Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 CMLR wrote:
Doubling down on double turn?

Haters gonna hate.

I think you will find if you ask players what major mechanic could be changed to improve AOS it would be the double turn, or the amount of paperwork required to play a game (what all the terrain special rules are, scenario points tracking, the each turn sub missions you have to pick).

I'm getting back to WTOW and to just turn up and try and destroy your enemy is so refreshing, and actually looks like there is some semblance of organisation in a fight.

So far its looking like a hard reset for the sake of it and nothing to be excited about apart from "we've done something about the double turn."

Quite happy to drag out 3rd edition for a while longer, but these days Modipheus and Osprey have been getting my custom as GW don't seem to want much to do with solo-coop gaming beyond Warhammer Quest, and the support for that has been crap. Its a shame because their efforts for 2nd edition AOS - during the lockdown - were promising.

That all said, I'm a Stormcast groupie and we'll be getting our toys first! 3rd edition's offerings are going to be difficult to top, but we'll see...

SamusDrake wrote:
So far its looking like a hard reset for the sake of it and nothing to be excited about apart from "we've done something about the double turn."

Quite happy to drag out 3rd edition for a while longer, but these days Modipheus and Osprey have been getting my custom as GW don't seem to want much to do with solo-coop gaming beyond Warhammer Quest, and the support for that has been crap. Its a shame because their efforts for 2nd edition AOS - during the lockdown - were promising.

That all said, I'm a Stormcast groupie and we'll be getting our toys first! 3rd edition's offerings are going to be difficult to top, but we'll see...

The biggest complaint I've seen about AoS 3 is that games take too long. They're trying to make shorter games with Spearhead but the core 2000 point game needs to be sped up as well. I don't think a couple of tweaks will fix that. If a hard reset can make a game that is playable in two hours, the change will be worth it. This is something that the old world has done very well.

same problem as 40k has, if you have single model mechanics, adding more models will make the game take longer

you cannot use the same rules for 10 models and 100 models and expect that to take just twice as long to play

and if Spearhead follows the path the 40k version does, than it would be the best way to play the game but no one using it because it will be ignored after release by GW and those who make money with GW games

I see they still want to keep the double turn. I wonder, is Aos...

GW wrote:But for now, here’s a bite-sized summary of what to expect from the best fantasy miniatures game in the world.

Yes, there it is! AoS is still the best fantasy game in the world. I was worried there for a second. But is it also the best version of the game it's ever been?

GW wrote:Sigmar might have lied, but we’re not – the new edition of Warhammer Age of Sigmar is coming soon, and it’s the best set of rules yet created for the game.

It is! I'm so glad nothing's changed.

 Geifer wrote:
I see they still want to keep the double turn. I wonder, is Aos...

GW wrote:But for now, here’s a bite-sized summary of what to expect from the best fantasy miniatures game in the world.

Yes, there it is! AoS is still the best fantasy game in the world. I was worried there for a second. But is it also the best version of the game it's ever been?

GW wrote:Sigmar might have lied, but we’re not – the new edition of Warhammer Age of Sigmar is coming soon, and it’s the best set of rules yet created for the game.

It is! I'm so glad nothing's changed.

I mean, what do you expect them to say? "We heard (some of) you like this game and edition, I guess? So here's another crack at it, no promises if it'll make you happy."?

Dudeface wrote:

Spoiler:

 Geifer wrote:
I see they still want to keep the double turn. I wonder, is Aos...

GW wrote:But for now, here’s a bite-sized summary of what to expect from the best fantasy miniatures game in the world.

Yes, there it is! AoS is still the best fantasy game in the world. I was worried there for a second. But is it also the best version of the game it's ever been?

GW wrote:Sigmar might have lied, but we’re not – the new edition of Warhammer Age of Sigmar is coming soon, and it’s the best set of rules yet created for the game.

It is! I'm so glad nothing's changed.

I mean, what do you expect them to say? "We heard (some of) you like this game and edition, I guess? So here's another crack at it, no promises if it'll make you happy."?

I'm confused. I thought I implied that the Warhammer Community article matched my expectations one hundred percent. I guess I wasn't as clear about it as I thought?

Dudeface wrote:
I mean, what do you expect them to say? "We heard (some of) you like this game and edition, I guess? So here's another crack at it, no promises if it'll make you happy."?

after what I have seen recently on reddit regarding Warhammer Community, some people really treat those as posts from the community telling the others the truth and not just a marketing site

so if WC says it is a success, done because of popular demand, or the best thing ever, than this is not GW marketing doing marketing but the Warhammer Community telling us the real thing

PS: and no I don't think Geifer made a serious post here

Chikout wrote:
The biggest complaint I've seen about AoS 3 is that games take too long. They're trying to make shorter games with Spearhead but the core 2000 point game needs to be sped up as well. I don't think a couple of tweaks will fix that. If a hard reset can make a game that is playable in two hours, the change will be worth it. This is something that the old world has done very well.

