Real Talk about the Double Turn

[BloodReign]

I like the Initiative roll off, it does give a strategic advantage to the winner. Taking a double turn is helpful but you cannot play your game pinning your hopes on getting it, like so many players do. The same could be said for forcing your opponent to take the first turn, giving them a false sense of security and hopefully fall into your trap.

I have played a few games and also played the smaller skirmish games and have never thought that winning a double turn gave me the win, or vice versa. So my opinion is to leave it alone and play as GW intended.

[Tidings]

9 hours ago, Kramer said:

Agree with the rest of it but this has not been my experience. I find you can plan and gamble on the double turn. Meaning you tactical choices and gambles do get you the win. So 'completely not satisfying' might be a bit much. 

I play a mixed Wanderer/Slyvaneth army with a lot of shooting, so when I get the double turn, I do a crippling amount of damage to my opponent. Two rounds of shooting means he has multiple units/monsters that he never gets to use. By the time it's his turn again, I have so many more points left on the table that he's fighting a losing battle. UNLESS (drumrolllll) he gets a double turn after that. It won't be as one-way as my shooting, but he might be able to catch up from it. 

So if you just objectively look at the game, here's what happens. I got double turn and shot his army to ******. At this point I'm so far ahead in terms of fighting capability that his only chance to come back is to hope for a double turn. Because I got a double turn, I did more damage than I should be allowed to do. His NEEDS to win a dice roll to even have a shot at coming back. There is no strategy changing, no deeper thought, no planning. Just taking advantage of a dice roll. He's trying to hack through my defensive wall and my archers are shooting as fast as they can. Whoever wins the double turn gets to have more efficient use of their troops and do more damage, removing enemies before THEY can do damage. 

From the opposite perspective, I have had games where I messed up my deployment a bit, got double turned and was behind. Then after I get a double turn, I completely pull ahead. It wasn't because I corrected my strategy. All I did was keep trying to make optimal use of my units. Getting to make optimal use of my units TWICE allowed me to do a ton of damage though. 

In neither case is either my opponent or I pinning our hopes on the double turn or planning for it or against it. We are simply playing our armies as optimally as possible. For me with a defensive list, I always position defensively and if my opponent double turns me, the strategy was the same. Sure there is some strategy around deployment and a few other moments, but it's way more shallow than people give it credit for. I don't think it adds to the game enough to compensate for the power swing it gives. 

[wayniac]

I have mixed feelings on the double turn.  I think it's an interesting tactical option that adds a cool flavor to the game, but I find too often it vastly sways the balance of the game just if you're lucky enough to get it once, to say nothing of multiple times.  For instance, I played a game yesterday with my Flesh-Eater Courts versus a mixed Gutbuster/BCR list.  I went first, my opponent won the first double turn and was able to alpha strike me and eliminate most of my 30-man unit of Crypt Ghouls (approximately half the unit in one round from a combination of attacks and Battleshock).  I mounted a comeback the next turn, but losing the alpha meant that I had a lot less ghouls to work with, and on Turn 4 he won the double turn again (I rolled a 5 and was excited.. he rolls and gets a 6!)  and was able to kill both of my kings on monsters (who had been weakened prior) at which point I conceded because I had only a handful of heroes and 10 ghouls against a large unit of ogors, a giant, a very nasty Tyrant and a thundertusk.

I have had games where I lost priority every time, and my opponent being able to get a double turn 3 or so times during the course of the game made for a lot of games where after the second or so double turn of taking attacks without being able to do anything, I had nothing left to really hurt the enemy unit.  So I think the double turn is a huge deciding factor in games, but an interesting one that I feel merits keeping it around just for the added interest it makes.

[Mikosan]

28 minutes ago, wayniac said:

I have had games where I lost priority every time, and my opponent being able to get a double turn 3 or so times during the course of the game made for a lot of games where after the second or so double turn of taking attacks without being able to do anything, I had nothing left to really hurt the enemy unit.  So I think the double turn is a huge deciding factor in games, but an interesting one that I feel merits keeping it around just for the added interest it makes.

How does your opponent get a double turn 3 times?  I have had games where I've had a double and then won all the roll offs after to deny any doubles to my opponent, I've had games where I've been doubled and then lost all the roll offs, and games where we each have gotten one, but I have actually never had any games where someone got more than one double turn in a game.  I know two doubles turns is possible, but not without giving one up in between right?

[wayniac]

Just now, Mikosan said:

How does your opponent get a double turn 3 times?  I have had games where I've had a double and then won all the roll offs after to deny any doubles to my opponent, I've had games where I've been doubled and then lost all the roll offs, and games where we each have gotten one, but I have actually never had any games where someone got more than one double turn in a game.  I know two doubles turns is possible, but not without giving one up in between right?

