in the core rules.

[Poll: Double turn]

For my personal experience, the more I play AoS, the more I appreciate the double turn and the dynamics it creates. It always feels impactful, but has not been the sole deciding factor in any of the games I played in the last 6 months or so.

In pretty much all games, there are two play styles that are naturally strong: Alpha strikes and ranged attacks. This is almost independently of the game in question. Alpha strikes are strong because of Lanchester's laws (even a small advantage in firepower gives you an big advantage when it comes to destroying opposing units; striking first gives you such an advantage by removing units from the opponent's side and the impact of this compounds over time) and ranged has an inherent advantage over melee to the point that ranged units in AoS attack half as often as melee units and cost 1.5 times the points and frequently still feel oppressive. The double turn is a mechanical that weakens both, because it allows the player going second to potentially catch up and makes it so that even slower armies have a chance to cross the gap/get through screens against ranged lists. If the double got removed from AoS as it is currently, I would predict that alpha shooting castles would just completely dominate.

With how priority interacts with list building and deployment (and apparently in 4th, scoring), I feel the mechanic is implemented well and leads to interesting decisions, which is why I overall think it is good to have in the game.

[The Rumour Thread]

2 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

The double turn propaganda is insane: Repeating the same opinion doesn’t make it true

But hey let’s add another 3 justifications which are necessary since everybody loves the double turn and there’s no reason not go love it. 🤷🏼‍♂️

It‘s very hypocritical.

Just play I go you go in your home games, dude. Literally the easiest thing in the world to house rule.

1000%, if they removed the double turn we would be seeing nothing but "going first is too strong, alpha strikes are too strong, shooting is too strong" every day.

[The Rumour Thread]

4 hours ago, Chikout said:

The idea is that a new GHB isn't just an update to how the game plays but includes optional methods of play that can be added to the game or substituted for existing parts of the game. A GHB could introduce a new magic module that can be used instead of the previous one but doesn't replace it. 

If they manage to make the GHB truly an optional module, that sounds like a big improvement IMO.

I have said in the past that I think it is kind of sad that no "non-seasonal" version of 3rd ed exists. Battle plans, tactics and grand strats are too closely tied to the themes of the season to play them outside of that. I'd love to play some "basic" 3rd ed, but you kind of need to homebrew it. Core book only just has too little going on.

[The Rumour Thread]

27 minutes ago, EntMan said:

Can't find it now, but I seem to remember seeing a rumour/rules leak that you can no longer ranged fire into melee. Do I remember correctly? And if so was it from a reliable source?

I don't think that's real.

[The Rumour Thread]

1 hour ago, ScionOfOssia said:

You mean to tell me that I can finally annoy my opponent by unleashing literally every Endless Spell in my collection onto an opponent not nearly ready for my bs? If you’re right, this will be unbelievably funny. 

 

1 hour ago, Cdance93 said:

This kinda tracks with the whole knowing whole spell lore leak. 
 

they would have to do an insane job balancing them. I’m not sure how they are going to implement this?

You can probably take them as enhancements if they no longer have point costs.

[The Rumour Thread]

14 minutes ago, Togetak said:

That’s not an index, though?

 

Honestly it kind of feels like people have gone insane about this stuff and squatting any plastic that could possibly be WHFB era. The start of 3e didn’t have people doomsaying all the slaves to darkness kits that got refreshed or anything like that

I generally don't keep harping on it, but @Whitefang back me up, who we can now definitely confirm has inside knowledge of 4th ed, literally said that Beasts will soon no longer be playable in AoS. And Whitefang did indeed back them up (through reactions).

IMO, the evidence is against Beasts staying, as sad as it is.

[The Rumour Thread]

13 minutes ago, ScionOfOssia said:

Yeah, RN it feels like my Bonereapers won’t really be able to contest against Horde armies- Who cares about killing 30 Zombies when my opponent still outweighs my Mortek Guard with the ones left? Or my 20 Namarti Thralls kill 40 Clanrats but still get outweighed by the remainder? I need to see the new version, because it could very much be punishing for Elite armies. 

If Bravery gets replaced by Objective Control, OBR will likely be good at it, and Zombies weak. So I would not worry too much about that.

[The Rumour Thread]

9 minutes ago, Grungnisson said:

On the other hand, it was a valid mechanic that could help underpowered units against stronger opponents (if they didn't have a ridiculous Bravery). It was a useful mechanic, when it worked, so hopefully its removal will be compensated somehow. 

