Double Turn Overhaul Suggestion

[Twitch of Izalith]

I agree with @sal4m4nd3r I love the excitement of the priority roll even when I am on the wrong end of it. I wouldn't want to see it diminished at all. 

If you really don't like it you can tone it down by never taking it yourself. If you go second on round 1 it makes it so your opponent has to give you a double turn before he will get the chance at one himself.

Or if your whole group don't like it just agree to a straight dice off for the first round and alternate after that.

Homebrew rules are fun to play around with if you are all up for it but its a lot easier to drop a rule or exchange it than to add something new. Adding rules can have a lot of unintended consequences to the balance of the factions. 

eg adding another way to get +1 to save is massive for stormcast who already have multiple ways to get it and have high armour to start with. Its irrelevant to anything with save "-" 

 

[stato]

Just now, Vextol said:

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.

Teach them the excitement of it then, the getting the double turn. Teach them how to screen, hide or protect. Teach them the glory of being murdered to a man, or the defiance of having everyone but your banner run away from battleshock.  Ive only been playing AoS since April 2017 and I was running bretonnians and getting knocked off the board regularly, it was glorious, especially when I actually got a charge off, I think I even won a game once!  I adore this game, there is just so much scope for fun if you invest in the game itself rather than just the win. 

Seriously though, if you are playing fairly equal armies the double doesnt really have such a devastating impact.  The issue arises when armies are not equal or are not played equally, obviously not a simple one to fix if you are playing a random at a store or event, but if you are playing with friends or in a club its easy to tone down lists for newcomers.

[Vextol]

1 minute ago, Twitch of Izalith said:

I agree with @sal4m4nd3r I love the excitement of the priority roll even when I am on the wrong end of it. I wouldn't want to see it diminished at all. 

If you really don't like it you can tone it down by never taking it yourself. If you go second on round 1 it makes it so your opponent has to give you a double turn before he will get the chance at one himself.

Or if your whole group don't like it just agree to a straight dice off for the first round and alternate after that.

Homebrew rules are fun to play around with if you are all up for it but its a lot easier to drop a rule or exchange it than to add something new. Adding rules can have a lot of unintended consequences to the balance of the factions. 

eg adding another way to get +1 to save is massive for stormcast who already have multiple ways to get it and have high armour to start with. Its irrelevant to anything with save "-" 

 

Right, I agree with a lot of that and I'm a big proponent against house rules (believe it or not).  But if you don't want stormcast to have +1 to save on a unit, don't offer it to them!  And if they offer it to you so you don't get the double turn, maybe take it. It just adds an element of strategy to a section of the game with, and this can't be argued, no strategy.  Rolling two dice has no strategy.  And everything else associated with the strategy of prepping for the double turn, hoping for it, stopping them from getting it, that's all still there.  The actual turn taking doesn't change at all.

[Vextol]

8 minutes ago, stato said:

Teach them the excitement of it then, the getting the double turn. Teach them how to screen, hide or protect. Teach them the glory of being murdered to a man, or the defiance of having everyone but your banner run away from battleshock.  Ive only been playing AoS since April 2017 and I was running bretonnians and getting knocked off the board regularly, it was glorious, especially when I actually got a charge off, I think I even won a game once!  I adore this game, there is just so much scope for fun if you invest in the game itself rather than just the win. 

Seriously though, if you are playing fairly equal armies the double doesnt really have such a devastating impact.  The issue arises when armies are not equal or are not played equally, obviously not a simple one to fix if you are playing a random at a store or event, but if you are playing with friends or in a club its easy to tone down lists for newcomers.

I guess.  I always hated being 'toned down to' though.  Made me feel bad.  And I've played sigmar a good bit and the double bothers me every time, regardless of army equality.  That may just be me and everyone I know.  I don't think it should be ignored as a "that's just the way it is so get used to it" because, from my experience, most people don't like that.

But again, in NO WAY is this saying to get rid of the double turn.  I'm worried no one is actually reading the idea   I don't want to get rid of the double turn.  I'd be very against that.

 

[rokapoke]

2 hours ago, Vextol said:

The double turn is a big 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:

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.

 

Many people have, over the life of this forum, defended the double turn. Many have also, as this thread shows, fought against it. There's no worldwide consensus. For myself, I see it as an obstacle that I have to learn to adjust to -- too often I rely on the roll-off to "win me the game," which tells me that I'm not a great general. Of course, my less-than-50% win ratio tells me that, too.

Say what you will, @Vextol, but your proposal looks rather complicated to me -- at the very least, it's significantly more complex than "roll-off and the winner chooses turn order in the next battleround."

