Double Turn Overhaul Suggestion

[Vextol]

Edit: If you are a fan of the double turn as it is with no desire to modify it or you hate the double turn and want nothing to do with it at all in any format,  this post is not really about that.  Please let it go to those of us who are curious about modifications to the double turn to relieve some of its sting.

EDIT 2.  It seems like people are primarily interested in voicing their opinions about the double turn itself and not in good ways to rectify an issue that is definitely one of the largest in the community. Please please please, this isn't the place for discussion about whether the double turn is good or bad.  This is only to try potential systems to reduce the impact of the double turn for those who see it as an issue.  If you don't want to do that,  please don't hijack the conversation back into the debate about double urns

The double turn is a  discussion in Sigmar.  Almost dividing in nature (as many of the following posts suggest). 

My opposition to the double turn does not come from the concept, it comes from the means.  I think it's important.  I also think it's too random.  So, I have a suggestion to keep the double turn but modify it slightly.  It adds a little complexity, but not much more than a REALLY basic hero rewards table or a single unit ability would.  This is the crux:

"If you lose initiative but you still want it, you can offer your opponent a temporary ability.  If they pass, you get the ability instead." 

Then there is a list of abilities you can choose to give your opponent.  This can be two things...it can be 1 thing...it can be 20 things.  Just depends on if it seems too complex.  I was thinking (in fancy words) it would look like this:

Strategic Negotiation

                   Each turn after the first, after initiative has been determined, the player who lost the initiative roll may make a strategic negotiation to alter the initiative order.   If they decide to make a strategic negotiation, they may choose and offer one of the following abilities to the opposing team:

1.       Choose a unit in your army.  Add +1 to save rolls until your next hero phase.

2.       Until your next hero phase, Wizards on the opposing team must reroll any dice showing a 6 when attempting to cast a spell.

3.       Choose a unit in the opposing army.  This unit must be chosen last to attack in the next combat phase.

4.       Choose a unit in your army.  Until your next hero phase, enemy units must reroll wound rolls of 6 against this unit.

5.       Until your next hero phase, subtract 1 from the movement characteristic of all enemy models.

6.       Until your next hero phase, reduce the range of opposing missile attacks by 6”, to a minimum of 6”.

ADDED

7. Until your next hero phase, you can reroll any one die.

8. Choose an enemy unit.  Until your next hero phase, subtract 1 from the hit rolls of the unit in the shooting phase (maybe too much).

If the opposing team accepts the negotiation, the effect happens immediately and the player who lost the initiative roll may change the initiative order.  If the opposing team declines, the player who lost the initiative roll may use the chosen negotiation for themselves, applying the effects immediately.

The idea is that you absolutely CAN still have the double turn, and you DO roll for it, but the losing player isn't just out of the equation.  They can offer something to make your army better (or not really) or worse (but not themselves) that you have to give to them in order to take the double turn.  You CAN still get it, but they get a small, short lived buff that makes them feel less helpless.  Plus, it is kind of a fun meta game where the players have to think "what can I offer them that is least beneficial to them and most beneficial to me if they pass on it" OR "can I offer them something SO tempting that they just can't pass on it"

The nice thing about the system is that it kind of self balances.  Because the opponent has to first offer the bonus to you, you always have the ability to take it, thus removing it from concern and possibly giving yourself a nice buff/debuff.  If the ability is TOO good, it falls on the opponent to not give it to you if it has too much of an impact on the game.

So anyway, I wanted to keep the list of buffs/debuffs short and I'd like to play test this tonight.  Anyone have any suggestions as alternatives for the above six or is any one WAY to powerful or WAY to lousy?  I may turn it into a poll if people seem interested.  Also, total honesty, I did not look to see if this idea has already been posted and I apologize if it has.

Other suggestions from posters

1. Give +1 to the initiative roll of the player who had the first turn in the previous battleround -- so ties go against the double turn.

2. To reduce the likelihood of the double turn, use 40K's "initiative steal" at the beginning of each battleround. The player who went second rolls a D6, and gets the double turn on a 6 (or that could easily be adjusted to a 5+, etc., to give them a better chance at the double turn).

3. The player who goes second in initiative builds a pool of "rerolls" that can be used at any time.  So, if you go second twice, you'd have two rerolls.

4. Second player gets a universal plus 1 to saving throws.

[DantePQ]

I got all those idea but seriously double turn in my opinion should be gone, I like AoS a lot but in same cases rolling for double turn is almost auto win and not fun at all. Just give an army which is deployed first +1 to the first turn roll (and that will also make Battalions a little weaker) or/and ability form 40k that on 6+ you can steal first turn. 