In my personal experience, the coolest, biggest guys were always the one with the highest bravery. Underpowered units like grots, rats and normal humans were usually the ones that suffered. In fact, they got doubly hurt by both having worse bravery and losing higher numbers than elite units.

[The Rumour Thread]

5 minutes ago, mojojojo101 said:

Linking everything to a colour and shape is either going to be very helpful or the exact opposite. Can definitely see a situation where it ends up even more confusing.

The stealth reason for this is probably to save money on translations again. It's why they use symbols for Warcry and Kill Team, and in warscroll cards.

But hopefully it also makes rules easier to read at a glance.

[The Rumour Thread]

5 minutes ago, PraetorDragoon said:

Melee weapon ranges (I assume you mean the reach here) aren't really a holdover from whfb, but more an implementation from skirmish games without rules or additions to make the ranges impactful. (like, for example, the ability to hit enemies without being able to be hit back. The addition of pile in and ending a charge within 0.5" makes this moot)

IMO, melee weapon ranges were a mechanic introduced to capture something like WHFB's number of fighting ranks in AoS. But, at least for me personally, I don't think that implementation was ever very fun. It was always fiddly to measure ranges from individual models, as opposed to just looking at your unit and going "spears -> 2 ranks fight" like in WHFB.

[The Rumour Thread]

9 minutes ago, GloomkingWortwazi said:

Always felt like an awkward WHFB holdover they didn't quite know what to do with to me.

Yeah, same with weapon ranges, honestly. WHFB is a game that lives by its complex combat resolution, because the primary way to score is kill points, so combat (both the fighting itself and resolution math), movement and relative positioning of units need to be very detailed and nuanced. AoS is a game of area control (and recently battle tactics), so all these things can be simplified by a lot, since the mayor decisions are not just about taking points-efficient engagements and preventing your opponent from doing so.

 

[The Rumour Thread]

12 minutes ago, Tonhel said:

Same here. I currently don't see the point of renaming it.

The terminology was confusing before. "This unit has 5 wounds". Intuitively, does that mean it has 5 HP, 5 max HP or taken 5 points of damage? This is the kind of thing that established players don't notice after a while because you just get used to it. But it is a point of friction that is worth removing for newcomers.

Also, literally every other game just calls it health.

[The Rumour Thread]

11 minutes ago, Grunbag said:

Today update ?

Appears to be point adjustments for the Mortarch Regiments of Renown and a bit of cleanup that makes rules work like you would assume they work.

[The Rumour Thread]

24 minutes ago, mawhis117 said:

 

Fun video. I think the point about GW sending out a cease and desist against the sale of Chaos Dwarves is interesting. I personally believe in the Chaos Dwarf dream at this point. The evidence has really been mounting over the course of the last edition.

[The Rumour Thread]

2 hours ago, GloomkingWortwazi said:

My thought was more that it would be odd to maintain warscrolls for something like Mollog's (now made available again through update for Underworlds), yet still be missing a warscroll for Grymwatch who were missing from the new FEC book.
It's annoying having on again off again support for them. I would much rather they commit, or just remove them - but I'm thinking it will just end up like it is now where some are supported with warscrolls (Hexbane's, Rippa's, etc.) and some aren't (Grymwatch), especially if the upcoming Skinnerkin get/maintain support in the index.

I feel like removing their warscrolls from AoS or putting them into Legends is the way to go. The spotty availability of the models introduces an undesirable pay-to-win component to AoS if any of them ever turns out too good. Between range rotation and the fact that some warbands like Sons of Velmorn have still not seen individual releases, I think it would be better to just cut these awkward warscrolls from AoS entirely.

[The Rumour Thread]

55 minutes ago, selnik said:

MORTAL REALMS HAVE 8 CORNER

SIMULTANEOUS 8-DAY

TIME DODECAHEDRON

 

YOU ARE EDUCATED STUPID

- EUGENE "TECLIS" RAY, WISEST MAN IN HYSH

[The Rumour Thread]

6 minutes ago, DinoJon said:

Hopefully they either get a major rework or are just maybe left to the side for the next edition. 

Get them out of the game, TBH. We only have one and that's not enough to justify a whole subsystem.

Maybe just turn it into an endless spell that can fight and rampage like a monster. Or just delete it, honestly.