Age of Sigmar's Most Controversial Rule: What You Need to Know

Welcome to #TheHonestWargamer.
============================================================================
All our Socials in one place: linktr.ee/theh...
PLEASE SUPPORT ON PATREON: / thehonestwargamer
CHECK OUT OUR AWESOME WEBSITE: thehonestwarga...
JOIN THE TWITCH GANG: / thehonestwargamer
OUR PODCAST FEED: / the-honest-wargamer

[@BoldAndSpicy]

Im with you on alternating activations being the way to go in AoS. It already has one phase that has it so why not just expand it out at that point.

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

It would be rad

[@theDackjanielz]

its infuriating they havent done it yet, hopefully 4th?.................mmmm....

[@Goon94]

I was hoping for alternating activations as well.

[@RichardLay-sq2bm]

I don't like the double turn, but not for the gameplay aspects, but because it leads to a situation where as the losing player, you spend 40+ mins just sitting there, not actively playing the game, just removing figures. It's boring and can be a bit disheartening.

[@cooljoe500]

untrue since you have commands, heroic actions, unbinds save rolls and other abilities to do in your opponents turn.

[@HShaud]

Especially if you are Khorne, get blood tithe, move and fight in their hero phase, it’s not bad at all!

[@olafolafsson2755]

@@cooljoe500 Yeah Heroic willpower, fail to unbind, wait, redeploy 1" then wait again :D

[@Frai-ll3es]

Yeah remember the 2nd edition Matchup vs. KO? Both armies 1-drop, he wins the roll, you start but it doesn't really help since bad matchup. His army is backed into the corner, nothing you can do except some careful movement and 1 objective. His turn: Jump into position, shoot with 40 models with what feels like a 30 minute shooting phase, 3-5 different ranged profiles each. Also drop some bombs and the spell in the bottle. Priority roll? Too bad you lost, eat another 30 minute shooting phase. That was... Something else. Like playing against T'au with a bunch of Goblins or something.

[@PannkakaMedSylt]

Well you deffinetly not just sitting there in your opponents turn in AoS, you react and do stuff in your opponents turn. You can do Heroic action (picking example a hero that is in a dire situation giving him fineset hour, so he survies better), unbind enemy spells, sometimes damaging oppoent when successfull with that, Redeployment before they charge, Unleash hell (a better overwatch), activate defensive stuff like All out defense in shooting or combat round, And in combat round it's YOU pick 1unit, 1 pick 1 unit back and forth, not all the units that charged get to attack first, so it's quite tactical how you pick, and perhaps as the player charging, you want to charge with 1 offensive and 1 defensive unit, so you can attack first with offensive but stave off dmg with defensive and such. AND! in 4.0, everyone gets counter charge too, so you can charge with a unit in your opponents turn too! + more activations in your opponents turn then curently too from what they'v said, Most liklely you'll be able to cast some spell in your opponents turn too from what I'v heared rumors off. Plus double turn like mentioned has become slightly less optimal, so you'r far from guaranteed to lose just because someone double turned you. Infact I'v played with a HIGH drop army for the last 10 games, always getting double turned, and only gotten 1 in return in turn 4. But of those 10 games getting double turned by opponent, I'v still won 8/10! :D in 40k there is 2 reasons why double turn wouldn't work as good: 1: Dmg is even higher then AoS, really alpha striking twice would be just broken. Especially with point nr 2. 2: 40k is ranged dmg focused with some melee, while AoS is Melee damage focused with some ranged / spells, mostly shooting & spells does like 50-60% of the damage melee does per point, like you'r paying premium for ranged attacks, so screening is much more effective, this heavily mitigate how effective enemy alpha striking is and how effective double turning is.

[@DannySisto]

"The double turn is the only thing that makes an AoS game not 100% predictable" is a wild take.

[@rteishe]

I don't know how many folks here play or have tried Conquest, but parabellum absolutely NAILED "alternating-activations" gameplay. Really been into that game recently (as are bunch of people at my lgs now) because of the game flow. Nobody's ever just standing there, every turn is both players turns, and Conquests twist on it with the card deck/command stack is such a cool twist that adds a really interesting pre-turn strategic sub-game

[@DocPhantoms]

it's so good

[@DiceRidersJM]

Or asoiaf Tabletop!

[@yeled6131]

I think "fixing" the priority roll by having it impacting Battle tactics in Pitched Battle/Competitive play targets the wrong audience. The players who have the most trouble with the double turn are new and less experienced players. But in the new modular system, the base game doesn't include Battle tactics. As a result, the "fix" theoretically impacts the players most capable of dealing with a double turn while leaving the most impacted, lower knowledge players out. And then those new players have bad play experiences.

[@Dotification]

I agree. It's "let's tie our 2 most contentious rules together in a way that each impacts the half of the player base that hates it the most"

[@yeled6131]

@@Dotification It also leaves the "fix" out of Path to Glory. I know not everyone plays that, but I do and I know a lot of others who do. Which I guess is fine, because I don't actually believe the priority roll needs fixing. I just think it's weird that they are trying to tamp it down by lowering its impact for the theoretically high skill players while leaving it as is for everyone else. I would have done it the other way...lower its impact for your first few games, then open things up as you become more comfortable with it.

[@Nekorook]

I was teaching my daughter how to play AoS. She’s 7 so to keep her attention I used alternating activation. it’s a better game.

[@a.schmidt7217]

Alternating activations makes for some really fun interactions in warcry, would love to see AoS try it.

[@trecoulson1]

I'm a big fan of the adeptus titanicus turn mechanic, with a priority roll combined with alternating activations. Really makes the game great

[@stevenjeffrey9359]

GW games writers, 'We really need to get this priority roll and double turn thing ironed out this edition. Does anyone have any ideas? No? If only we had a tried and tested framework we could use to solve this.' It seems like the writers are smacking their head against a brick wall trying to solve this; completely forgetting that Lord of the Rings had priority rolls from its inception in 2001 and nobody has ever complained about it. It is exactly like when they capped modifiers at -1 after units became untargettable in 40k 8th edition because you needed to roll higher than a 6 to hit. They completely forgot that they already solved the issue in 1983; all 8 editions of fantasy and 2nd edition of 40k had the 7+ to hit rule, which was designed to prevent that exact thing from happening.

