Activating in combat is the only thing you reliably get to do, and even then your opponent will dictate which units are in combat. So the amount of control you have is limited even in this aspect. As for the other actions you can do: Endless spells aren't always present, nor can you necesarly do much with them other than simply moving them out of the way. Unbinding is an underwhelming mechanic and not particularly involved (though that is in principle a magic- issue, it doesn't help). Plus it relies on there being wizards. Faction specific counter abilities are far and few between (e.g. gryph hounds, parting shot) so again, not super relevant. In contrast your opponent can do, well, everything he possibly can. Twice. So yeah, it's 20 minutes of you mostly waiting and feeling powerless while your opponent goes to town on you. Yeah it is an inherent issue all turn based games face is the risk of allowing a player to do too much during his turn before his opponent can actually respond in their turn. And a double turn pretty much guarantees that player A gets to do too much because he now has two turns for players B one turn and thus by definition can do more than player B can. Which is the reason most games generally don't allow it, it completly screws up the flow of the game.... The things you do pre-emptivly you do not do during the double turn.... which is the point. During the double turn you just stand around looking pretty while your troops get slaughtered. Maybe you prepared well and the damage is minor. Maybe you screwed up and the damage is major. But that preperation is before the double turn, not during. Which is what people don't like. That during that double turn they might as well leave the room for 90% of it because they can't do anything during it. It doesn't matter that you can do something before to prepare for it. The issue is that during his double turn you can't do anything other than wait for it to end and pray your preperations were good enough to survive.
by that logic you're not ever doing anything in any turn that isn't yours but "hoping you survive" which still paints a bullshit picture of you just twiddling your thumbs while you take models off as if you had no control over the matter. I don't pray my preparations were good enough to survive. They either were or they werent, and if they werent it was a problem with my preparations, not the double turn. Unless there was some seriously outlandish luck, in which case it's a game with dice. Sometimes crazy stuff happens, i'm fine with a one off situation like that. If i'm consistently having a problem i'll know its not the dice's fault. edit: i'll try to clarify without getting so spicy. I'm pretty much always opposed to any kind of argument that minimizes player agency in how well you can or can't do in this game. "It's all RNG" or "all you do is hope to survive" are comments that minimize player agency. They portray this game as something that happens TO you, rather than something that happens BECAUSE of you. I'm a very big proponent in the idea that a vast, vast majority of these complaints are simple strategic or tactical errors rather than fundamental issues with the game. The game is intensely and deeply complicated and player mistakes are a big reason why games go the way they go. With a game so complicated, it's only natural mistakes are made and they are made at all levels of play. However, I also think it means that by minimizing mistakes you can minimize the impact some of these complaints (RNG, the double turn) have on your enjoyment of the game or how often you are winning. I'll also go back to there is a reason why, despite what armies are popular at any given moment, the same players rise to the top over and over again. If player agency wasn't the most important factor in these outcomes, you wouldn't see so much consistency. To tie all this back to NPE, i think thats why i still feel like teleports are the biggest NPE (specifically when combined with shooting). Teleporting + strong shooting is something that does start to mitigate player agency as it removes so much of what AOS sets up to make taking models off more difficult (ranges, los, etc).
I don't mind the double turn so much as I used to, and when people ask me "Are we playing with double turns" I'll politely suggest we do play with double turns, if only for the sake of playing the game as it was meant to be played. But it is kind've a feelbad situation to get slaughtered by a double turn because a lone die roll didn't go your way. Yeah, it can be mitigated on the previous turn, but it really just sucks that each round has a "fuck you" roll-off. And if it just went away in AoS 3.0? I'd shed no tears.
The RNG is not the main issue. Nor is the power of the double turn the biggest issue. As at least you can sorta manage those two aspects with good management and preparation. The biggest issue is that AoS already has a lot of waiting time while your opponent does his turn. And a double turn makes this way worse. Very few people like to wait to begin wtih. Let alone wait while your opponent has a go and murders half your army because he just got a major advantage. And that's ultimatly the issue. It's 20 minutes of your opponent doing his thing while you wait. It doesn't matter if you're prepared to deal with the double turn or not. It doesn't really matter if the double turn is a powerfull advantage or not. It doesn't really matter that it's completly RNG. Even if both of those are potentially issues in their own right. What does matter is that it's 20 minutes of waiting. And standing around that long while your opponent plays simply isn't fun.
I had to run errands but I lost passion of discussion about this subject. Apologies but my fucking aspergers killed this discussion for me.
Then that feels like a different argument than "all you can do is pray and hope to survive." I don't mind the general mechanic of my turn/your turn gameplay so the double turn exacerbating that issue doesnt bother me. I enjoy watching my opponent try to puzzle out solutions while giving myself time to plan my next turn. Totally see that that might not be universal, but there are games that don't behave this way. Seems like the reasonable argument is to go play one of them (like LOTR) instead of wanting AOS to be something it fundamentally isn't. No worries dude, sorry to hear that. If the spark comes back feel free to DM me anytime.
the waiting on opponent part is even worse against opponents who are slow and not experienced. some people take 1.5 hrs to do a double. thats 1.5 hrs spent between your turns. im a big fan of timers. each turn should last 25 mins. if you dont finish your turn in 25 mins, dice down, finish whatever roll you are in the middle of, do battleshock and cleanup and next turn/round.
