Real Talk about the Double Turn

[fued]

on the other side, stopping double turns on round 3 is a terrible idea;

it sounds good in practice, but what it means is that one player will get a double turn, but the other wont be able to get one in return, which means soon as they hit the double turn you may as well just pack up, as the game is over.

[eekamouse]

5 minutes ago, fued said:

on the other side, stopping double turns on round 3 is a terrible idea;

it sounds good in practice, but what it means is that one player will get a double turn, but the other wont be able to get one in return, which means soon as they hit the double turn you may as well just pack up, as the game is over.

If you look through my examples, each player has a chance at one. A single Double Turn should not end anyone's game if it happens in round two. However, if someone get TWO in a game, and the other player gets none... sure. Game over probably. 

If someone gets one going into Round 5... Well... I've seen too many game end on that note.

[chord]

15 minutes ago, Auticus said:

Well... the more people playing the more other people will play.  Which brings in revenue.  Which means new products and models.  The less people playing means the more others will drop the game for the games that others are playing, which brings in less revenue.  And increases the chances of the game getting canned.

 

True, but I know plenty of "casuals" like myself who would be driven away by all the try hard's.  I feel like GW might be damned if they do, damned if they don't.  Which admittedly is a sucky position for them to be in.

[swarmofseals]

I'm conflicted about the double turn. I like the tactical depth that it adds, but I also acknowledge that it lends itself to some significant "feel bad" experiences where a double turn early in the game effectively ends things without the other player getting a real chance. I can see both sides of the argument. I think that if shooting gets toned down a little bit then the oppressiveness of the double turn will be reduced substantially, so depending on what happens with GHB2 we may see a reduction in those "feel bad" moments. Another option would be to introduce some abilities into the game that help you defend against the double turn, particularly for factions that lack shooting (like Death). I can imagine a Death Battalion that has an ability like:

Implacable Advance: If your opponent would begin a phase for the second time since you have begun that phase, you may immediately act with one unit in this battalion as if it were the same phase during your turn. This action is taken before your opponent begins their phase and does not count as part of that phase.

The wording is sloppy and would likely need to be cleaned up, but the idea is that if your opponent double turns you, then you kinda get a mini turn yourself, acting before each phase of your opponent's second turn. 

There are many possible abilities that could help mitigate the damage a double turn could cause. It's interesting design space that they haven't explored  yet.

 

Another possibility that I like would simply be to add in an option to play with or without the initiative roll. It fits the spirit of AoS: hash it out with your opponent before the game. Additionally, an addendum can be made to the tournament rules section that gives the tournament organizer to go either way with their rules pack.

[someone2040]

Personally, I don't really enjoy the double turn, but I don't think it can easily be removed either.

The shooting phase (yep, that terrible phase), has been engineered with the double turns in mind. The fact you can still shoot while in combat is a clear indication of this, as due to the double turn, you may never have gotten the opportunity to shoot your opponent. Similarly ranges are shorter compared to prior editions to force yourself to be put into threat range, where the opponent may win the initiative and be able to get at your ranged troops if poorly placed.

Arguably the magic abilities also have the same problem. Without the double turn, many offensive powers would be extremely hard to use due to the shorter range.

 

That being said, I don't enjoy the double turn because it generally feels bad as a mechanic. Many of my games, feel like the outcome of the game largely comes down to a pivotal initiative roll. If you're on the losing end of that initiative roll, it just feels like you lost the game based on that roll (No matter what ultimately happens later).

And I daresay, that's what most peoples problem with the double turn is. Not that it's necessarily broken, but it just feels bad in certain games. It's like, you know the matchup, and you need to win turn X priority otherwise the opponent is going to shoot you off or combat you off the table before you get the opportunity re-arrange your forces or counter-engage.

[swarmofseals]

9 minutes ago, eekamouse said:

If you look through my examples, each player has a chance at one. A single Double Turn should not end anyone's game if it happens in round two. However, if someone get TWO in a game, and the other player gets none... sure. Game over probably. 

