double turn update

[wargamer]

www.warhammer-community.com/2024/03/29/warhammer-age-of-sigmar-what-is-the-priority-roll/

An interesting change in the new edition. Tldr. Priority roll is not changing but taking the double means you can not score a battle tactic this round.

Hard to judge it in isolation but if that were how it worked in 3rd I would see myself choosing not to take the double most times. I would have to either be out of the game if I didn't double (big monster in my ranks type scenario), Or be confident I could wreck my opponent and make up the lost points in the final rounds.

Curious to see how this goes. It sounds like they are keeping some form of battle tactics

[dave]

I'm curious as to how the battle tactics are changing. I think they were mostly a miss throughout 3rd. In high level play especially, it was pretty much a loss if you dropped 1, while most armies got 5/5 without too much difficulty.

I'm guessing/hoping the secondary scoring system has changed a lot. Battle tactics might be something entirely different. Taking the double might mean the loss of a buff or something to make scoring easier. Who knows?

Can't see them slapping that stipulation onto the system as it now though. As you said, taking that turn would have to guarantee breaking the enemy's back completely, or it wouldn't be worth the points deficit.

[Jack Shrapnel]

Well they have to do something... right now I agree, in 3rd it seems like "miss one battle tactic you lose" and some are really easy and some are super difficult (I cannot even do my faction ones other than a single one that usually works out).

The double turn I'm resigned to. It isn't leaving and I really just play this game for fun. It's the reason though that I can only rarely talk a 40k player into even considering to play AOS. The models are cool and the game is balanced and really fun. But the first time someone gets double turned and gets wrecked, it sure leaves a bad taste in a new player's mouth.

I've yet to play a game of AOS where the person refuses to take the double turn. I'm sure it happens. I've just never had that experience even once.

They would have to make it an actual tactical choice as it isn't now. only exception I guess is if you had no targets turn one and get the double but really if your opponent hides way back and doesn't move they're already giving up all the objectives and likely the way games currently score, are more likely to lose because of that deficit.

There needs to be a cost to do that. Or it's not really a choice.

I'm honestly shocked we're in edition 4 of this game and they're still sticking by one of their most controversial (and by some quite hated) rules. I've yet to see anyone (even GW) articulate why it's good for the game. (as opposed to the benefits of not having it exist)

[Khalai]

Mar 29, 2024 17:14:05 GMT -5 Jack Shrapnel said:

I'm honestly shocked we're in edition 4 of this game and they're still sticking by one of their most controversial (and by some quite hated) rules. I've yet to see anyone (even GW) articulate why it's good for the game. (as opposed to the benefits of not having it exist)

The Old World really gives them free reign to double down on the double turn so to speak. It's too bad, I'm a fan of most of AOS other than the turn thing.

[wargamer]

I have had my opponent pass on it a couple times but all were on the 2nd turn where they had given me priority turn 1 so I had to close with them and they were still in a position of waiting for me to get my 4" movers closer. I have also seen it once or twice on turn five where they wanted the ability to sneak in there and claim an objective or deny a grand strategy without me having another turn to protest. I would agree that in the turn or two that the armies meet and everyone starts dying it is better to smash the other guy first.

[dave]

Giving up the double going into 2 is often a good choice. It's rarely a pivotal point in the game unless both players are playing aggressive and letting it all hang out.

Taking that double means having no chance for it in turn 3, where it is likely to be very impactful. I've won games in turn 3 because my opponent took the double in 2, gained little from it, and gave me the opportunity to take in next.

If you pass on a double, you know you're not taking one next turn.

But in scenario above an inexperienced or maybe even a player too focused on "it's a bad rule" is going to say they lost because of the double, ignoring the fact that it was their choice that put them there.

Hey Shannon, here's that thing you hadn't seen yet: youtu.be/fkY69JQo0Vg?si=v6umI5VbZsw1k-q8

[distractedcarnifex]

I was really hoping that Battle Tactics would go away...Guess not. This season's were particularly terrible. So maybe they learned from that? I enjoyed 3rd Ed, but sometimes it felt like I was playing Twister - stand on some circles and do strange things. Do one or the other.

I can recall losing in the final round of our Spring 2022 tourney because I took a double turn. This let my opponent burn an objective that swung the game. Curses! I'll get you next time. But it still usually feels bad.

As long as my Bloodletters still do a ton of mortal wounds on the charge I figure 4th Ed should be just fine. And if they get rid of elves. And magic. And magic elves.

[wargamer]

Yeah I was hoping to see battle tactics gone. So many of them just don't make sense and they were a beast to learn when I was new to the game. I just ignored them entirely and lost every game until I felt I was ready to store something else in memory. Now I tend to score 4 or 5 per game but my list is modified specifically to do them, which might actually be a good thing, but it does not make sense to run away from the important and iffy combat with your flightiest character because he needs to go score the stand in the corner and watch the fight objective.

Its a decent idea, the implementation doesn't work. Hoping for a complete overhaul. Might be a good idea to give the book ones a serious critical look before publishing them as well.

[dave]

I like the idea of secondary scoring. I had hopes for AoS 3, and I did like it more than 40k 9th, but it needs to be better.

I moaned about book battle tactics from day one. I'd hoped they weren't going to include them. It was always a bad idea. They just need to write a balanced set available to everyone. And by balanced, I mean actually achievable by most armies and builds. No more Sons standing in the corner for a year+ because all the game rules punish them for existing.

I have hopes they learned their lesson.

[distractedcarnifex]

I will try to retain my optimism. There seems to be cross-pollination in both directions of design lessons between 40K and AOS. I found 40K Secondary scoring in 9th Edition initially fun, but it quickly grew stale. A big reason was Faction Secondaries.

If AOS 4th Ed has a range of Battle Tactics that are achievable by all Factions and are not too convoluted we will be in better place. A card draw system like 40K 10th Ed could be fun.

We don't have the full rules on scoring, but double-turns will likely be more rare if we cannot score Battle Tactics when taking one. A double-turn could still be used as an attempt to swing the game, but it shouldn't be an auto-take.