I see. The tactics game I'm used to have rotating as free action, or something you decide on after your action this turn, so it is passively part of your strategy and foresight (not turning your character properly biting you in the ass later is tuesday), so to how I see tactics games, putting this much emphasis on its cost reduces what comes from it, especially since the battles are active. Being able to spin your characters even when they can't act in my perception gives much more value to the act of rotation than just turning to the direction you want to go being worth an action. The feeling of not turning the right direction turns from something that "oh i forgot but too late now" to a main gameplay feature. "this character cant act, but I can still actively make it face the boss to minimize damage." By making it so, you can then make bosses that move and attack more, as I felt that they probably were so slow to actually act because you balanced them under the cost of a rotation.
Yeah, both being clickable and one being a "in case you can't see them" is much more intuitive gaming-friendly than a demand for the arrow only. And I haven't played either, so I can't say if you've clocked me or not. I can say that I don't have an interest in playing FFXIII at least, that must half count as me not liking it.
And while I was thinking of Final Fantasy Tactics in what I could compare the gameplay experience of, I was wondering if the tactics game that would have inspired you if you were an SRPG gamer were Fire Emblem and/or Tactics Ogre. Didn't even consider Into the Breach for this one.