[RuneBrush]

Simple answer is to house rule it.  If you and your group of friends really dislike rolling for priority just play with whatever system you want in your games - if you can't decide, roll off to see who gets to pick.

[Vextol]

5 minutes ago, DantePQ said:

I got all those idea but seriously double turn in my opinion should be gone, I like AoS a lot but in same cases rolling for double turn is almost auto win and not fun at all. Just give an army which is deployed first +1 to the first turn roll (and that will also make Battalions a little weaker) or/and ability form 40k that on 6+ you can steal first turn. 

Well, A lot of strategy comes from alpha striking lists.  I definitely don't want to give up and play styles.  There are a limited number as is.  Also, the double turn is sometimes the only way melee armies can get into combat.  5 inch movements mean you get shot,  move a little, the opposition moves back, shoots you again, you move a little forward and so on and so on until you are dead.  Melee models would need to move a LOT faster without double turn potential.

[DantePQ]

I just agree to disagree -  any army build on the premise of rolling  for double turn  to work (which is 50%) is just army that is flawed anyway. 

And alpha strikes in the era of one drops do not guarantee any kind success. 

Also double turn doesn't benefit horde melee armies like Murderhost or Fyreslayers as much as in benefits armies like DoT or KO who will anihilate you with double turn (especially in turn 2). 

Maybe there is a way to limit rolling for turn in last two battle rounds only (when it isn't that important) many games are won or lost by rolling for double 2nd turn which is lazy and bad mechanic. 

[Vextol]

1 minute ago, DantePQ said:

I just agree to disagree -  any army build on the premise of rolling  for double turn  to work (which is 50%) is just army that is flawed anyway. 

And alpha strikes in the era of one drops do not guarantee any kind success. 

Also double turn doesn't benefit horde melee armies like Murderhost or Fyreslayers as much as in benefits armies like DoT or KO who will anihilate you with double turn (especially in turn 2). 

Maybe there is a way to limit rolling for turn in last two battle rounds only (when it isn't that important) many games are won or lost by rolling for double 2nd turn which is lazy and bad mechanic. 

Ok...so...6 would suit you well!  Offer that to your opponent.  If they pass, you can pick their big unit to subtract range from their ranged attacks, bringing them closer or knocking them out of range.  If that seems to weak, we could consider:

7. Choose an enemy unit.  Until your next hero phase, subtract 1 from the hit rolls of the unit in the shooting phase.

[Trout]

Adding more complexity to the game? No thanks.

[DantePQ]

Yep adding more complexity would be just bad. Simple mechanic like +1 for deploying first and stealing first turn on "6" is just easy. 

[Vextol]

9 minutes ago, Trout said:

Adding more complexity to the game? No thanks.

 

5 minutes ago, DantePQ said:

Yep adding more complexity would be just bad. Simple mechanic like +1 for deploying first and stealing first turn on "6" is just easy. 

Nah.   Wouldn't have enough impact and doesn't solve the problem.  Actually introduces even more contention because a lucky roll at the beginning can undo entire army planning.  Almost removes the desire to complete placement, changes the entirety of how a ton of armies work, and makes the game less interesting.   One drop is a strategy.  If you can undo that just by rolling a 6?  Ugh.  I do not want to play that game.

'Complexity' is the new dirty word thrown around by everyone who doesn't want to consider a way to make a system better.

 

[DantePQ]

Complexity isn't a new dirty word , core rules are fine just need some simple rules added or some rules modified. Introducing long complex rules that take up so much space is what GW is moving away from. 

 

[Vextol]

6 minutes ago, DantePQ said:

Complexity isn't a new dirty word , core rules are fine just need some simple rules added or some rules modified. Introducing long complex rules that take up so much space is what GW is moving away from. 

 

Well, that was the idea.  Not to take up much space.  It takes up a lot more in a forum setting.  I checked it, it would take up like a paragraph max.  And the system was trying not to be complex.  Again, that was the intent.  You just offer a buff/debuff to your opponent to allow you to change the turn order.  It's just like a rewards table.

[DantePQ]

 Wh40 has similar ruleset and there is no double turn there. And it works just fine and alpha strikes existi there. Sure it's different system but changing the game plays isn't bad after some time - it's not like you will throw away your minis.

Paragraph here and paragraph there and instantly core rules aren't 4 pages but 12. 

[Vextol]

5 minutes ago, DantePQ said:

 Wh40 has similar ruleset and there is no double turn there. And it works just fine and alpha strikes existi there. Sure it's different system but changing the game plays isn't bad after some time - it's not like you will throw away your minis.