If someone gets one going into Round 5... Well... I've seen too many game end on that note.

I suspect your local competition doesn't tend to play with extremely high powered shooting armies. A double turn on turn 1 or 2 from something like skyfire spam or a sayl stormfiends list can easily wipe out 2/3 or more of the opponent's army with a double turn as early as turn 1. 

I tend to agree that ending double turns after turn 3 doesn't work that well. Double turns early in the game can basically mean that you don't get to play a game at all. A double turn late in the game can be decisive, but at least both players had plenty of time to actually play the game before that happens. 

Also, I tend to think that the scenario where neither player takes a double turn until one player does on turn 3 is pretty unfair. In that case one player gets a double turn and the other player can't. If you wanted to do a partial ban on double turns I think it would make more sense to do any of the following:

 

• no double turns before turn 3
• no double turns after turn 2
• no double turns after turn 4

[eekamouse]

41 minutes ago, swarmofseals said:

I suspect your local competition doesn't tend to play with extremely high powered shooting armies. A double turn on turn 1 or 2 from something like skyfire spam or a sayl stormfiends list can easily wipe out 2/3 or more of the opponent's army with a double turn as early as turn 1. 

I tend to agree that ending double turns after turn 3 doesn't work that well. Double turns early in the game can basically mean that you don't get to play a game at all. A double turn late in the game can be decisive, but at least both players had plenty of time to actually play the game before that happens. 

Also, I tend to think that the scenario where neither player takes a double turn until one player does on turn 3 is pretty unfair. In that case one player gets a double turn and the other player can't. If you wanted to do a partial ban on double turns I think it would make more sense to do any of the following:

 

• no double turns before turn 3
• no double turns after turn 2
• no double turns after turn 4

We do actually have some of the sayl + skyfire stuff that is played, specifically the #7 ITC player as of right now. I don't think anyone runs Kunnin Rukk (iirc), but we have plenty of shooting heavy Sylvaneth as well.

I hear what you're saying about them. They can go off and end things quickly. But, it's one build and one style. I think the problem there is Skyfires are too cheap. 

[fued]

1 hour ago, eekamouse said:

However, if someone get TWO in a game, and the other player gets none... sure. Game over probably. 

thats not possible tho, you can only get a single double turn then you can try and keep them from getting one, which is why i like the +1, it stops that happening as much.

 

 

shooting spam/balance is a completely different issue imo, and shouldn't be confused into double turns. 16" shooting from a generic crossbow unit isnt game breaking, rather silly comboes and huge bonueses is what is game breaking on the double turn

[eekamouse]

6 minutes ago, fued said:

thats not possible tho, you can only get a single double turn then you can try and keep them from getting one, which is why i like the +1, it stops that happening as much.

 

 

shooting spam/balance is a completely different issue imo, and shouldn't be confused into double turns. 16" shooting from a generic crossbow unit isnt game breaking, rather silly comboes and huge bonueses is what is game breaking on the double turn

Yes right. I misspoke there. Got ahead of myself. It's possible to get two though.

I get a double turn on turn 2.

You get one on turn 3.

I get another one on turn 4 or 5.

[AverageBoss]

Double turns is probably my most hated rule in all of AoS. I have seen far two many games decided simply by that single D6 roll. Double turns also disproportionately advantage fast, and shooting armies, which already don't need that much help. If double turns went away, I would say good riddance and feel the game would be better for it.

Of course I would much rather prefer the game go to full alternating activations, ala the close combat phase.

[Tidings]

People are talking about the "tactical depth" and "super smart planning" that the double turn introduces. It's not that deep. That's the sad truth. If you went first, you just brace yourself against the double turn until it happens. That means even without it happening, you are still at a disadvantage, since you are less able to take risks than your opponent. There's really not much strategy. The planning ahead is simple but imbalanced, and the actually effects of a double turn are huge in terms of game outcome. 