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

This is the best point actually. I should have added it!!

[@zakkaroo1980]

They just got through telling us that the rules are modular, and that you can take out the battle tactics module if you like. Only to follow this up, by telling us that the battle tactics module, is being used to interact with a crucial core component (priority roll), in such a way, that to remove the battle tactics module, will throw off the way they've decided to balance the priority roll. I'm all for balancing prio, but don't put the balance in a module you said we could take out.

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

The secret is, no one is taking it out

[@Malisteen]

maybe in competitive 2k tournament land. but in small games land we already know spearhead doesn't use battle tactics, and in narrative campaign land path to glory doesn't use battle tactics in 3e, and we already know that isn't changing in 4e. competitive 2k point players aren't the players who complain about the double, ime complaints about the double are coming from casual players, narrative players, small games players, and would be new players, and again many of those players skip battle tactics as a fiddly, distracting, time consuming ancillary mechanic, much like they also tend to skip mysterious terrain.

[@s6pavey]

Maybe without battle tactics it will be something else like -1 point.

[@s6pavey]

There are aspects of alternating activation now, i.e the fight phase. Maybe they will increase those aspects in 4.0.

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

Id love that

[@dialupsyndrome1910]

Fuck i wish we could have alternating activations in both systems. I wish they could just trial it as a new game mode

[@joelstorma3136]

As someone who just started AOS and played only 5 games i will say that i dont like double turns at all. Its very difficult to plan arround it as a beginner and it gives you a frustrating start in to the game. But i can see that its something that makes the game more interesting over time once you master it. But it also sounds to me, that experienced players dont want to let go of their skills advantage over less experienced players.

[@whiphore]

Once you get more games under your belt you start to see your fun from it at tournaments instead of conseeding turn 2 because I already know it’s over I can hope for a double turn and have turned it around all because of a double turn and makes the game remain to be engaging all the way to the last roll I’ve had games won and lost on the priority roll on round 5 had double turns give me a glimmer of hope in the last turn only to come down to my opponents last roll making me loose the game it can be an amazing mechanic sometimes and allows it to remain fun to play the game out instead of math hammering it

[@Malisteen]

there's a concept called 'survivorship bias' that I think is relevant here, because taking feedback from hardcore players about the double turn fails to capture the sentiment of people who would otherwise play the game but opted not to specifically because of this rule. Frankly tournament players and tts streamers are probably right about it being a positive and engaging aspect of the game in the context of 2k point competitive matched play games between veteran players who know how to play atound it. But for new players who lack that experience? Or players who only have spare time to play 1k point games where losing tour first wave to a double ends the game because you just don't have points for a second wave? I've seen this mechanic by itself drive away interested potential players more than once, and tying the double to a battle tactic penalty doesn't help when the new, small game, and casual-narrativr players who find it most off-putting generally aren't playing with battle tactics in 3e, and that won't be changing in 4e since we already know neither spearhead nor ptg4e will use battle tactics. So this change seems to be a big disincentive to the double in exactly the games where it's least problematic, between exactly the players who don't have a problem with it as is, while doing nothing to mitigate the double in the games where it's problematic & between players who hate it. hopefully ptg and spearhead will have their own ways of diminishing the double - maybe a glory point penalty for taking a double in ptg? maybe just give spearhead fixed priority? I don't mind the double myself - though i prefer shared turns with alternating activations like middle earth does (or like aos already does in the combat phase). Keeping the double, or changing it this way, won't drive me away. But it is a barrier limiting the growth of the game, and I wish the devs had found a way to solicit feedback from players who would play aos but don't about what holds them back. polling the games most engrossed & die hard fans is good for balance feedback, but not for whether the overall design of the game is aimed in the right direction. of couse those folks like the game as it is.

[@CarbonMage]

Good shout on survivorship bias. I probably would have fallen into the "newbies scared off by the double" category if I hadn't really wanted a spooky scary skeleton army. I didn't properly start playing AoS until the really bad codex creep hit 9th ed 40k, and my experiences with getting doubled to death prior to that might have been part of why. I love 3rd edition and respect the double now, though

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

Apart from you have no evidence it would be bigger and the game is massive and has grown loads with the priority

[@shimi3739]

But then does everything always have to be about "the growth of the game"? Is it really so bad that a game appeals to the people who like it for what it is and doesn't water down what makes it unique and enjoyable just to appease the lowest common denominator?

[@CarbonMage]

@shimi3739 I think it was Maro who said a game was better served by some people thinking it was 10/10 and some thinking it was 2/10 than by everyone agreeing it was 6/10

[@Malisteen]

not everything needs to be about growth, but a game without an inflow of new blood does wither up over time. and while there are areas where aos is healthy, it's very spotty. in my local scene i could get a game of 40k, 30k, or now tow whenever i like, but getting aos to happen is a struggle almost on par with middle earth, and yeah, the double is the most commonly cited reason why people don't engage with it. GW obviously cares about growth, what with the effort going into trying to make spearhead an engaging on ramp. I'm holding out a lot of hope for that, even if combat patrol was a let down.

[@MirelurkCakes]

I think adding such a big negative to taking the double turn makes the decision of whether or not you should take it even easier, which seems to be the opposite of what they're trying to do. Now you're only ever going to take it if you're gonna win next turn or lose next turn.

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

Exactly

[@MikeGeney]

"Now you're only ever going to take it if you're gonna win next turn or lose next turn." Which is exactly what every high level player i've ever heard advises... so this makes that less accessible bit of advice even more obvious IMO.

[@beaniecrab7597]

Is that not a good thing then? If its such a strong mechanic to use, now players will only use it to close out a game or as a last stand (therefore less frequently). Therefore, the mechanic is used less often.