Paragraph here and paragraph there and instantly core rules aren't 4 pages but 12. 

I agree it can spiral out of control, but I'm not adding a paragraph here and there.  I think the system is great (shooting and all) except the double turn.  I believe it's the only thing that needs an overhaul.  So a little clarification or an extra rule to remove the sting was all I was hoping to accomplish. 

[stato]

46 minutes ago, DantePQ said:

I just agree to disagree -  any army build on the premise of rolling  for double turn  to work (which is 50%) is just army that is flawed anyway. 

And alpha strikes in the era of one drops do not guarantee any kind success. 

Also double turn doesn't benefit horde melee armies like Murderhost or Fyreslayers as much as in benefits armies like DoT or KO who will anihilate you with double turn (especially in turn 2). 

Maybe there is a way to limit rolling for turn in last two battle rounds only (when it isn't that important) many games are won or lost by rolling for double 2nd turn which is lazy and bad mechanic. 

1) You can build an army any way you like, having the double turn in the game can open options if you want to try something, so what if its flawed, most fun lists are.

2) KO may be able to Anihilate in a double, but they can still struggle afterwards.

3) I won a game at the weekend getting the 4-5 double, it was amazing, neither of us saw it coming. Due to the 2-3 double my opponent got the VP were 3-11 end of turn 3, switched to 26-18 end of turn 5, primarily due to a unit of Dispossessed getting subsequent charges off and getting 24" across the board in 2 turns! it was epic. Long live the double turn.

[Vextol]

4 minutes ago, stato said:

1) You can build an army any way you like, having the double turn in the game can open options if you want to try something, so what if its flawed, most fun lists are.

2) KO may be able to Anihilate in a double, but they can still struggle afterwards.

3) I won a game at the weekend getting the 4-5 double, it was amazing, neither of us saw it coming. Due to the 2-3 double my opponent got the VP were 3-11 end of turn 3, switched to 26-18 end of turn 5, primarily due to a unit of Dispossessed getting subsequent charges off and getting 24" across the board in 2 turns! it was epic. Long live the double turn.

I agree, the double turn makes for some epic battles and crazy turnarounds!  I like the concept a lot and it is unique to sigmar.  Do you have any suggestions about the system I proposed?  The person who rolls the double turn can ALWAYS keep it if they want or they can give it up for some benefit.  Shouldn't change the overall flow of the game so much as something like a 'set' penalty or a ugoigo or an alternating activation would.

[stato]

2 minutes ago, Vextol said:

I agree, the double turn makes for some epic battles and crazy turnarounds!  I like the concept a lot and it is unique to sigmar.  Do you have any suggestions about the system I proposed?  The person who rolls the double turn can ALWAYS keep it if they want or they can give it up for some benefit.  Shouldn't change the overall flow of the game so much.

If you want something useful but simple id just give the loser a 'command point re-roll' but with AoS-ish words . 

[Vextol]

5 minutes ago, stato said:

If you want something useful but simple id just give the loser a 'command point re-roll' but with AoS-ish words . 

Like "Until your next hero phase, you can reroll any one die." type of thing?  Cool.

[stato]

1 minute ago, Vextol said:

Like "Until your next hero phase, you can reroll any one die." type of thing?

Yeah, just use the 40k guidelines. Id not even give it a timeframe, just 'a re-roll'.  If they lose 3 priority in a row they would have 3 re-rolls to use if they hadnt used any yet. They could even save them to use in their own turn, re-rolling one of the dice on that crucial charge etc.    Its not as impacting as your suggestions, -1 to hit is pretty severe on big units, but it can still have an impact if you use the re-roll well.  And of course as with all re-rolls, it could just as easily fail like it did the first roll.

[Kyriakin]

Some kind of "dig in" or "shield wall" option, where the army on the receiving end of the double-turn gets a universal +1 to saves for the second of these turns, or something.

Just to take the edge off the disadvantage, without adding a lot of complexity.

[Vextol]

Just now, stato said:

Yeah, just use the 40k guidelines. Id not even give it a timeframe, just 'a re-roll'.  If they lose 3 priority in a row they would have 3 re-rolls to use if they hadnt used any yet. They could even save them to use in their own turn, re-rolling one of the dice on that crucial charge etc.    Its not as impacting as your suggestions, -1 to hit is pretty severe on big units, but it can still have an impact if you use the re-roll well.  And of course as with all re-rolls, it could just as easily fail like it did the first roll.

