I don't feel like you really addressed the core of what i said, but that's fine. We pretty consistently look at these types of issues from opposite sides of the bank so i'm fine agreeing to disagree.
I will say this in regards to the esports talk. Overwatch was ruined and extremely unfun to play all of the last 3 years because of all the changes made for competitive players. Most of the players I come across miss back when everyone in the game was op as shit and getting 1 shot by everyone was a common hilariously good time. A better example would of been say league of legends due to all of the micromatience they do as a whole on their game. Otherwise I don't think they're good to compare because the markets are vastly different and as much as I hate to say this. Warhammer is not for everyone
Was more a point that competitive balance generally happens from the top down, and that tends to lead towards better gameplay for everyone. The larger point was that player agency is important and often gets dismissed in arguments like this that minimize any given action in this overarching "the game has too much rng, double turns are unfair, armies are unbalanced" sky is falling talk. I dont know anyone that preferred overwatch from 3 years ago, personally. The "hope you end up with a good team" approach (before role queue) was pretty horrendous if you played the competitive ladder with any kind of regularity and weren't at the top of the top where everyone already knows what they are doing. But to each their own of course. Regardless, personal opinions on overwatch isn't really what i was trying to get at with what was said. I was trying to imply that we can discuss the short comings of AOS without totally minimizing the fact that people are good at this game for a reason and ultimately doing well or not doing well is largely dependent on the player and not the game. That's simply not the impression these types of complaints give off.
The best thing I ever did to improve at this game and others was to stop blaming rng for my losses regardless of any result and instead reflect on what I could have done better or differently to improve my chances of winning. I had a close game recently where I didn't make a single FoS 4+ roll, any of them would have sealed the game. But instead of blaming that, I figured out how I could have positioned differently or summoned a different unit to prevent the need for those rolls to seal the game.
Only on the first turn, maybe, and that's not given. You rarely can prevent opponent from scoring his objectives on turn first anyway. You will think twice before taking double. I have this experience from Blade's Edge battleplan. It is common for me to give up double turn in favor of burning opponet's objective. 40k had several missions which had scoring in the end/beginning of the battleround and it worked fine there, since taking first turn is always strong in terms of dealing damage.
One of the issues with the double turn is it makes it significantly more difficult to figure out what is and isn't working for new players, creating a steepper beginning learning curve. Getting a timely double turn can help cover a bunch of mistakes, and getting double turned can hide that you actually had a decent gameplan, but just need to tweak it to account for the double turn possibility.
Personally I don't hate double-turns, but they absolutely do swing the balance of the game massively in favor of the person getting the double. You win and lose games based on double-turns very regularly. Regardless of how well you try and prepare, getting two turns of magic and shooting piled into you before you can respond is often just too much to handle. I've seen several games that end with someone conceding by turn 3 because they got double-turned in turn 2 or 3. It's an interesting mechanic though. For the better armies and skilled players, a double-turn is just going to increase their dominance for that game. For a weaker army or less skilled player, though, getting the double-turn can often give them the edge they need to actually win.
It's all there. Unfortunately the KotET player didn't have time to finish the last two turns in the 3 days before the tournament ended so the victory went to me. I feel pretty confident i would have pulled it out anyways outside of some truly historical dice rolling. I was pretty easily going to score 16 points across the last two turns and IMO he'd struggle to score the 12 that he'd need to match my score. Definitely always a chance, but without being able to play it out we called it in the most likely scenario.
Double turns are interesting but I'm honestly not a fan. While I will agree they do add more strategy to the game, I find the downsides more impactful then the upsides. For me, the downsides are Waiting for someone to finish their double turn is boring. You're essentially waiting double the time to move your little toy soldiers. I really don't find it fun when I get a devastating double turn and either win the game right there or make it a slow crawl to the finish line. To me, it feels like I got lucky and I didn't actually win, instead some mechanic gave me the pass. I can see it in my opponents eyes, they're not having fun (and if they're not having fun, I'm not) I've been in situations (both for me and my opponent) where double turn meant a win or loss right there. Not fun. It makes magic & shooting a lot more devastating. Combat, sure you get the advantage of going first but that's fine by me, it's not a huge advantage Yeah, you can position your armies in such a way to mitigate that, but then you're just trying to avoid the potential consequences of double turn and, to me, that is design smell and not very fun.