[@Cerve909090]

Isn't already like this? Who is going to choose double turn if he is not going to win? Who's gonna risk a next oppo double?

[@zarbonian]

@@Cerve909090I’m in agreement with you. From what I’ve seen you take double to win or nearly win the game or to the point you push your opponent off from scoring for a turn or 2 which loses you the game. I really think this is a healthy change.

[@ronkent6714]

Just because something is a key element doesn't mean that it's not dumb. Having a dumb rule from the beginning is not a good reason to continue it.

[@cooljoe500]

But it's a great rule.

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

It's not dumb it works really well

[@jakea3950]

What a stupid comment. Arbitrary statements make for poor arguments, and no one will take you seriously.

[@getorix1]

Great video thanks Rob. As an old world player tempted to dip my toe into AoS 4 with a legacy army i can use in both systems these lead up videos have been great!

[@MagicAlfi]

Ok I am part of the current community. I know how to handle a double turn and win most local games easily since it is indeed a skill. However it is a stupid skill to have and you can totally win and lose close games on the dice roll. So as someone that helped the game grow I can only say... every edition I pray they remove that crap. Because it is the worst of both end of the graph. It prevents a plottable game like alternating turns have, however it also prevents a tactical granular game like alternating activations have. Of all the 13 systems i play from time to time AoS is one of the bottom 5 when it comes to being tournament viable in my opinion. A good tournament game should minimize the impact of dice rolls not use them as a mechanism to compensate bad design (lethality etc. Which is an absolute correct argument). I fully agree alternating activations is the best way to go for a competitive game however if you are to afraid to do it... alternate turns. Especially if you don't work on fucking chess clocks a double turn is often a spit in the face of a player that gets to watch 1+ hours of game time melting away if it happens early with a lot of stuff still on the board. It is great to have fun, it is unfair and random by design. Which makes for great moments with a beer in hand and terrible ones with a price up for grabs. Now I am not saying it trumps skill, or handling it is not a skill. I say however it is one we shouldnt require to have. It also makes it fucking hard to grow the community since once it happens against an aslpha army for the first time 2/3 of new players pack up their stuff off to greener pastures (skirmishers like MCP and Shatterpoint for competitive or Bolt Action and old World for whacky fun times).

[@Crunch2327]

Double turns are great, you get to spend 40mins carefully packing your models away nice and neatly. 👍

[@Alucard291]

aye and you get to catch up on your reading lmao

[@sub-optimalwargaming9311]

Warcry has alternating activation. And it is the GREATEST GW GAME EVER. So you can probably guess which side of the graph I fall on.

[@dr.d3039]

I feel like they're incrementally integrating alternating mechanics but we'll see when we get more info - one shared hero phase per round (alternating whatever will be happening then, maybe just some spells but not all if they move to ToW style phase-based magic), maybe something about charges, plus the current alternating fighting and command reactions. Interview with Jervis or maybe Andy Chambers said they really missed the boat with not moving to alternating activations way back in 3rd 40k IIRC

[@rotmirerob]

The worst thing about these tiny rule tidbits is we don’t have enough context for any of it to mean anything. Very glad they kept the double and the prio roll. But will a BT be 2/5 of the points you could score in a round? Will it be 1/10th? Are they going to still break tie breakers with BT completion? (Sure hope not)

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

Its a bit never enough

[@MikeGeney]

The swirl of panicked players is free marketing. The nervous flop sweat of reactionary gamers greases the wheels of the perpetual hype machine.

[@aseofspades4802]

As someone who plays a lot of 40k, it's definitely not as plottable as you say. It's still a dice game, and some things can't be predicted- like the secondary cards you draw, small decisions on whether to spend cp or not and the use of unit abilities. I don't find 40k fun because it's expected, I find it fun because it really feels like my decisions impact the game a little bit more than chance does. That being said, I love AoS for what it is, double turn and all. Changes like this one will likely just make the decision to take a double turn more difficult, but it's still great for gaining control of the game- even if lethality is low. I may end up being wrong, but making double turns more about combat and positioning advantage rather than simply grabbing points can make them more exciting and fun rather than leaving inexperienced players feeling cheated. This might also turn them into an interesting risk and less consistently the right choice, leading to more risk taking, which i think is one of the best parts of aos. Still, this all depends on the full rules which we'll have to aggravatingly wait for... Wish they'd just release them at once tbh. Sorry for the massive comment hehe I love the content though, thanks for covering the edition info.

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

I appreciate the thoughtful comment and love reading them so thanks

[@pawe6199]

It certainly feels bad if the other player gets to move their army twice in a row, shoot twice in a row and starts the combat twice in a row. Also. If you don't have the proper amount of lethality the game becomes a game of stupid body blocking on objectives and other shenanigans instead of actual fighting.

[@mitchbeau6534]

I'm still relatively new to AoS and learning how to mitigate the double turn is still an ongoing process. At the moment, for our group, it still has the bad taste of occasionally just causing a shut out from what was otherwise a fun game. Conceptually I like the idea, and a lot of the other games I play use something similar. My biggest problem with how it's implemented in AoS is that it feels too random, and I dont have anyway to control/fix/modify how the extra turns play out aside from just building my list to be one drop and choosing who goes first. My usual game is Malifaux and I think it does a great job of giving you options to help control the priority. Malifaux is I-go-you-go, so it already mitigates a bit of the issues with back to back activations, but going first in a round is still important. How they handle it though is that in the game you use a deck of cards (a standard poker deck) and you have a hand you can use to substitute in cards to ensure outcomes. When it comes to priority both players flip a card and then player with the lower value gets to 'cheat fate' first and use a card from their hand instead. Afterwards the opponent gets to do the same and the highest value gets to take it. So you can give up a limited resource (cards in hand) in order to try and guarantee the first turn, but you have to risk using a high enough card to get it, without your opponent sniping it by going over, plus you are giving up a card that could help you succeeded in an action later in the turn. I like this approach because it gives the players agency in being able to control the game. Its not free however and you do have to give up resources, generally very valuable ones, in order to do it, but you have that choice. I know AoS isn't really setup for this, but I'm curious on @thehonestwargamerstreams thoughts on player agency vs randomness when it comes to something like the priority roll.