I would recommend a much simpler compromise. Here are two suggestions off the top of my head:

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).

In both of these adjustments, the randomness of the double turn is maintained but the chances of it happening are reduced from the currently ~50% chance of it happening. And both are extremely simple adjustments to the current basic rules. To me it's clear that GW wanted the rules to be as simple as possible, so I'm personally reluctant to bring in massive complicating changes.

[stato]

4 minutes ago, rokapoke said:

I would recommend a much simpler compromise. Here are two suggestions off the top of my head:

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).

In both of these adjustments, the randomness of the double turn is maintained but the chances of it happening are reduced from the currently ~50% chance of it happening. And both are extremely simple adjustments to the current basic rules. To me it's clear that GW wanted the rules to be as simple as possible, so I'm personally reluctant to bring in massive complicating changes.

My issue with that though, less chance of getting a double back if youve been doubled.

[Vextol]

11 minutes ago, rokapoke said:

Many people have, over the life of this forum, defended the double turn. Many have also, as this thread shows, fought against it. There's no worldwide consensus. For myself, I see it as an obstacle that I have to learn to adjust to -- too often I rely on the roll-off to "win me the game," which tells me that I'm not a great general. Of course, my less-than-50% win ratio tells me that, too.

Say what you will, @Vextol, but your proposal looks rather complicated to me -- at the very least, it's significantly more complex than "roll-off and the winner chooses turn order in the next battleround."

I would recommend a much simpler compromise. Here are two suggestions off the top of my head:

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).

In both of these adjustments, the randomness of the double turn is maintained but the chances of it happening are reduced from the currently ~50% chance of it happening. And both are extremely simple adjustments to the current basic rules. To me it's clear that GW wanted the rules to be as simple as possible, so I'm personally reluctant to bring in massive complicating changes.

It is more complex than roll off for sure.  But, we could also say "At the beginning of the game, roll two dice.  Highest wins."  Obviously I'm exaggerating, but I don't agree with the idea that we've "maxed out" on complexity.  I think the game is close, but certainly not maxed. 

I guess if people could elaborate on where it's overly complex that would help.  I see it like the scenery table.  No one thinks that's complex.  Or the "mystic shield/arcane bolt table".

This is the rule, boiled down to its most simple form:

"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."

[Ryan Taylor]

I feel that whilst not too complex this will just add time to the game. 

This is also comparatively similar to the triumph table that you get for being less points. 

I don't think this would fundamentally change the game and just make some builds way stronger than they are currently.  

I also feel that this is just plain unnecessary and could lead to a redundant discussion at the table. 

This is from a Matched play point of view. From an open or narrative play point of view it could be fun but who knows. Play it with your group for 40 games and let us know. 

[Vextol]

7 minutes ago, Ryan Taylor said:

I feel that whilst not too complex this will just add time to the game. 

This is also comparatively similar to the triumph table that you get for being less points. 

I don't think this would fundamentally change the game and just make some builds way stronger than they are currently.  

I also feel that this is just plain unnecessary and could lead to a redundant discussion at the table. 

This is from a Matched play point of view. From an open or narrative play point of view it could be fun but who knows. Play it with your group for 40 games and let us know. 

I will check how much time it adds.  I would think it shouldn't add much more than 5 minutes or so.  Definitely something to keep an eye on though.  The triumph table was the thing I was trying to think of before.

I still don't see how it makes some builds way stronger.  I'd like an example, not from a dismissive standpoint, I just want to modify something glaring that I'm missing.  I only play matched.  I feel that in open play and narrative play the game is more forgiving and lighthearted so the double turn is not as much of an issue.

[Ryan Taylor]

An example would be a stormcast army with a 1+ save could give you the option of having the double turn or having to deal with 0+ save SCE. 

Or even helping out Shooting armies.  You can take the double turn but you will be -1 movement on that  main unit.

 

These are anecdotal examples of course. At work right now but will try to give more when I can. 

[Vextol]

11 minutes ago, Ryan Taylor said:

An example would be a stormcast army with a 1+ save could give you the option of having the double turn or having to deal with 0+ save SCE. 

Or even helping out Shooting armies.  You can take the double turn but you will be -1 movement on that  main unit.

 

These are anecdotal examples of course. At work right now but will try to give more when I can. 

Oh yeah, I agree,  certain situations would (should) affect different armies differently.  The plus 1 save to a unit against 1+ stormcasts is rough, but 1+ stormcasts are already almost unbeatable.  You need a -2 rend to even have a chance of hurting them without good mortal output.  And a lot of armies struggle to have +1 save so maybe you will take it if offered.  I bet some khorne armies would like that +1 save!