A lot of issue I have with the double turn (while still enjoying it mildly as a mechanic) is the issue I tend to have with most GW games. The IgoUgo way the system works is really rough. Taking your entire turn before your opponent does creates NPE interactions in my opinion, though I'm sure the same could be said of other systems. Breaking the phases up, giving a player a chance to do their own hero phase after the enemies, or having the ability to react to your opponents movement while going second. I think keeping the initiative order, and rolling for initiative is good, but breaking it down to who gets the first turn of each phase is a conversation that could be had. I doubt that would ever happen though.
Man I'd fucking be helping them do their turns at that point. Like "No dude you gotta roll 2d6 and add 2 for the charge. And if you make it roll 1d6 on a 4+ you do 1mw."
i think my mental math was wrong too. a turn should be 15 mins per person so that each player can do 5 rounds in 2 and a half hours.
Something that could help with that is dropping the ceiling on army point values. Make tournaments play at 1750, or even 1500 if people are having issues getting a game in 3 hours. At a community level this can be done though, working up to the big tournaments 2k.
IMO the biggest tournaments should have rounds that are 3 solid hours and you really shouldn't have much issue getting a 2k game done in that time. I think it definitely takes some practice with a list to get to that point tho.
Agree, big tournaments have the perogative to maintain their large values and 3 hour times. They can also tell someone they take less points for an unfinished game. It really needs a community aspect to take that, as your local players can help with their slow buddy to get faster.
It isn't a different argument because "wait and pray" is the experience most players will have in this situation. Especially the more casual/less skilled players who aren't as confident in their ability to prepare for a double turn. Essentially the following happens: 0) try and prepare as much as possible for a double turn 1) A double turn happens 2) This gives your opponent a major advantage. 3) Wait and pray your preparations were good for 20 minutes at least, possible longer. 4) Continue playing The more confident you are in your preparations the less prayer is involved of course, but ultimately it's not like you can do anything else at that point. You just wait, hope he doesn't get too lucky, and pray you didn't make any mistakes while preparing. It's boring cuz it takes long. It's frustrating cuz it's a massive advantage for your opponent completly dependent on RNG that you can't really respond to untill it's too late. And it's annoying because mitigating it ahead of time is difficult to do properly & not always possible for most players (remember, not everyone is a tournament level player). All in all that makes it a bad experience for a lot of people. Also, it further aggrevates the issues of shooting and magic being oppresive.. so that definitly doesn't help either. Honestly all phases can happen at the same time without the game losing out on a whole lot, similar to how melee combat currently works. Would do a lot to cut down on the waiting and general feeling of impotence players can experience.
You're right, everyone isn't a tournament player but every competitive game that caters to the more casual crowd suffers. Creating a game that works for the highest end will always work for the lower end because it gives them something to strive and work towards. It's a game that will have depth. Look at the most popular "esport" video games. Overwatch, Counter Strike, League of Legends, Super Smash Bros, even world of warcraft. These are all games that can feel random and frustrating for lower skilled players, but when those developers make changes the changes are often made based on data from the best of the best. Could aos use a little less RNG at lower skill levels? Sure. But I think your arguments consistently paint a picture that the game is something just happening to players while they passively roll dice at the mercy of RNG, the turn structure, or what army they happen to be playing. I want to say clearly, with no waffling about, this is a game that good players will consistently win at. It's a game that you have as much control over as you want. It's not a game massively dictated by RNG and if you want to work at your strategic and tactical short comings, you will see results. This is a game that you can work to get better at because this is a game that players PLAY. It's a game where decisions are important and I think this fact is crucial for new players to understand because it means THEY are in control. They aren't just rolling dice and crossing their fingers and hoping the dice roll sixes. It's a game that rewards smart, tactical movement, good decisions, and patient plans. If you are losing consistently it means you aren't doing one of those things, not necessarily that "your luck sucked" or "you got doubled" or "my army is bad." If all of those things make it a bad experience for YOU then that's fine. you are more than capable of speaking of your own experiences. But let's not try to broad brush your argument as anymore representative of "a lot of people" than mine is. edit: i'd also like to say, my POV is not coming from someone who is some incredible tournament gamer. I've worked really hard to get better and would consider myself slightly above average at the moment, but I feel like my personal experience reaffirms my opinion even more so. I was a player with a lot to improve on and i've made improvements that have had a measurable difference in my performance on the table.
E-sports are a blight upon the world that keeps ruining games specificly because designers seeking to create an e-sport keep catering to the mythical high-end gamer. Prioritizing "challenge" "skill" and "possibilities to outplay your opponent" over everything else. And in the process forget that the game needs to actually be fun or none of that matters.... Setting out to make a game competitive nearly always ends up ruining the game as it loses it soul in the process. Also, just to zoom in on super smash bros cuz its somewhat funny; the ones complaining about RNG in super smash are the die-hard tournament players that can't deal with a lucky pokeball. They go as far as turning off basicly everything that makes super smash what it is to remove the "unfair" RNG. The casual player base on the other hand revels in the RNG nonsense of super smash. Again, the issue with the double turn isn't that it can costs you a match, though that definitly doesn't help. It's not about winning and losing cuz of the double turn. The main issue is that it isn't a fun mechanic. Preparing for it is difficult, with little in the way of visual concrete pay-off (in general good defensive play is less satisfying than good offensive play) Waiting that long is boring. And an opponent suddenly getting a massive advantage you can't directly respond to will feel unfair. (To go back to super smash, at least you can try to avoid whatever item your opponent gets. You don't just have to wait and stand there while he takes his sweet time to use it in the best way possible.) Win or lose, those three aspects are still going to be there. And none of those are particularly rewarding or fun aspects. And that's what annoys the people complaining about it.