Really, really have to disagree with this. ATB is just as turn-based as, say, the FF10 or FFT charge time systems; it's not full-on "everyone moves once before anyone moves again" but essentially the only difference between the two is that FF10 forces you to Wait mode/ATB assumes that not acting within the first couple seconds is a deliberate Wait command.
Saying ATB is "just as turn-based" is a silly exaggeration that doesn't really work on face value. At the very least, it's a hybrid, thus less turn-based, than a game which "stops time" completely (i.e., turn-based in the tabletop sense, like Chess). The existence and prevalence of Wait mode both highlights this difference and shows it's not the best deciding factor in shaping the genre (including understanding what that genre is compared to other types of games, SRPGs in particular). Admittedly, this difference may be on more of a spectrum in effect (e.g., the actual combat speed and enemy scripting may make the "active time" pacing more or less meaningful).
FFX having more intricate turn order/"initiative" mechanics doesn't really change the fact that enemies are not "taking" their turn (sometimes multiple turns) while you "take" yours (playing around in menus) like in the typical ATB scenario. This chips away at the very concept of what a turn is, the clear division of player/character input. "Turn order", which you seem to be focusing on, without proper "turns" is simply a delay or time to act mechanic in a real-time system, albeit quite abstracted. It's been noted that the turn-based DNA is obvious in ATB, such as the specific actions not happening simultaneously, and I do think that's meaningful, but not so much as to transform this back into "turn-taking" (there would be argument if the whole game stopped during these actions, but even that's not the case); it's more of a matter of "priority", which is something that also exists in tabletop games where there is no turn-structure, but there is clear chain of events. When this abstraction of one action at a time is downplayed or even removed, as is the case with the later/last ATB games, it's still quite functionally similar. (The fact the FFXIII games are still considered ATB, roughly speaking, is key to my main point below.)
However, the point wasn't to pin down exactly what turn-based includes or excludes (and I certainly don't intend to say FFII is in a different genre than FFVI either, though I would for FFXV), it's highlighting the whole flawed idea that "JRPG" (or "Command RPG", etc.) and "turn-based" are synonymous to begin with. When people say "I wish it was turn-based" to some sort of "Action RPG", they are, at the very least, including elements that have nothing to do with turns (or "benefits" of being turn-based) - namely, the positioning and movement mechanics (the "football line-ups" seen prominently since the first FF) being simple or nonexistent. This stands in contrast to many types of tactical/strategy games before you even get into action games, and has been inherent to the traditional idea of the JRPG since they were first inspired by Wizardry. Without diving any further into the sort of confusion and lack of clarity this can cause, it's simply a bit moronic for turn-based to mean something other than turn-based, especially when the whole break out style of combat system in the series in question is advertising itself as not being a true turn-based system (active time is an awkward way of saying real-time).
To actually comment on the story in question: action game most often means very weak party/squad management. I hope they try to make improvements there.
