Scott has savagely trashed our beloved game, so it is the duty off all sons of Sigmar to light their torches, grab their pitchforks, and upload their rants. ANGRY REACTS ONLY BROTHERS.
I like the idea of forcing the "attacker" to take the double turn if they win the roll. That would give the "defender" more power in the priority roll and emphasize the importance of playing defensively. Using "defender" and "attacker" terminology (or similar) would also help enforce the idea. As an alterative idea, you could make it so if one side has a double turn, the other side would be guaranteed to have it as well, then it goes back to rolling. At least then if the attacker decides to play defensively in their double, the other side will always get the chance to have a crack at breaking them.
Yeah, I reckon its a fairly small change that doesn't really ruin any incentives. The main thing it does is that it lets the person going first KNOW that they're going to be double turned without letting the opponent know that they're going to get a double turn. You're still copping a double and that sucks but the pre-knowledge that it's coming means you can blunt it substantially. What you're supposed to do if you're going first and you want your opponent to double turn is to set up bait and incentivize them to do it but it aint easy to do properly. In example you gave I think I'd always want to be on the receiving end of the first double turn because 1) my opponent can't do that much with their double turn asthey have to spend the second turn mostly setting up for my double, and 2) knowing that I get a double ahead of time lets me do some insane shit: For example. If your opponent has a screen and a powerful unit behind it then it's normally a big risk to take out that screen because you'll get counter charged if you don't win the double. If you know you have a double turn, you can just kill the screen then proceed to kill the unit behind it.
While I agree with much of what you say, I strongly disagree on the "three ways to play" thing. I am almost exclusively a narrative player, and I appreciate that GW puts an emphasis on all three. It actually really annoys me how little attention the community gives to anything other than matched play, so, in my opinion, this is an area GW does better than the community acknowledges. This tends to be, I think, because competitive players just tend to disregard everything else (at least going by YT content creators).
Open play is the real offender here. New players can't necessarily tell that "open play" is a huge meme that nobody is interested in. I think Narrative Play is already fairly clearly not the normal game and there's not that much of an issue there.
I don't really care about the narrative play rules being alongside other stuff.. but I do think it would be clearer if they were part of a separate book like in 40k. Same for matched play rules, they already have a GHB, why not put match play rules in there, that would be even better cos they could update them more frequently.