And you are right again about the shooting armies.  Probably would give you the -1 to movement because it most impacts you without impacting them.  However, if you keep it, now its harder for them to get away. 

That's where I thought it would be fun.  Now you have strategy in the actual turn order itself instead of just luck.

 

[broche]

I don't think the double turn is a bad mechanic. Having first turn is an advantage, so it's good it come at a cost (you can get double turned early).

 It's been mentionned in another post, the real problem with the double turn mechanic is that it's a tremendeous advantage to heavy hero phase and shooting army.

A close combat army will get only a manageable benefit from a double turn, while a shooting army can cripple you beyond recovery with a double turn. 

[Vextol]

1 minute ago, broche said:

I don't think the double turn is a bad mechanic. Having first turn is an advantage, so it's good it come at a cost (you can get double turned early).

 It's been mentionned in another post, the real problem with the double turn mechanic is that it's a tremendeous advantage to heavy hero phase and shooting army.

A close combat army will get only a manageable benefit from a double turn, while a shooting army can cripple you beyond recovery with a double turn. 

I think melee armies need the double turn a lot.  It's very hard to cover ground or recover from a failed charge if you don't get the double turn.  The opposition knows exactly who to kill if you teleport 9 inches away and don't make your charge!

But it does definitely help shooting and hero armies. 

Again, I'm not saying we remove the double turn or change anything about the way the game works except offering a variable advantage to the second player to reduce the effects (not remove, just reduce) of the double turn and give them an opportunity to MAYBE undo it if the opposition agrees.

[ledha]

For me, the problem of the double turn in when the second player of the first turn get it.

Not especially because it's too strong, but because it's BORING AS ****** for the first player, who play like 10 minutes then watch his opponent play 50 min straight, if not more.

After turn 2, it's a less big issue, but the double turn right at the beginning of the game is fun-crushing.

The problem if you remove the double turn mechanic is that it make getting the first turn and alpha strike much more important and powerful. People would play like in 40k : killing the most of the ennemy army and be agressive as hell, because they know the opponent can't really have an effective ripost. 

[Vextol]

10 minutes ago, ledha said:

For me, the problem of the double turn in when the second player of the first turn get it.

Not especially because it's too strong, but because it's BORING AS ****** for the first player, who play like 10 minutes then watch his opponent play 50 min straight, if not more.

After turn 2, it's a less big issue, but the double turn right at the beginning of the game is fun-crushing.

The problem if you remove the double turn mechanic is that it make getting the first turn and alpha strike much more important and powerful. People would play like in 40k : killing the most of the ennemy army and be agressive as hell, because they know the opponent can't really have an effective ripost. 

I don't want to remove the double turn though.  I think it's cool and really important. 

I agree that it is really boring though first turn.  Played with a group of textbook over thinkers once, played for 5 hours, made it through two turns and I moved 5 inches forwards.  So yeah, I feel that issue.  In my case, that's not really going to get fixed with or without double turn.

[AlphaKennyThing]

In all the games of AoS I've played since 2016, I can count on two hands the amount of double turns I've had. It's absolutely atrocious how p*ss-poor my initiative rolling is.

After having been shot to bits or double-turn charged on quite a few occasions, I simply adopted a play style that assumed I was going to lose initiative and get doubled. You can quite easily take the sting out of it, by deploying in cover/moving there in your first turn where possible. Expect it, and you can't ever be surprised by it. If you rock up to a game and your opponent has 20 Judicators, 3 Venators and Duardin Organ Guns and a big sh*t- eating grin on his face as he says 'You can have first turn' you know you're probably playing someone banking on a double turn. In such instances, don't send your army forward to do a tabletop recreation of Saving Private Ryan -- hold back!

I find the people who get hit hardest by people playing for a double turn are the ones who don't quite read the signs of what their opponent is trying to do.It can be seriously demoralising as a new player to have half your army and nearly all your heroes wiped out in a double turn, but I'd also question the hell out of a player who, when confronted with someone playing their second ever game of AoS, felt it necessary to obliterate them 5 minutes into the match. Personally, when playing against a newer player that has never encounted my army setup, I tell them exactly what it does and why it does it, and what to look out for. Funnily enough, they get quite an enjoyable game, and so do I. If they don't heed my warnings and my megaboss chain-stomps two heroes in one turn, they at least know how it happened and why.