Was it any better during the "only four pages of rules!" days of the debut of AoS? I've never played so I'm genuinely asking as an outside observer who find it odd that they went from what they were (incorrectly) claiming as a minimalist ruleset to something that they feel needs to be debloated with the newest edition in less than a decade.

I think the whole "games take too long" could be reduced considerably with 2 things

1) Better writing and organising of the rules themselves. GW rules just end up with way too much page flipping, not helped by them not always having logical structure to the rules and not always having indexs or enough in-rules references to pages to find stuff and so forth.

2) More involvement for both players. Alternate army activations end up with one person twiddling their fingers only able to make reactionary steps. GW seems to want to fix this with more random things you can throw out like stratagems and so forth, but honestly those things don't so much involve both players as they do disrupt the gameflow. The double turn in AoS actually makes this worse because potentially one person has to wait for TWO hole turns to actually do something in the game that isn't a reaction.



If information is easily accessed and logical, thus cutting down on hunting time; and if game flow is such that both players are part of the game with less downtime then the total amount of time game takes can be the same, but you won't get the same impression of it taking too long. When you're stuck with nothing to do or you are flipping pages in 3 or 4 or 5 books to find one line of reference to check a rule - then you REALLY do feel the game taking too long

Still not removing the double turns? Pass.

 Waaagh_Gonads wrote:

 CMLR wrote:
Doubling down on double turn?

Haters gonna hate.

I think you will find if you ask players what major mechanic could be changed to improve AOS it would be the double turn, or the amount of paperwork required to play a game (what all the terrain special rules are, scenario points tracking, the each turn sub missions you have to pick).

I'm getting back to WTOW and to just turn up and try and destroy your enemy is so refreshing, and actually looks like there is some semblance of organisation in a fight.

AoS is somehow too simple and too complicated at the same time. There's a million things you need to remember but its such a resolution based game that it doesn't feel like you're making many choices. Armies kind of slam together then spend the game resolving attacks with whatever they engaged with. I get the value of the double turn, but the big flaw with it is that unless you can charge the opponent in their deployment zone, it really punishes going first by letting the second player set engagements and then quite likely go again immediately for what's an awful feel. If it didn't happen until turn 3 at the earliest it would be an interesting comeback mechanic, but honestly given the resolution based nature of combat its also not a deal breaker, it just leaves you feeling like you didn't have a chance to control your army.

It's a fun little game, but I don't really enjoy 3rd edition at all. In some ways I like what they were going for over 2nd, but I also prefer if the game is going to be simple keeping it straightforward. I feel like 10th found a happy middle between 8th and 9th and I'm hoping to see something similar with 4th.

I am pretty happy with seeing the Hallowed Knights unseating the Hammers of Sigmar for Poster Boys n Gals of the edition.

Some fluff https://www.warhammer-community.com/2024/03/26/warhammer-age-of-sigmar-what-exactly-are-the-mortal-realms-and-who-lives-in-them/

 Crimson wrote:
Still not removing the double turns? Pass.

That's because the double turn is an excellent game mechanic!

Which is why other GW games also use it.

...wait...

 LunarSol wrote:

 Waaagh_Gonads wrote:

 CMLR wrote:
Doubling down on double turn?

Haters gonna hate.

I think you will find if you ask players what major mechanic could be changed to improve AOS it would be the double turn, or the amount of paperwork required to play a game (what all the terrain special rules are, scenario points tracking, the each turn sub missions you have to pick).

I'm getting back to WTOW and to just turn up and try and destroy your enemy is so refreshing, and actually looks like there is some semblance of organisation in a fight.

AoS is somehow too simple and too complicated at the same time. There's a million things you need to remember but its such a resolution based game that it doesn't feel like you're making many choices. Armies kind of slam together then spend the game resolving attacks with whatever they engaged with. I get the value of the double turn, but the big flaw with it is that unless you can charge the opponent in their deployment zone, it really punishes going first by letting the second player set engagements and then quite likely go again immediately for what's an awful feel. If it didn't happen until turn 3 at the earliest it would be an interesting comeback mechanic, but honestly given the resolution based nature of combat its also not a deal breaker, it just leaves you feeling like you didn't have a chance to control your army.

It's a fun little game, but I don't really enjoy 3rd edition at all. In some ways I like what they were going for over 2nd, but I also prefer if the game is going to be simple keeping it straightforward. I feel like 10th found a happy middle between 8th and 9th and I'm hoping to see something similar with 4th.

With respect, I am glad you are not one of the designers.

AoS 3 was in great shape, unlike 40k...and I hate what they did with 10th...so nervous about this

Community: We want IGoUGo removed

GW: we listen and replaced IGoUGo (my-turn-your-turn) with random turns

Community: this is not what we wanted, we want IGoUGo removed

GW: because of popular request IGoUGo (my turn-your turn) sequence will not return for next Edition but we added Endless Spells to make random turns more engaging and balanced

Community: but we want IGoUGo removed

GW: we hear you and AoS will get a complete rewrite to make an exciting new game and despite some people want to have my-turn-your-turn structure back we will keep IGoUGo away because this is not popular in modern games but this time we will balance it with "scoring"

/s

It's like people have different opinions on what they like.