[@nurglematthew893]

I like the parts where you helped me get better at AoS.

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

I love you bud

[@earnestwanderer2471]

Maybe they should introduce the triple turn?

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

A renegade i see

[@shawnjohansen2022]

"I don't think it's good, because it creates choice" I never thought I would hear those words in that order.

[@Toastergod44]

I'm not convinced that sacrificing 2 victory points from a single battle tactic is going to be enough for me to say "nah, I guess I won't seize the opportunity to completely cripple my opponent's ability to score VPs in future turns for the rest of the game" in most instances.

[@Daerthe22]

And thats why i hate double turn in AoS.

[@dustinchesmer7864]

There are so many games decided by 1-2 points. And in a 5 game event. If you want to take it, you have to max score to beat others in your tie breakers.

[@AsteroidTVGaming]

I guess you haven’t played against a good player that forces you to have a very bad double turn, then proceeds to double turn you the heck away in turn 4

[@Toastergod44]

@@AsteroidTVGaming my comment implies that the opponent has put themselves in an overextended position to be taken out. Get out of here with your smug, self-aggrandizement.

[@Toastergod44]

@@dustinchesmer7864 my point is that if the double opportunity is given to me going into the 2nd round, and I have the opportunity to completely cripple my opponent for the rest of the game, I don’t care about losing a few victory points. Later rounds are completely different conversation.

[@C.Satyr001]

Based on hints they have dropped (charging, magic, more abilities) it seems like we will have more interaction and things we can do during an opponents turn. I think this will help make the double turn feel better. Giving up points may not hurt as much either if tactics are harder to do. If you were not going to get a tactic this turn anyway then you are not losing anything by taking it. (Or if you gameplan going in is to get 4 because 5 is unlikely)

[@FlipityGibett]

Give units initiative scores instead of bravery. Units go in init order. Simultaneous combat is possible. You can spend points to increase initiative.

[@neiljudge5125]

I find it funny how this has all been called a total rework but everything released so far all seems to be minor tweaks.

[@fallen2205]

That is a very bold thing to say: "without priority roll you can predict what the next few hours are going to play out". In contranst i'd say its a gimmick that distorts games, some armies will benefit a bit, others will table you if it happens at turn 2-3. I'd argue that putting so much on a single die roll is going to distort games and if thats the big change for people facing each other again and again, thats very telling of strats and missions as a whole.

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

It's not bold it's just the situation at high level play. Listen to aow40k guys or top commentators discuss this. It can't distort a game as it's a function of the game.

[@fallen2205]

@@thehonestwargamerstreams think that is a bit like saying chess players know what the game is going to be 20 moves away as a negative of the game. GW keeps toning it down since AoS 1st ed. bit by bit, and I agree that a less lethal edition would make it less "roll of doom", but its a tough balance, I hated Old World style grind of pillow fisted combat, where modifiers to combat resolution did more damage than charging orcs.

[@jtowensbyiii6018]

This is literally proven for years by thousands of people 😂

[@fallen2205]

@@jtowensbyiii6018 in the video it was pointed as the more excitting and prefered way: "I play, you play", like chess. Guess I hate huge deltas of randomness, this is supposed to be tactical, not just playing craps, initiative rolls with double turns feels like the second. In fairness can only find "feels" based arguments either way, would love to know what the double turn win increase for AoS 3rd tournaments actually is.

[@MichaRabiej]

Thing is that if you include stuff that makes essentially random, likely to happen event more impactful, you need more games played between two players to see "whos better" - for the tournaments. If game is "more radom, but on average fair" it is becoming basically impossible to organize a tournament, especially if each single games takes an hour or more.

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

It's not more random as every player is aware how it works. Therefore the most successful and consistent constantly do well at events. Not because of it randomly but because they understand it

[@dialupsyndrome1910]

I also like high lethality because as the board gets thinned out turns get quicker. If i played a game starting with 20 units qndni finish with 17 it will take all day

[@theDEUBabides]

I know the prio is a contentious point in AoS, but as a player whos only been playing for 2 years and a former 40k guy, I love it. It is an added layer to consider when you build an army and approach a game. We have all won and lost games because of it and each of those cases are learning points. I am happy its staying an look forward to see how this new change affects it. I've said this to the haters before, and Rob speaks to this too, but the double is a staple of AoS. The game wouldn't be the same without it in some way.

[@scottmills4164]

So im not a big fan of the double turn. Too many games won with a single d6 roll. I know you have to prepare for it etc. but it is just so strong in certain armies. Having said that, i really like some of what has happened recently. I really like the battle plans that give advantage to the second player, activating objectives, or choosing one to be worth more points, whatever it may be. Also gaining an additional command point, these are all great changes that give you something. I would just like to see more of that rather than something so dramatic. Some better interactions have been promised on your opponents turn, i think thay would be great and make it all feel mich better. No battle tactic seems extreme.

[@thel1chking]

How are people still not playing OPR comp?

[@kevino13]

I feel like, if they want to tie the double turn decision-making to Battle Tactics, then the Priority Roll should be part of the Battle Tactic Module, and Spearhead & Path to Glory can be casual modes where you don't worry about any of that.

[@jamiec-r7455]

Great video and always interesting to hear your insights! I disagree though about double turns being a good game mechanic, on the grounds you have an equal opportunity. The example being, we could have a rule where whoever rolls a 6 immediately wins the game. It's a balanced rule because we have an equal chance to win, but it would be a bad game mechanic for obvious reasons. Mechanically, double turn feels like the worst aspects of IGOUGO or full army activation. You still have the experience of watching your opponent remove your models for 25 mins and you still watch enemy units occasionally double their output at random. You're spot on about balancing the lethality of armies that can do too much damage, but the game designers now have to accommodate that every single army can do everything it wants to twice, based off an arbitrary dice roll. That seems harder to balance because the variables for output are so much higher. Even if it's a balanced decision to make, it creates a negative play experience. And as others have said, it punishes less experienced players way more.