Yeah it wasn't 3 times in a row, memory hazy, it was twice, with me having a double turn in between.  but still it was insanely devastating.

[Mikosan]

3 minutes ago, wayniac said:

Yeah it wasn't 3 times in a row, memory hazy, it was twice, with me having a double turn in between.  but still it was insanely devastating.

that makes more sense

Certainly would make for a swingy game.  I am in a weird position where I like the priority roll, but would be OK with it going away in matched play.  Maybe one of the new rules of 1, only one turn in a row?

[eekamouse]

Looks like there's no modifications except for this....

"There are two new Rules of One for matched play games. Firstly, the roll for priority at the beginning of each battle round cannot be modified or re-rolled – if you’re fishing for a double turn, you’re going to have to rely on good old fashioned luck to get it."

That's from the latest community update here:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/31/balanced-diverse-fun-matched-play-in-the-generals-handbook-2017-july31gw-homepage-post-3/

Who was modifying that roll before? Tzeentch Destiny Dice?

[Goddin]

Coven Throne has a command ability that lets you pick who gets it in the event of a tie.  But it isn't a real modifier.  I'm with @eekamouse, I'm not sure who could truly modify it.

[Tidings]

Yeah honestly that Rule of One could have easily just been errata in the FAQ lol. It's not really a new rule. sigh

[Freddy25]

 

On 31/7/2017 at 6:33 PM, eekamouse said:

Who was modifying that roll before? Tzeentch Destiny Dice?

Check out the Cosmic Herald ability of the Skink Starseer (from the Seraphon range).

I believe that was the most problematic rule: it was easy for a Seraphon player to use that ability and heavily influence the outcome of the Initiative Roll!

[eekamouse]

3 minutes ago, Freddy25 said:

 

Check out the Cosmic Herald ability of the Skink Starseer (from the Seraphon range).

I believe that was the most problematic rule: it was easy for a Seraphon player to use that ability and heavily influence the outcome of the Initiative Roll!

Ah gotcha. Ya I could see that getting out of hand.

Interesting implications on the Double Turn impact with some of these Horde/cost changes. Hopefully, the local meta stays healthy. Feels like the game is moving to separate itself even more from 40k rather than going in the other direction, which is (at least for me) probably a good thing.

[Siegfried VII]

I must say that after I played a few games of 8th 40k I felt that I missed the priority roll. With the normal turn alteration the army that has the range superiority can keep its distance for the first two turns and dish out lots of damage on the enemy without any drawbacks. You force the opponent to come to you, you soften him up a bit and then you fight in your own terms. Remember the old editions of WHFB where gunlines ruled supreme...

With the double turn close combat armies get a chance to reach the enemy very soon and put the hurt and preasure on him. This I feel makes for a more balanced game. Yes I have lost battles from a priority roll too many times but I feel that in the end it makes for a better and more exciting game...

[eekamouse]

Double Turns in 40k would be disastrous since they are SO shoot heavy. 

[Carnelian]

57 minutes ago, Auticus said:

Double turns in 40k basically make the game exactly like it is in AOS.  Very swingy and the player that gets the first double turn has a huge advantage.

They tried this a couple weekends ago at an impromptu tournament to see what it would be like.  Granted there were only like six guys doing it.

That's interesting. I'd imagine it would be far more swingy in 40k compared to AoS, on the basis of more extreme damage output in 40k.

Where was that tournament? Did anyone write up the results or their thoughts. I'd be interested to hear more about it. 

[Tidings]

So in one of my games tonight I had the following happen. There is no way someone can defend this as being balanced or even fun. 

I played Mixed Order, and my opponent was Beastclaw. He got to decide who goes first, so I deployed defensively along the back edge of my table (shooty army). He gives me first turn obviously, which means all I can do is cast some spells and wait. His first turn begins - with all his bonus movement, he gets his two Thundertusks in range and immediately does fourteen mortal wounds to my most important heros/units. His Stonehorn crosses the entire table and charges me, dealing another four mortal wounds. He does a bunch more in combat obviously, but here's the killer.

He wins initiative and goes again. I have not yet had a single chance to shoot or do any significant damage to him. He deals another fourteen mortal wounds. Let's look at this. On top of some warscrolls just being broken, the mechanic of double turns has exponentially exacerbated the issue. 

Because of his movement abilities, I am forced to deploy defensively expecting a double turn. Despite this, before I am able to do anything,  he has managed to dish out THIRTY TWO MORTAL WOUNDS. That's something I literally positioned the best I could to prevent happening, yet it happened anyways. It's such a devastating amount of damage that there isn't a hope in hell of coming back. More than a quarter of my army was gone before I had a chance to use it at all. All the synergy, abilities, etc that interacted with each other in my army - gone. 