I see.  Seems cool.  I was hoping for something a little more interactive and the time frame was just to keep the system going/simple.  Adding a reroll is a nice touch, but I don't think it would help to mitigate shooting enough without also modifying shooting.  I was trying to avoid impacting the rest of the game as much as possible.  Plus, if you win priority, you CAN still get a benefit by agreeing to give up the next turn.  At least, that's what I was hoping for.

[sal4m4nd3r]

Without drawing the ire and sharp "tongue" from @Vextol,  I really have no problem with the double turn. Sure it sucks when it happens to you.. but at the same time when you get it ..its awesome! It gets my heart beating like crazy in anticipation of that roll! 

At NOVA 2017, my buddy was playing on top table for the win. The entire game came down to priority roll. Either his vampire lord on zombie dragon was going to smash into some tzeentch bobo's and win the game for the glory of nagash.. or the tzeentch player would have been able to block him out of the objective and win. Tzeentch player rolled first and rolled a 2. My buddy rolled a 1... he would have won best general and all he needed was a 3+.. thats exciting to me!!

 

Also the suggestion originally suggested in far to complicated for my taste. There are already a metric butt load of buffs each army can throw down. Add in terrain interactions and now a negotiation...ehh maybe I'm telling you to get off my lawn while shaking my fist at the sky.. but it just seems another layer I dont want to have to deal with and keep track of. 

[Vextol]

3 minutes ago, Kyriakin said:

Some kind of "dig in" or "shield wall" option, where the army on the receiving end of the double-turn gets a universal +1 to saves for the second of these turns, or something.

Just to take the edge off the disadvantage, without adding a lot of complexity.

I thought about that, but if you make it universal some of the best armies out there just get even better.  I actually had it written and changed it to a select unit because I thought "Wow...that could be nasty."

And I think the person who goes second should be entitled to SOME advantage, that's kind of the point.  But, they need to pick it for the situation and offer it to the other team first.  That makes the experience more interactive.

[stato]

Just now, Vextol said:

I see.  Seems cool.  I was hoping for something a little more interactive and the time frame was just to keep the system going/simple.  Adding a reroll is a nice touch, but I don't think it would help to mitigate shooting enough without also modifying shooting.  I was trying to avoid impacting the rest of the game as much as possible.  Plus, if you win priority, you CAN still get a benefit by agreeing to give up the next turn.  At least, that's what I was hoping for.

Your not trying to fix priority there though, but shooting, which is a whole different point.  Lots of people hate it, most people accept it, understand it, and play against it. Either through lists, deployment, counters, playing to scenario etc.   If thats a serious issue in your community then sound like you need list restrictions or just agree to play less nasty lists.

[Vextol]

12 minutes ago, sal4m4nd3r said:

Without drawing the ire and sharp "tongue" from @Vextol,  I really have no problem with the double turn. Sure it sucks when it happens to you.. but at the same time when you get it ..its awesome! It gets my heart beating like crazy in anticipation of that roll! 

At NOVA 2017, my buddy was playing on top table for the win. The entire game came down to priority roll. Either his vampire lord on zombie dragon was going to smash into some tzeentch bobo's and win the game for the glory of nagash.. or the tzeentch player would have been able to block him out of the objective and win. Tzeentch player rolled first and rolled a 2. My buddy rolled a 1... he would have won best general and all he needed was a 3+.. thats exciting to me!!

Hey!  My tongue isn't that sharp!  I'm just like a mamma bear defending her cubs (my cubs being...this topic I guess )

And I agree with the double turn.  I think it's important and it would still be quite good to roll the win for initiative.  I just want to remove the 'helplessness' associated with losing a single roll that has such an impact on the game.

[Vextol]

10 minutes ago, stato said:

Your not trying to fix priority there though, but shooting, which is a whole different point.  Lots of people hate it, most people accept it, understand it, and play against it. Either through lists, deployment, counters, playing to scenario etc.   If thats a serious issue in your community then sound like you need list restrictions or just agree to play less nasty lists.

Oh no, that wasn't my intent.  Sorry I put that across.  I have several issues with the double turn, I just picked shooting.  I don't like the feeling it gives new players, but I think it's important (especially for melee armies) to have in the game, so I wouldn't recommend "eliminating it" during teaching sessions as a viable alternative.  I don't like the feeling of 'helplessness'.  That's my biggest issue.  It's dice, so things can go awry, but in every aspect of the game you can usually do SOMETHING to make it better.  I never ran an order list without a starseer in the past just so I could have some impact on the initiative.  They removed that, and now it's back to luck of the dice and a defeated look from across the table when they/you get a bad roll.