[@Derogue23]

I’m shocked you didn’t cite Warcry as an alternating activation game. I actually love that aspect of Warcry, and it feels much more tactical. When it comes to the double turn, I am a fan of it in theory, but it can feel really bad when you play against a shooting & Magic heavy army which you can’t interact with. So my thought would be this - Turns are still turns, but make the shooting phase and magic phase more dynamic (like the combat phase) where both armies get to shoot and cast one after another. This would reduce the ridiculousness of being shot off the board by your turn going second turn 2. This might feel bad if your opponent has a lot of shooting and you don’t have much, but a mechanic which could reduce that would be something like only allowing the opponent to shoot once per shot on your turn from a friendly unit.

[@JustAdam3D]

Personally, the Double Turn is one of the things I love most about AoS. I play a lot of fighting games and have done for a lot longer than Warhammer. Every time I get to use a DT properly it's like I just popped X-Factor in Marvel Vs Capcom 3. It's an amazing comeback mechanic that can just as equally screw you over if you don't use it properly. It's great, and I haven't started 40k yet but I can already tell I'm gonna miss it whenever I do. I think them adding even more risk to the mechanic just makes it all the more hype when you get the chance to use it properly and I can't wait to see how it affects the game in 4th.

[@DablHelix]

One turn, each player goes either alternating by activation or by phase by their army. Would massively decrease down-times and increase interactions. Would love this. I'm a die hard adversary of the priority roll. It is a design flaw introduced with AoS that is haunting the game ever since. You see how much effort it is required to alleviate the impact of a double turn has on the game. And even if they get it right this time, that it is balanced it will still feel shitty, waiting two consecutive turns of your opponent and doing nearly nothing..

[@canceledlogic7656]

Double turn but -1 to hit? For tiredness?

[@ZXRshaun]

They did say about losing the battle tactic, only if you choose to double, so your opponent cant stop you getting the battle tactic. "when you choose to take a double turn, you give up your opportunity to pick a battle tactic for the turn" (5th paragraph in to the article)

[@Malisteen]

that's how they described it, and hopefully how it works, but we won't really know until we get the actual rules text

[@bat33.12]

Hopefully they don't give some armies a rule which bypasses this battle tactic rule and keeps everyone on a level playing field

[@gideonsmit9910]

Even in chess white wins over black more statistically because of first turn bias. I don't mind priority roll. Like you said, it makes it spicy :)

[@shorelessskies]

“Lemon twist” 😂

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

Sour to the taste

[@danh945]

I am a fan of alternate activations, but the problem nobody ever seems to talk about is that this system takes a lot longer that either of the ones mentioned here for 40k or AoS. That's a bad thing. It's actually a really bad thing. And it's bad for GW as well because games would need fewer models and so they are going to sell less (this is the real reason they keep damage output so insanely high; to have more models at the start of the game and therefore in your collection whilst keeping games to a couple of hours). If anyone disagrees then just try a practice game or 5 with your normal 2k force with AA and time the game. There's a reason why the games mentioned by Rob with AA are skirmish level games.

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

AOS and 40k are skirmish games. You just have more models to represent a ruleset

[@danh945]

@@thehonestwargamerstreams It's a skirmish game, with 80 individual models on each side! Dude, come on. You say you welcome conversation and feedback.

[@EdwardEast-x1j]

I do like the priority roll but really like the alternative turn! Will be interesting to see what comes!

[@lordinquisitor838]

Alternate activations would definitely help as any balance discussion aside the double turn for me is just not very fun, especially when playing a heavy magic or ranged army. I play only casual games and someone just having to watch while you play the game for 45+ mins is just crap

[@TimsWheelbarrowMTG]

A query I have, which I’d love to get expansive data on, is on when players take the double. Is it whenever offered, more when winning to close things out, or more when losing if you feel like you just have to. In my experience I take the double more when losing, as a lot of the armies I play don’t have the sort of output to massively punish when winning. All this means that the new change closes the door on losing players clawing things back to my mind. Thoughts?

[@3Rad1119]

Big differences that makes double turns more viable in AoS than 40K. In AoS, fight phase has far more alternations, in 40K all charging units get fights first. 40K has a lot more shooting than AoS. AoS you can often avoid shooting damage from threat ranges and screening.

[@danh945]

Also maybe the developers should ask people who don't play AoS (who are a much bigger volume of people) about the double turn. Asking people who love the game about the need for a core mechanic change is pure survivor bias. I know a lot of gaming friends who don't play AoS who got very excited to hear that 4th was a ground up rewriting of the rules, and their first question was all the same "has the double turn gone?".

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

It's not survivor bias. It's literally the player base that is actively spending money now what they want. Not a mythological other

[@DhammaTroll]

So many people opt out due to the double turn, me being one of them. Played tons of aos, but can’t handle the prio. Sooo boring warching another player go for another 15 min. If they added alternating avtivations, it would change everything. That would be awesome!

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

I'm glad you can see where I'm going

[@davidbruckner4687]

I love the activation and order system of Star Wars: Legion. This feels fair and tactical and both players are always active. I never understood or understand why Warhammer never adapted anything of this or invented themselve such a system to switch more often.

[@nicholasdorich7939]

I think this articulates my current feelings on 40K. Since 8th edition, there’s been an improved balance. The game is fairly “balanced” now, but when the game starts…i usually have a pretty good idea if I win or lose before a dice is rolled. And I’m by no means a top player! It takes the mystery and therefore, the fun, out of the match. 5:36

[@whitetablewargaming467]

I personally love the double turn, if anything the thing im upset is no double reinforced units. It was so thematic for horde armies to have huge units.