Does it make for fun moments? Absolutely. I play with it and have plenty of fun. But it's less satisfying to win because I got a double turn, or just never took it and forced my opponent to play at a disadvantage all game. If I were playing the game more competitively I would hate it. 

[eekamouse]

15 minutes ago, Tidings said:

People are talking about the "tactical depth" and "super smart planning" that the double turn introduces. It's not that deep. That's the sad truth. If you went first, you just brace yourself against the double turn until it happens. That means even without it happening, you are still at a disadvantage, since you are less able to take risks than your opponent. There's really not much strategy. The planning ahead is simple but imbalanced, and the actually effects of a double turn are huge in terms of game outcome. 

Does it make for fun moments? Absolutely. I play with it and have plenty of fun. But it's less satisfying to win because I got a double turn, or just never took it and forced my opponent to play at a disadvantage all game. If I were playing the game more competitively I would hate it. 

There's an extra level of "feelbadsies" with it versus whiffing on an attack. 

When you flub a roll, it's like... "Well they're dumb freaking orruks... " or whatever.

When you get Double Turned, it's like... "I guess god hates me."

[fued]

heres a question tho:

 

does double turn stop the amount of "well your army counters mine, so theres no point playing" that older editions had?

[Fr0]

We like it, because it requires contingency plans. This adds more depth, skill and forethought despite being based on a die roll. It's tense during the roll, and certainly a pleasant surprise when you win but still rewarding when you lose it because you've set yourself up as if you expected it.

[eekamouse]

7 minutes ago, fued said:

heres a question tho:

 

does double turn stop the amount of "well your army counters mine, so theres no point playing" that older editions had?

I don't know that the Double Turn has much to do with that, certainly not in a vacuum.  There's too many other variables at play to really know that... at least I think so.

[Somanlius]

I love the double turn. I usually play against a double Stonehorn / Thundertusk army and, man, it's brutal to be on the recieving end. The game can sometimes be over with the second initiative roll.  But it adds a special layer on tension and I've always imagined it as a "fortunes of war" type of thing. War is crazy and unpredictable and I think the double turn helps me feel more immersed in the game. Otherwise it would feel like a bland board game or chess.

[Olincay]

I think the issue with the double turn is that people rarely feel positive about being on the flip side of being double turned.
Personally I've never enjoyed it but just accept that it's part of the game, I Also feel it dictates the outcome of the game all too often. 
 

[shadowgra]

I think double turn is necessary to say the least. I love it.

Other than adding tactical insight and making u think on 2 levels (i go 1st or my opponent does) make me enjoy more the game. The problem with the double turn is that is a die roll in a game of dice rolls. It adds randomness and that is why i think people complain about it.

However must be said that if u want a strategic game without any kind of luck u go playing strategic videogames or chess. The random is the coolest part of this game because nothing is decided until you roll that die. Also it means that a goblin can poke a bloodthirster and the bloodthirster may not kill the goblin. Is unlikely but can happen and this is one of the epic moments that i enjoy the most.

Talking about balance i bring an example of why double turn can't be removed. Skyfires. Skyfires if double turn is removed will simply stay 24 " away, shoot on his turn. You then walk to them but how many units can do 24 " with a good frequence? I think almost no one. So you move forward and run with your liberators ans do like 10". After that is his turn and he brings himself 24 " away from you (even easier done since they fly) and shoot you again. You will never catch them up unless you are going with some shooting, sayl or crazy mobile units like maxed murderhost+wok+stoker. And that can be said for almost Evert fast ranged unit! Ellyrian reavers? Ships? Balloon guys? Burning chariots? Kurnoth too with their teleport into and outo forests. And the same thought can be done with magic... When are you gonna catch that loc that just throws spells 24" away and moves of 12? Or arkhan for example? Or herald  of tzeentch on disk? Even nagash.