Ah ok, at the end of the video they said it was a draw and you were gonna finish at a later date. Yeah that makes sense, you seemed to be in a pretty commanding position, I feel like you would have easily cleaned up the handful of marauders, chaos warriors and two shrines. I didn't know that was you either, I watched that game when it got posted to YT, that's pretty cool!
Thanks man! Yeah at the time we thought we'd be able to finish but some life stuff came up that unfortunately prevented that from happening. Would have loved to play it out! I've thought about what I would have done a lot haha
Not really a fan of the double turn mechanic myself. It does add some randomness to the game, and it is possible to try and plan around it, but the potential for situations that just feel horrible as a player is just too high in my opinion. Some games my opponent gets lucky with the dice and chews through every screen in his first turn, then obliterates half of my remaining army on the second turn without me being able to lift a finger. The game ends up feeling like all I got to do was serve my army up on a silver platter so they could praise Khorne with my poor lizards. My worst experience though was a game that started out really awesome. The tides of battle turned several times as both myself and my opponent outmaneuvered each other and got some lucky hits in that the other side deemed unlikely to succeed. It was really intense, and we both had a great time with it. In the end though, we realized that all our plans, moves and rolls so far were for naught. The game would be decided simply by who won the final turn. If I got it, I would get in range to contest an objective and I'd win. If he got it, then he'd score the victory points and it would be impossible for me to catch up. We both just kind of stopped, looked at each other, and wondered what had been the point of all the previous turns? We could have just tossed a dice at the start and be done with it. Killed the game for me for several weeks. The close combat phase was, in my opinion at least, improved with each player taking turns in acitvating units. It added strategy and gave both players a chance to influence the game. Similarly, Necromunda was (again, in my opinion) vastly improved by swapping to alternating activations. I'd love to see it happen for AoS and 40K as well. Pretty much the only game where I think it wouldn't work is Blood Bowl, and that is mainly because every action you take in that game is a gamble in of itself, since you could cause a turnover at any moment. I don't see it happening for AoS, but I think it could work better than what we have today.
To address this specifically, what if you had not played those turns? Why did you not look back on those events and think of what you could have done better to make that final dice roll so important? Was this an intentional last gamble on your part, or a calculated move on your opponents? Or was it just a fun game that the outcome didn't really matter and that last turn could have never come? Curious how many rounds you played. It sounds like it was a good game though.
That game was a while ago so the details have grown fuzzy, but I think this was the beginning of turn five. We had both pretty much wiped each other out, and each of us had a support hero as the lone survivor of the opposing flanks of the board. They had basically both succeeded in securing one objective each, and had now spent a turn or two just running to get into a position to help the few remaining survivors of the main battle in the middle. Then both saw the open objective at the back and started moving for that instead. Neither of them had enough damage take out the other before the game would end, so it was just down to who got there first, which would be decided by who got to go first in the last turn. For the record, I lost that roll, but it would have felt bad even if I had won it. And the game was just a friendly local match. Nothing at stake whatsoever.
It sounds like it was definitely down to the wire. I don't disagree that the double turn can create some situations like that, but the rest of the game seemed to be positively affected by it. Surviving to Turn 5 is always good for the game. Being decided turn 2-3 as a juxtaposition.
This is a winner mentality and IMO is very rare to come across, unfortunatenly. Many people both in AoS and in life choose to blame everything else but themselves and would rather whinge than to try to improve.
I prefer Matt off of miniwargamings philosophy. It's a game. It's meant to be fun. So focus on the fun and accept what you cannot change. Makes the negative aspects that are inevitably experienced bearable and easy to shrug off. Edit God I love your name