[@Margiak]

I believe that this change is not a weakening of the mechanics of the double turn, and instead adds a lot. (Excuse my English, I'm using a translator). In this edition when you get a double turn you almost never decide not to take it. It may happen maybe 1 time in 10, but in the vast majority of cases you don't even think about it for a second. This makes games unpredictable yes, but it also makes the mechanic a 'bonus awarded by a die', there is no strategy to it, most of the time. I personally like this new change a lot because it gives the choice more weight, it puts you in the position of 'having a bonus at the expense of something else'. This creates depth and also (in my opinion) more interesting matches, which don't always end up showing double turns when the dice says so.

[@mjpegasus1079]

Great video. Covering history of the priority role, what the binary states are of it at the moment and offering a more dynamic and engaging alternative. Alternating activations absolutely gets my vote, as does reducing lethality.

[@jamesderwin]

I’ve never met or played anyone who likes the double-turn. Most of the time we know who wins the game as soon as the someone gets a double turn. Sometimes we just play alternating turns, we also don’t use the GHB if we want a fun relaxed game.

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

Hey bud. There is a thriving event scene with thousands of players who all play with it and a double turn does not decide all or even most games

[@jamesderwin]

@@thehonestwargamerstreams I can appreciate that. Still, in my actual experience the double-turn creates more bad feels than good. Which is something I try to limit in a casual setting. It doesn’t decide all or most games, but it’s not present or at crucial turns in all or most games. IMO the double-turn is just a way to differentiate AOS from an increasingly converging 40K, rather than being a good mechanic. I don’t hate the double-turn but it’s not my favourite. I’m a big advocate for AOS, and a big fan of yours ✌️

[@jtowensbyiii6018]

The double turn is literally a game saver, many matches are auto loosing if you loose turn 1

[@jamesderwin]

@@jtowensbyiii6018 what if you go first and lose turn 1, then the opponent gets a double turn. For example you move up the board getting onto objectives etc in the first turn. Then the enemy which might be a strong shooting army, now has you in range for two turns. That’s an auto lose most of the time, and a far more likelier and unavoidable outcome than being saved by a double turn, which just sounds like your holding on by your finger nails in that case anyway. Double-turns punish the losers not helps them is a more likely scenario in my experience. Hence why GW are trying to balance it with counteracting rules, last edition and the next.

[@Spartacus3385]

Finally somebody says it! Yes! Decrease the lethality of units! Reduce power creep!

[@connorclifford]

I would like it if you could force the double turn on your ops to hinder their scoring. It seems like a cool way to punish players for being out of position. Probably won't work that way.

[@WindlordRyu]

Alternating Activations isn't all sunshine and rainbows either. I used to play Malifaux and at that time the game had a problem with Crews being able to abuse "waste activations" (think summonable chaff spam) to force your opponent to activate all of their models before you had to use any of your real models. The result was effectively that you were able to, at the start of every battle-round-turn, choose between passing your opponents turn followed by taking your own or having a turn of alternating activations, except at the end of an alternating turn you get to set up screens. I think the reason people hate priority rolls is because mid players get punished by bad players going full ooga booga and getting rewarded with a lucky double turn. And mid players really hate losing when their opponent wins a single dice-off because they simply can't get over their midness, because everyone knows there was no way to prevent this when your opponent rolled one single dice better than you. This article feels like a bit of a nothing burger to me. We don't know how much a battle tactic is worth, we don't know how available one drops are, we don't know about these "abilities that last until your next turn" they speak of, we don't even know if they're keeping movement blocking and coherency the same. Double turn is probably the most context relevant part of the game and they dropped this right at the beginning

[@jtowensbyiii6018]

Lmfao 😂 the opposite is proven by math and facts, if youre loosing going second on turn 1, youll waste your time playing 4 more turns

[@CatharsisChaser]

Good points all around 👍 I still think an alternating variant is the most interactive and strategically deep despite having a few issues with activation disparities You can solve this in a number of ways from ratios to deficit passes but GW seems to think their playerbase isn’t capable of addition much less division so we probably won’t be seeing alt activation hammer any time soon

[@saritor]

Ah, Hamelin rat spam. We get a mini version of what alternating activation abuse might look like during deployment, if people aren't taking single drop battalions.

[@Bazanti]

Yeah agree, MSU is a real problem with alternating activations

[@philtombershead]

There was a game put out by CMON a while back, which is sadly dead now, called Wrath of Kings. WoK has a fantastic activation system wherein you alternated activating characters (generally you had one commander and 2-4 heroes) and each of them had a command value and range which related to how many units (or in WoK's case, models) could activate with the character. It was brillint and I really feel AoS and/or 40k could be awesome with something similar to that. Currently, I'm learning to not hate the priority roll, as going back and 40k just feels kind of....stale.

[@philtombershead]

.... as characters died, you could still activate your army, but you had to do it one at a time if you didn't have someone to lead them. This lead to the opponent having much more control over the board, even though you would usually have more activatiosn than them. It also stopped certain units activating together which could stymy combos and what-not. It really was an excellent game and the minis were great!

[@Raskin1590]

I really do feel like chess would be a better game with priority roll and battle tactics. Also, it’s cool that Matt asked the people what not to change about the game just to make sure they change it.

[@crg1850]

I think they're going to move away from objectives and lean into tactics. I think it'll be something where you pick multiple tactics a turn and if you double turn you'll pick one less

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

I hate that

[@crg1850]

@@thehonestwargamerstreams its just a guess, but they keep saying things like "we want nail biting finishes" and didnt they say they wanted objective markers gone/changed unless I am mistaken. I think the scoring is going to completely change and you will be able to get more or less points based on turn order and battle round, and my guess is it will be by battle tactics because they keep saying "our feedback shows that people love tactics"

[@earnestwanderer2471]

I mean really... concerning the double turn... yes, people who play a lot of AoS, and really enjoy the system, are going to tend to like and understand the double turn. It’s like asking people who enjoy golf, if they like hitting a little white ball with a club.

[@jakea3950]

So what's your point?

