Double Turn Overhaul Suggestion

[Chris Tomlin]

I have hidden most of the back and forth between @Vextol and @Trout within this thread as it does not contribute positively towards the conversation. It's ok to disagree with one another, but try to be a bit more respectful....if not to each other, to the other people that have to read your bickering!!

[Vextol]

6 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

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).

I know a lot of people here seem to be of this mentality.  It's difficult for me because I've never experienced this.  Must just be my area, but everyone I've ever encountered is in it for the competitive matched play.  

I was hoping that this list could help ease the need to counter everything. If you critically miss something and then get double turned, you have some chance to recover.  

Also, I was hoping this list could balance some of the "super" armies.  If your whole army is nothing but crazy long range high damage or super shielding, well, here: have another shield because who cares if your 1+ goes to a 0+ or lose six inches from your range because your army is one dimensional and taking advantage of an unbalanced aspect of the game. 

If you add these elements that help a little or hinder one dimensionality, it could help diversify the armies and maybe get less used units onto the field. 

Anyway, that was my goal.

[BURF1]

If we get rid of the double turn, which honestly w/e I'm cool either way, then the big thing that needs to happen is their needs to be some sort of lever in place to pull to reduce first turn advantage. it's not as powerful in AoS as it is in 40k due to there being less shooting overall, but there should still be something to mitigate it.

[eekamouse]

19 minutes ago, BURF1 said:

If we get rid of the double turn, which honestly w/e I'm cool either way, then the big thing that needs to happen is their needs to be some sort of lever in place to pull to reduce first turn advantage. it's not as powerful in AoS as it is in 40k due to there being less shooting overall, but there should still be something to mitigate it.

Line up everyone on the very back of your deployment zone.

[Seraphage]

Double turn is awesome and way interesting. Not only provides limitless scenarios to look forward to but also is pretty realistic.

 

No battle ever commenced that the opposing armies acted like : Hey we made our move, time to make yours !

 

This is a game obviously but since it does not break its balance - my opinion ! - it's great.

Even in matched play if you really hate it here is what  you can do : Make  a list that will give you priority most of the times, start second and always give your opponent the priority. This way  you will never be double turned !

[ledha]

18 hours ago, heywoah_twitch said:

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

except everyone can have a double turn, and having a double turn mean that your opponent can have one.

The Engine of The God is a totally different thing

As for eekamouse, lining at the back to your deployment zone, not only make you in a big disadvantage for the objective game, don't save you at all against a kharadron amy, a fyreslayer army, a skyborne slayers or everything with some teleport or deepstrike, so it's NOT  a solution

[heywoah_twitch]

sure but I posted that in the wrong thread, as this one was only tangentally about it

[Ollie Grimwood]

“Until your next hero phase” abilities have clearly been word as such to account for the double turn. Maybe the addition of Matched play rules of one affecting how magic works is part of the cause of part of the problem preparing for it.  Allowing multi cast of Mystic shield would provide some counter to it for example. 

[MacDuff]

The real simple way to get the turn is to offer your opponent $5. ;o)

[Centurio]

I think the double turn is fine.   I've played many historical games in which one player has the opportunity to activate units multiple times in a row and I don't think its a problem.  What it does do is reward a more measured type of maneuvering instead of an "all-in" approach, and force you to think defensively.  It adds some uncertainty to the threat range of the enemy.   You can use defensive lines of buffed heavy armor, light screening units, terrain, and positioning for counter charges to mitigate the double turn.  I really like the excitement and strategic thought that results from the potential of the double turn.  It makes the game less scripted and calculated beforehand and gives you a chance for a comeback if the opponent overextends.

[Domlin]

I agree that the double turn is part of what makes the game great. You have to plan for multiple possibilities that add strategy and tactics to the game. That said, I'd like to see some potential tournament rules around the following to smooth out any potential imbalances in a hyper-competitive setting:

1. Handle first turn similar to 40k where if you have the fewest drops, you get +1 to a D6 roll to determine who goes first instead of auto. Perhaps the battalions are not pointed this way but it would encourage greater list diversity, which is a good thing. 

2. (Still on the fence with this one) If you get a double turn, your opponent gets +1 to the next turn's priority roll to attempt to ensure a more even game where both players get a double turn by the end of the match.

These would not be part of the main rule-set, so people can still play Open/Narrative/friendly matched games with the way things are now. I'm thinking more of a tournament supplement that TO's and players can use as they see fit.

[AverageBoss]

I feel anyone cashing in on a double turn should be -1 to hit on all attacks, and -1 to cast on all spells to represent the over exertion of their troops and balance out against the sheer power a double turn brings.

[eekamouse]

1 hour ago, AverageBoss said:

I feel anyone cashing in on a double turn should be -1 to hit on all attacks, and -1 to cast on all spells to represent the over exertion of their troops and balance out against the sheer power a double turn brings.

I like something very simple like this. I do feel like +1 to Save for the player on the receiving end of a double turn (as mentioned a few posts back) is ideal.

[Vextol]

So... I didn't realize what Malign Portents was.  Now that I got my book, I think we'll just use that system from now on. 

It has some really cool elements that seems like they could very easily handle some of the sting of the double turn including actions that can be taken on your opponents turn. 

Problem solved in my book!