This imho is why they can't and shouldn't remove the double turn. This is not 40k avere guns are the most used weapons. This is a fantasy game where you do want to see monster that club things in the face and murder infantries.

I'll put another example. I play Nurgle mortals without sayl and you are playing raptors stormcast. You shoot at me on turn 1,2 and maybe even 3 because i am too far away and slow to charge you. This leads us to the evidence that the Nurgle player unless he rolls godly is going to lose most of his army. Therefore we can imagine that all the armies without high  mobility will simply no longer be played.

So this is what i think of double turn and why i think is needed in aos

 

[Rob Hawkins]

A lot of people like the double turn because it "adds a lot of strategy to the game."  But it just seems like the double turn results in there being only one strategy:  Build an army with as few deployment drops as possible so you can force your opponent to go first, allowing you the opportunity to get a turn 2 double and pull of the alpha strike. 

And that's getting kind of boring.  Double turn dictates gameplay all the way back to the list-building stage.

[xanderhansen]

I couldn't agree more, This is exactly what I was going to write. The only thing I would add is; that the only problem there is right now is the game balance, under prized units that are to strong and army combination going out of alligence and getting even stronger.


Sendt fra min SM-G935F med Tapatalk

[xanderhansen]

I couldn't agree more with shadowgra

Sendt fra min SM-G935F med Tapatalk

[Caffran101]

The double turn gives pure melee armies a chance against gunline armies.

If the double turn was removed we would see the meta of AoS swing even more towards shooting.

Personally, I like it. It offers a risk/reward to aggressive playstyle.

[shadowgra]

1 hour ago, Rob Hawkins said:

A lot of people like the double turn because it "adds a lot of strategy to the game."  But it just seems like the double turn results in there being only one strategy:  Build an army with as few deployment drops as possible so you can force your opponent to go first, allowing you the opportunity to get a turn 2 double and pull of the alpha strike. 

And that's getting kind of boring.  Double turn dictates gameplay all the way back to the list-building stage.

That is absolutely not true, also because going finishing to deploy first via battalions can swing the battle in opponent 's favour since he will adjust his plan according to your deployment. And if you are balancing your force i can simply put the most of my army on the left for example, completely deleting ur left side of the army.

Also not all armies want to go second. Not at all. Tzeentch likes going first vs certain armies, kharadron can if they have to snipe important leaders, Nurgle mortale HAVE to go first otherwise he will not have the harbinger ability for the first turn, BCR can go first vs some armies since they can charge turn 1.

The fact that who finish deploy decides who starts is balanced by the adjustment of the other guy's army on the battlefield. 

It's not absolutely one strategy.

[Nico]

Quote

That is absolutely not true, also because going finishing to deploy first via battalions can swing the battle in opponent 's favour since he will adjust his plan according to your deployment. And if you are balancing your force i can simply put the most of my army on the left for example, completely deleting ur left side of the army.

Also not all armies want to go second. Not at all. Tzeentch likes going first vs certain armies, kharadron can if they have to snipe important leaders, Nurgle mortale HAVE to go first otherwise he will not have the harbinger ability for the first turn, BCR can go first vs some armies since they can charge turn 1.

The fact that who finish deploy decides who starts is balanced by the adjustment of the other guy's army on the battlefield. 

It's not absolutely one strategy.

I would strongly echo this.

[Dead_Ghost]

I'd be interested to see how the LotR initiative rules would work in AoS. 

If I'm remembering it correctly, then you roll off for initiative, like normal, but if you have just had your turn and you both roll the same value, then the opposing player wins. 

Player A - went first

Player B - went second (potential for double turn)

Players roll off for turn two, both roll a 4. Player A takes the first turn of Turn 2. 
Otherwise, it's as normal, he who rolls highest wins. 

 

It's not a drastic change, but just reduces the chance for a double turn ever slow slightly.