[@earnestwanderer2471]

Rob reported that GW polled people who play (and presumably like) AoS. The results showed that most of them are in favor of the priority roll. But this is a somewhat meaningless statistic. It’s like asking people who buy grape jelly if they like grape jelly. Okay, maybe a few are buying it because someone else in the house likes grape jelly or because it’s lower cost. But the vast majority of of people will say, yes, they like grape jelly. I don’t “play” AoS, I more “fool around” with AoS. Sometimes we do the priority roll, sometimes we skip it, sometimes we do a blend of Onepagerules and AoS and use alternating activations. So clearly I’m out here buying apricot preserves. 🙂

[@convertediron]

The priority role does suck for casual gamers. Yea, it's a tool you can play around if you don't get it. But not everyone plays that way. People like to say, oh it adds a new level of tactical ability. More thinking equals a better game right? But the honest wargamer is right. He's never wrong.

[@ShatteredMatter]

I typed up a big response but realized ain't nobody going to read it. The TLDR is that I think making the double turn a trade-off is a good thing because it turns an obvious choice capitalizing on a single die roll into one where a player needs to make a wager on what matters given the current play state. Random factors that just suddenly give a single player an advantage make a game feel less strategic, which is fine in a narrative game with friends but feel bad in a game being player competitively at a local store or club. I don't think the argument that the status quo is familiar to players is valid for anything other than marketing, and at that point why not just re-release the 3rd edition.

[@DemandredTaim]

What I am hoping for is each mission has a primary and secondary scoring built in to the mission itself. Then battle tactics are reduced to a single point and you secretly commit to your battle tactic at the start of your opponents turn (battle tactics are not meant to 5 guaranteed and should allow for counterplay). It would also explain why if you take the double you miss out on the battle tactic as your opponent hasn't had a turn for you to set your next battle tactic.

[@jajen2003]

I don't mind it so much. My favorite game (ME:SBG) has a possible double turn or even multiple turns in a row. But there is a finite resource in the Might mechanic to alter the priority.

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

And everyone who plays it loves that game

[@DarkLolification]

Yes as other said, if it's such a negative to take a double turn, it's not a choice. Then there is no tension to take not too much risk in the event of a double turn. That's sad. What I would love to see is maybe a mallus, if you already took your turn you have -1 to your initiative roll. I don't know if it would be better.

[@aaronbarton150]

Alternating phases

[@09Lexwa]

If you feel behind, the double turn can get you back in the game. I like it, but I think I can live with both.

[@morerobotwarscontent1476]

You did not do a good job of advocating for the double turn at all mate but good effort.

[@francoissavard5893]

I do get your point that the issue is output but considering that this probably won't change, double turns will continue to be bad. Unless the remove KO from the game. Then it would be fine I guess.

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

Almost nailed it. " If this remains double turns are bad" no if this remains then the killing output is bad and other things are effected

[@francoissavard5893]

@@thehonestwargamerstreams Yeah but since the killing output is too high, the double turn becomes a bad thing. Double turn has potential but given GW history of balance, I think it can't be that good. That being said, end of 3rd edition balance has been incredibly good imho.

[@adrianscott4288]

GW: "We want to make AoS as accessible as possible for beginners..." Also GW: "SCREW THOSE NOOBS THE DOUBLE TURN STAYS!"

[@bigbadbo2]

all I heard was that Warhammer the old world and middle earth strategy battle game are the two best games GW has produced

[@captaincosmo6157]

Personally not a fan of Alternating activations (I get to move my guy, oh no i don't, because he hadn't activated, you made him a target so he couldn't activate), unless all casualties are removed at the end of the turn, that way everything gets to act . However, I think such a system could be clunky. However, if you just remove casualties at the end of the turn, you have some fore knowledge of what would happen to that unit, which could affect how you choose to use them, or if your opponent need bother targetting them. Perhaps a feel no pain roll at the end of the turn would give you an indication as to what might happen to them at the end of the turn, but now by no means certain. My preferred method would be alternating phases, with prioriity rolls for each. You still have to think in the same way (i might not get priority), but you don't sit around for an extended period of time. Accrue a units damage, at the end of the turn, make feel no pain rolls, and then remove casualties. Then Start over.

[@Wymorn]

Alternating activations would be amazing, 100% agree

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

Let's just be right all the time together

[@mactac]

The reaction actions are gonna be awesome

[@michaeladams1124]

I think alternating activations is far better than the current system, and there are lots of ways to manage the issue of wasting activations with spam. This priority system with reduced scoring could be very interesting with alternating activations too! In kill team for instance going last, then first in the next turning point is extremely strong and not scoring for the second activation would help even it out.

[@jordangoodchild90]

Love the double turn - massive tension for every priority roll, and is often temptation that doesn’t provide the perceived payoff.

[@CreakyGamers]

Defending the indefensible double turn??? just because it's popular doesnt mean it's a good idea.

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

It's part of game that's massively popular. You just don't like it. Loads do and therefore very defensible

[@CreakyGamers]

@@thehonestwargamerstreams It's a bit like a religion

[@Alucard291]

Its not even popular. The only people that like it are youtubers and sweatlords in tourneys.

[@Kurze0]

Oh no, I'm giving up 2 points. Anyway, I'm going to table you now.

[@bentleyhunter9370]

Ignoring that it's also using alternating activations, WarCry has an interesting version of priority roll. Accessing the majority of your abilities relies on rolling doubles, triples and quadruples with six dice, but the first player is decided by having the most singles i.e. useless dice. The wild dice that you accrue over the game allow you to alter your results, either creating combinations, potentially giving up priority in doing so, or securing priority by creating more singles. While I think this would maybe lead to a bit too much contemplation at the start of a 25 minute turn, it's a lot more palatable when alternating activations. Still, I'm not sure if Battle Tactics are enough of a counter balance. Interested to find out

[@Stanwize]

Double turn might be cool tactically, but is just not fun in any way. Being doubled or doing the double. Who cares about the philosophical BS, make the game as fun as it can be.