The game was decided before I got to start my second turn. Because of his superior movement and the double-turn mechanic, I had no chance to contest objectives or do enough damage to mount a comeback. And that was not won with any amount of strategic depth. I planned for him getting a double turn on deployment, and I still lost because when we rolled a d6 together, he won. The game was literally decided on a coin toss. 

There was nothing fun, exciting, or strategically deep/interesting about that game. My opponent is a great guy and fun to play with, but the double turn mechanic did nothing but hurt the game we played and lessened the fun we could have had. 

[RuneBrush]

2 hours ago, Tidings said:

The game was decided before I got to start my second turn. Because of his superior movement and the double-turn mechanic

I'd say the game was decided because he was running a list capable of throwing out 14+ mortal wounds a turn and had huge character sniping capability.  As you say the double turn exacerbated things by allowing him to do it twice, even if you'd got the turn, it's unlikely you would have been able to mount enough of a come back to do enough to change the outcome.  The double turn merely expedited the result.  I've played against a very similar list before and even with them not getting a double turn it was one of the least enjoyable games I've played - as with you my opponent was really nice, but the list just doesn't facilitate a good game unless you're running a hoard.

[Battlemania]

There was nothing fun, exciting, or strategically deep/interesting about that game.

I know what you mean, thats serious problem. I wish to see what those who defend double turn possibility would play in this case.
Its just to often that 1 coin flip decide who will win, which is sad as hell.


Wysłane z iPhone za pomocą Tapatalk

[TheOtherJosh]

I played Mixed Order, and my opponent was Beastclaw. He got to decide who goes first, so I deployed defensively along the back edge of my table (shooty army). He gives me first turn obviously, which means all I can do is cast some spells and wait.
...

If they hadn't gotten a double turn, what would you have done or been able to do with your placement and deployment to get a victory?

You're playing a "mixed shooty Army" against a fast moving elite army with low drops.

When dealing with threats from your opponents units you have options: Destroy, Delay, Minimize or Ignore (see: https://aosshorts.com/making-better-decisions-aos-target-priority/ )

Can you Destroy a unit? Then attack it.

If not, can you minimize their damage potential?

Alternately Delay it: How can you neuter their damage impact so you can fight back? Throw speed bump units in their way.

And last, if you have no tools to handle it, Ignore the unit.

The thundertusk Ice attack does 6 damage.

If you can get the thundertusk down by 3 wounds, that drops the ice attack to D6 instead of 6. That would have minimized their damage potential. Deploying everything that far back puts you likely out of range to do the damage to the thundertusk needed to drop attack damage output.

In retrospect, perhaps placing everything on the back edge of the board was a highly passive and reactionary decision. And one that is basically "waiting for the elite unit to stomp all over my Army while I hope to shoot you a lot. But may not get to, because you are positioning yourself for a double turn and I may be out of range."

I wasn't there, and you've not actually gone over placement, but It sounds like you didn't throw speed bumps in the way via "bubble wrapped" with "chaff" to minimize potential impact of the charge and delay them getting to the meat of your forces. It sounds like you just placed as far back as possible hoping to avoid the "inevitable charge" for as long as possible.

And if you're playing a scenario with objectives, your positioning may not have made it easy to win those objectives.

Alternate suggestions:
- Determine how to decrease the drops in your Army through using Warscroll Battalions? Are they a 1 drop army? Or can you beat them to that decision point?
- Given that they have fewer drops, you can adjust your deployment after they are completed to answer their deployment strategy.
- Work on bubble-wrapping your units with enough space between them to avoid having your opponent be able to multi-charge everything and still keep your support heroes and units within range to attack/support. Through placement and positioning you can dictate which units will require being charged to get to other units due to the minimum 3" rule. (Especially if they don't have the fly keyword.)

[Charles]

You could also not given up your first turn.

If your opponent can get across the board in one turn, what advantage does deploying out if your shooting range give you? You could have tried to reduce his first (and then double turn) damage output.

[chord]

5 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

I'd say the game was decided because he was running a list capable of throwing out 14+ mortal wounds a turn and had huge character sniping capability.  As you say the double turn exacerbated things by allowing him to do it twice, even if you'd got the turn, it's unlikely you would have been able to mount enough of a come back to do enough to change the outcome.  The double turn merely expedited the result.  I've played against a very similar list before and even with them not getting a double turn it was one of the least enjoyable games I've played - as with you my opponent was really nice, but the list just doesn't facilitate a good game unless you're running a hoard.

Agreed those Beast Claws (that crazy frost breath MW only fails on a 1 ability) is crazy broken.  Don't know what they were thinking when they wrote that.