To bring this belt-fed diatribe back on target, the rules amendments you suggested are interesting, but I think may actually give an advantage to a defensive player in some instances. I already expect to get double-turned, so giving my crucial unit that is already mostly out of LoS, in cover, mystic shielded and out of effective range of my opponent's most lethal attacks an additional +1 save might be swinging it too far the other way.

I don't think there is enough of a problem to warrant such an addition, and an estimate of 5 mins for a 2,000pt game may be slightly optimistic. I've stood waiting for someone taking nearly 5 minutes to work out what spell to cast. Ask someone on the verge of losing a tournament game what buff they want and what unit they want to put it on has the potential for even more standing around.

[eekamouse]

7 hours 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 kind of love this one. It’s my favorite of the suggestions presented so far. I’m a fan of the double turn but frankly am annoyed by it at some moments, though I’ve learned to play around it most of the time.

I really like the universal +1 to saves on the following round after “losing” initiative. It’s thematic as well. You get caught off guard but bunker down a bit more, giving you more opportunity to make a come back. It helps alleviate the “win more” double turn and helps elevate the “comeback” double turn.

[stratigo]

a double turn can ruin pretty much all the strategy of a game. Especially if one person gets the double immediately, and the other simply never gets it. It is not fun to be doubled, and then just feel helpless against an opponent since they got to take two turns back to back.

[Vextol]

2 hours ago, AlphaKennyThing said:

I don't think there is enough of a problem to warrant such an addition, and an estimate of 5 mins for a 2,000pt game may be slightly optimistic. I've stood waiting for someone taking nearly 5 minutes to work out what spell to cast. Ask someone on the verge of losing a tournament game what buff they want and what unit they want to put it on has the potential for even more standing around.

Yeah, but I was thinking for myself.  You should be ready when the time comes so you don't have to spend a million hours deciding.  I play sigmar around three times a week from like 9-10:30 with my neighbor.  We never have a hard time finishing a game but we both make decisions pretty quickly.

[heywoah_twitch]

Nerfed engine of the gods because taking an extra turn is too back breaking.

But then keep double turns? hmm

 

[Vextol]

3 minutes ago, heywoah_twitch said:

Nerfed engine of the gods because taking an extra turn is too back breaking.

But then keep double turns? hmm

 

Well...engine of the gods could actually let you take 4 turns back to back.  I built an entire army once to try to pull it off.  It was only a 5% chance, but it was so ridiculous

[heywoah_twitch]

2 minutes ago, Vextol said:

Well...engine of the gods could actually let you take 4 turns back to back.  I built an entire army once to try to pull it off.  It was only a 5% chance, but it was so ridiculous

imagine if you didn't have to build around it and it was a 50% chance! totally broken 

[Vextol]

2 hours ago, heywoah_twitch said:

imagine if you didn't have to build around it and it was a 50% chance! totally broken 

Well, as I've said before, I'm not up for discussing the double turn.  Everyone has their opinion.  I think it's both important and unbalanced.  This post was supposed to be a discussion about how to both keep it, and make it feel less detrimental. 

[Malfunct Bot]

I personally think that the "-6" range to all missile weapons" is a bit too powerful, since while it would mean generally little to Kharadons and Tzeentch who already have incredibly high ranges and speed (which is obviously what the deal is trying to counter) it would almost completely shut down slower and shorter ranged gunlines such as Freeguild or Dispossessed, almost halving the range of their weapons in some cases.

The problem with some of these items is that they generally seem to one sided and can present little to no risk to those offering the deal. Melee armies, for example, arn't going to care if they get slapped by an offered -6" to ranges, while gunlines arn't going to care about a -1" to movement.

[RuneBrush]

13 hours ago, Vextol said:

I only play matched.  I feel that in open play and narrative play the game is more forgiving and lighthearted so the double turn is not as much of an issue.

I think this highlights why discussions like this are really tricky and we're seeing arguments from all angles.  The core rules need to work for all methods of play, be it one of the main three or Skirmish.  We all play our games differently, I'm really fortunate that the people I play with regularly enjoy a mixture of play styles so we've all benefited and been kicked by the double turn at some point in the past, but we all know how brutal it can be.  If my local group were purely focused on matched play then I'm sure that I'd have a different opinion.

One thing that I do find is that most of this type of topic ends up focusing on competitive matched play, where one of the key mechanics is to fundamentally write a list that counters everything and is difficult to counter in return.  However despite this always being a very common view point, I actually think there are a lot more games played that sit more in the narrative play using the matched play structure (rule of one etc).

 

7 hours ago, AlphaKennyThing said:

but I'd also question the hell out of a player who, when confronted with someone playing their second ever game of AoS, felt it necessary to obliterate them 5 minutes into the match.

^ this!