[@dontbelievethehype11]

true

[@doug_durray]

Played AoS for a few years after the End Times. Part of the reason I gave up on the game system was the stupid priority role. Would try again but only if removed from the game system.

[@Mukkanzie]

As previously declared in one of your earlier videos, Age of Sigmar’s success is largely due to fan/community involvement- initially providing points for units etc. In the event 4th is crap, what do you think the chances are that the AOS community moves to ignore 4th edition rules and continue to play 3rd as a game many of us already enjoyed, and could this be sizeable enough for GW to take any form of action?

[@michaelchampion936]

Alternating activation definitely won't work in 40k, and prob in AoS, due to the vast differences in models output and worth. When you can moce a 40pt model, or a 500pt model, going for alternating will just result in the game having super big blocks and super strong individual units.

[@thehonestwargamerstreams]

You can write rules around that though. No one's saying take the current rules and use those

[@sharp_shooter9715]

I don't understand how alternating activations would work in AOS. Depending on the specifics, alternating activations sounds like it could be very abusable. Do you mean like if i have 10 units and you have 5 units, we alternate the first 5 units and then I get 5 'free' activations before the end of the round? or do you mean we just alternate forever and certain units can activate multiple times before other units in the army?

[@Deus888]

In Kill Team there's an overwatch mechanic which allows your already activated units to shoot with a penalty.

[@morerobotwarscontent1476]

Some games have pass tokens, some games you get an activation token for each model and can spend it mulitple times on the same model, some games you have aset amount of activations, some games just embrace that armies with more units get an advantage and balance around that, some games have overwatch mechanics. It's definetely something which needs to be addressed when writing a game with such rules but there are a million solutions to your concern.

[@loopgru]

I started TT wargaming with OPR rather than 40k or AOS, and that system *does* include alternating activations. I still vastly prefer it and broadly think that the faster, more interactive mechanics of OPR are overall better, but I play primarily AOS for two reasons. First, OPR really has not nailed army or unit flavor at all at this point- instead of flavorful abilities or warscroll rules, you basically just have differently named USRs, so e.g. Daemons of War "Blessing of War" is literally the exact same thing as Saurians "Ferocious" and Dwarves "Grudge"- all are "this model and its unit get +1 to hit in melee." There's nothing like Gaze of Mork or Hand of Dust or Blightkrieg to give units individual identity- it makes it easy to balance, for sure, but at the cost of a whole lot of fun. Second, and probably more important... Player base. I can find people to play AOS with. ;)

[@MCXL1140]

I certainly think this is the worst possible quote" solution that could come up with. Personally, I would have liked to have seen it have a direct gameplay impact to disincentivize the Omega double strike. Things like your opponent is considered to have priority in All phases of the game even though it is your turn or maybe your whole Army suffers- one to hit or -1 to wound for the turn because you're pressing them really hard that kind of thing. This this just reads like a way to make it so double turns. Don't get taken in competitive play where you need every last battle tactic point. But in casual play, it'll be exactly the same as it ever was, a very negative experience to get shot off the board by 50 cannons shooting twice in a row.

[@whiphore]

Double turn has its downsides in the early game but people don’t see that that game you got out played in the first turn and now are just playing it out knowing you’ve lost isn’t always true sometimes in sigmar I don’t conseed purely because I know if I get a double turn I can be brought back into the game and sometimes even turn it around and there for I think even though turn 2 double turn sucks after that it can be the only reason to continue the game!

[@noe.hammer]

agree with everything you've said except I think removing space marines from 40k would be great !

[@mortthepirate6318]

Ok, I love Alternating activations in the other mini have l games I play, so I'm down for that. Implementation question: do you keep the phases and just alternate between them? Or do you collapse then into "unit/ model actions" and each unit or hero model gets a certain number of actions on each activation?

[@j.r.hawkins3098]

I absolutely hate the double turn mechanic spicifically for the reason you pointed out of sitting there for 50+ minutes, (or 1.5 hours in many of my games). I would love if they moved to alternating activations! Gives players much more to do and engage more with the game.

[@charles7928]

The problem with alternating activations in AoS is having an army like Sons of Behemat vs an MSU army. You could have an army with as many as 15 units. Then you'd still have lots of downtime and minimal interactivity. I dont like the battle tactic fix ulness they have been fundamentally changed from 3rd edition. As combat is already alternating activations the imapact is less than than with shooting or magic. I'd like to see the lethality of shooting and especially magic toned down and as a hail mary idea, make charging pary of the combat phase and therefore also alternating activations. I think they might be playing with this already. It could be much more impactful than the battle tactic change.

[@way9689]

Alternating activations would be nearly impossible to implement at the scale of armies. It works great in skirmish games, but falls flat when you go up a level

[@silvercreekirving5115]

was that talk with Adam on the channel? Would love to hear you guys have a longer form convo about this.

[@clamus68]

Double turn blows because it exacerbates all the failure points of the game design. In 40k 10th they reduced the lethality or raised defensive stats so much that it reduced lethality that an Alpha Strike isn't as common nor as final. The BEST format of the game would be I Go - You Go with greater reactivity. You charge a unit in melee combat during your turn and your squad gets beaten. Allow the Charged unit to then react thus pressing an advantage and wiping the original charging unit off the board. Then further allow the unit its full activation even though it's the opposite player's turn. Thus allowing them to consolidate into another unit and charging them or a full movement and securing a nearby objective. Allow that to happen for free once. Then maybe each succeeding combat within the same origin player turn, the Defender then has to roll a D6 to gain Reactivity on a 4+. Then if another combat occurs add 1 to the roll so to gain Reactivity on a 5+ on a D6. Then allow the last unit to gain Reactivity on a 6+ on a D6. Thus it allows the Defending Player to activate up to 4 units in the Reaction Phase of the Attacker's Assault Phase. Thus its not an Army wide double turn just select units. Have a variant with Shooting Units. That would allow for FAR greater breadth of results because you can't plot with any degree of certainty given the massive number of possibilities and realistically games might become MUCH shorter even at 2k points.