[BunkhouseBuster]

8 hours ago, Tidings said:

The game was decided before I got to start my second turn. Because of his superior movement and the double-turn mechanic, I had no chance to contest objectives or do enough damage to mount a comeback. And that was not won with any amount of strategic depth. I planned for him getting a double turn on deployment, and I still lost because when we rolled a d6 together, he won. The game was literally decided on a coin toss. 

There was nothing fun, exciting, or strategically deep/interesting about that game. My opponent is a great guy and fun to play with, but the double turn mechanic did nothing but hurt the game we played and lessened the fun we could have had. 

That sucks, man.  I have only played against a Thundertuck once, and it was one in a 1,000 point game, and that was too much for me.  Strong shooting armies do make the double-turn lose its charm.  With my Ironjawz, I haven't had any games turn sour because of the double turn, but I have yet to face a true gunline/shooting-heavy army.  My games mostly end up facing off against other melee centered armies like Khorne or Saurus heavy Seraphon armies, and while the double-turn did affect the outcome of those games, I never once felt hopeless that I couldn't win on objectives or my models couldn't try to swing the game back with some lucky rolls and good strategies.

But again, that is in the case of a melee-exclusive army facing off against another melee-exclusive army.  It is shooting that causes the major problems with the double-turn.

[chord]

Just now, Auticus said:

The sales crew were thinking "these are pretty busted, I bet we sell a lot of them!" and the game devs were thinking "these are pretty busted, this should give the listbuilders something to auto-take and keep the sales guys off our backs since we'll be selling a lot of them"

Possibly, I wonder if the battletome was outsourced to a contractor?   It feels like (just my opinion) somebody who really wanted to play ogors and wanted them to be powerful and win a lot wrote it.  Almost like fan fiction.   IMO that is. 

[Planar]

I find this discussion extremely interesting

Apart from the strict discussion on game mechanics this conversation speaks volumes about the vastly varying perceptions of people playing the game.

The double turn introduces a significant chaotic element in the game. It openly disputes the firm grasp of skill and merit on the game in favor of the chaotic element. Naturally, people who have a more meritocratic approach to the game (and life in general I daresay?) find this concept harder to accept. After all it’s a “strategy” game and strategy is all about skill and not about dice tossing. How can you accept defeat from a less skilled opponent over a mere failed dice roll?

On the other hand, comes the argument of epic. The more you aim on creating a heroic mythos setting, the less room you have for meritocracy and strict determinism. Heroism is about big unexpected results after all. It is about glorious upsets and table turning dramas.

Essentially it all boils down to being a matter of preference based on everyone’s perception of the game. On one extreme are those who like to see AoS as a game of chess. On the other are those who enjoy gambling over the table. Most people are somewhere in between.

A nice parallel can be found on the argument why football is by far the most popular sport in the world. Football (as opposed to basketball for example) is a game where the best does not always win. But it is exactly this attribute of football that makes it appealing to such a wide audience and especially to the less privileged of this world who constitute the largest amount of our world population. Football leaves some room for big upsets, some hope for the underdogs to perform their unique act of heroism. That attribute is hard to be found in other sports. Interestingly football struggles to catch up in the States. US is a fiercely meritocratic society found upon the cornerstone of “the best shall always prevail”

Personally, I am all for meritocracy in the real world. It’s all about social justice after all. But on a tabletop game of toy soldiers that I play entirely for fun, I really enjoy the chaotic element introduced by the double turn, even if that means I will lose some games due to an unlucky roll.

So what?

[Siegfried VII]

@Tidings 

The example you demonstrate is in my opinion more about a battle versus a tougher list and perhaps a few not so optimum decisions on your part.

It seems to me that your opponent had the advantage in the range department, so if you went with alternating turns he would still have the upper hand and even worse. You would be forced to go to him in order to have a chance (because otherwise if you stayed behind he would outshoot you and beat you without having to commit) and you would fight on his terms.

The double turn though goes both ways. If you go agressive you can have the potential to reach his lines fast or soften him up so that you won't experience the full power of his list. And if your opponent knows that and he is a capable general he cannot ignore this possibility and will have to adjust his plans too.

Again I do not argue that the double turn can dictate game results, but overall it is a factor that encourages variety of playstyles in my opinion.

Finally and agreeing with Auticus on this, the most tactical way of play is by alternating activations of units and we get a glimpse of that with the alternate activation in the combat phase which in my opinion is one of the best rules of AoS and offers tons of strategic value in the gameplay...

[TheOtherJosh]

... Interestingly football struggles to catch up in the States.
...

And by "Football" you appear to be referring to what they refer to as "Soccer" in the States? As opposed to "American Football". Which is known as "Football" in the States?

Right? (Though your analogy applies... even more so to Blood Bowl.)