 CMLR wrote:
It's like people have different opinions on what they like.

He's a witch!

My takeaway from that post is that they should have made the game alternating activation with an initiative roll for who activates next so you could still have a double turn (or double activation as the case may be) without angering everyone who doesn't play AoS and is stuck on their preconceived notions of what a double turn means.

chaos0xomega wrote:
My takeaway from that post is that they should have made the game alternating activation with an initiative roll for who activates next so you could still have a double turn (or double activation as the case may be) without angering everyone who doesn't play AoS and is stuck on their preconceived notions of what a double turn means.

That certainly would justify dumping codexes as going to AA would require whole game to be redesigned from the ground up.

It seems they're just adding AoS to the new 40k style cycle where "even numbers = scrap everything for a major change" and "odd numbers = keep codexes until we re-release them as the changes are minor"

A really poor way to make a decent game, but it makes GW tons of cash.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
It seems they're just adding AoS to the new 40k style cycle where "even numbers = scrap everything for a major change" and "odd numbers = keep codexes until we re-release them as the changes are minor"

A really poor way to make a decent game, but it makes GW tons of cash.

Honestly, its not a bad strategy if each edition is on a 4 or 5 year cycle. Games need a major shakeup about once a decade. It's the 3 year cycle that makes it feel like everything is thrown out just as they're figuring out how it works.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
It seems they're just adding AoS to the new 40k style cycle where "even numbers = scrap everything for a major change" and "odd numbers = keep codexes until we re-release them as the changes are minor"

A really poor way to make a decent game, but it makes GW tons of cash.

Honestly, its not a bad strategy if each edition is on a 4 or 5 year cycle. Games need a major shakeup about once a decade. It's the 3 year cycle that makes it feel like everything is thrown out just as they're figuring out how it works.

That and the fact that GW are not the best writers when they do rules in the first place. Those 3 years often see things expanded on in expansion books and by 3 years honestly most of us would just like a new combined single book that collects all the messy stuff together into one place.



Honestly right now I think we are stuck with GW's 3 year cycle until something like One Page Rules makes some BIG inroads into the market enough for GW to wake up. Much like how it took Warmachine 2.0 doing really well for GW to wake up then (granted GW got a reprieve then because PP then rushed out their own 3rd edition and messed it up with a bunch of other things).

GW has found something that generates money; until it stops generating money for them its going to be hard to get them to change course. That or a few big names at the company moving on and a management attitude change toward rules.

OPR is not in any way a threat to GW, if anything it drives more GW sales since it just provides better rules for GW models.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
OPR is not in any way a threat to GW, if anything it drives more GW sales since it just provides better rules for GW models.

Yeah, this! GW does not care if people play as long as they buy minis.

 Overread wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
It seems they're just adding AoS to the new 40k style cycle where "even numbers = scrap everything for a major change" and "odd numbers = keep codexes until we re-release them as the changes are minor"

A really poor way to make a decent game, but it makes GW tons of cash.

Honestly, its not a bad strategy if each edition is on a 4 or 5 year cycle. Games need a major shakeup about once a decade. It's the 3 year cycle that makes it feel like everything is thrown out just as they're figuring out how it works.

That and the fact that GW are not the best writers when they do rules in the first place. Those 3 years often see things expanded on in expansion books and by 3 years honestly most of us would just like a new combined single book that collects all the messy stuff together into one place.



Honestly right now I think we are stuck with GW's 3 year cycle until something like One Page Rules makes some BIG inroads into the market enough for GW to wake up. Much like how it took Warmachine 2.0 doing really well for GW to wake up then (granted GW got a reprieve then because PP then rushed out their own 3rd edition and messed it up with a bunch of other things).

GW has found something that generates money; until it stops generating money for them its going to be hard to get them to change course. That or a few big names at the company moving on and a management attitude change toward rules.

I agree with this, though I'll also admit I'd rather play anything GW has put out since 8th than anything they'd put out prior. Granted, I'd also prefer to play a dozen games not made by GW, but sometimes you've gotta play with the crowd.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
OPR is not in any way a threat to GW, if anything it drives more GW sales since it just provides better rules for GW models.

Yes it drives sales of GW models. However if everyone is using OPR they'll stop buying GW rules expansions. They might only get the codex for their favoured army instead of all the armies they collect if they do at all since they aren't using them to play with any more. That was my point, it won't hurt GW's model sales, it will just impact their rules material sales and its not until those are hit that GW will start to make actual changes to how they do their rules.

Of course the fact that rules updates go hand in hand with model releases (esp for new editions) its a pattern that might well have a muted impact for some time before GW feels it; so long as OPR still drives GW model sales.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2024/03/27/what-does-newaos-mean-for-your-old-battletomes/

Battleshock has gone. That's interesting

Some stuff sounds like its just change for the sake of change like wounds going ot health.


The 3 inch instead of 1 inch close combat makes me wonder if this means we'll see larger unit blocks returning to this edition.