Real Talk about the Double Turn

[Nacnudllah]

A lot of people are mentioning the late game swings of the double turn as a negative.  I think that they're actually a positive.  Many games include rubber banding mechanics to keep one player from getting too far ahead of their opponent(s).  The double turn fills that role when the underdog gets it, but when the player who is already winning gets it it has the opposite effect and creates decisive victories.  So the double turn simultaneously gives the lagging player a chance to recover, and helps bring the battle to a close instead of having it drag on hopelessly.

[Killax]

39 minutes ago, Nacnudllah said:

So the double turn simultaneously gives the lagging player a chance to recover, and helps bring the battle to a close instead of having it drag on hopelessly.

In essence this is right. A double turn speeds up the game as it detirmines a winner more quickly.
I personally think the double turn should however be removed from AoS. To me the gain is minimal as a rule and while it speeds up the game players actually like playing and gaming to a grind.

So far I have never heard: "So cool, I had the double turn and won!" What I have heard a lot is "I lost to the double turn". This experience to me is essential to the health of the game. Removing it makes games dragging on however long games generate the best stories as the dice-off continues and isn't too largely affected by one roll, the possible double turn roll. 

TLDR, if I could vote against the double turn, I would. For the same reasons that things like Time Warp in MtG shouldn't cost 4, WarmaHordes Feats shouldn't make armies immume to damage for a turn or Gust of Wind shouldn't be part of Pokemon tcg
- If you deny your opponent to be an active part of the game your removing fun.  

[Marc Wilson]

19 minutes ago, Killax said:

So far I have never heard: "So cool, I had the double turn and won!" What I have heard a lot is "I lost to the double turn". 

Really? I'm forever hearing that... both in fact in battle reports / podcasts and the like. There is a common understanding that double turns are game changing and are accounted for in both build and tactics. I can see on a superficial level how a new player might miss the subtleties around it and have an immediate adverse reaction.

[RuneBrush]

I think it'd be a shame to get rid of the random initiative rolling as it's one of the unique things about AoS.  I can see the argument that it favours certain builds of army (skyfire spam), but on the majority they have issues that wouldn't go away if random initiative was dropped.

For me I'd say that although the double turn has won and lost me games, it's not every game and I've benefited as often as I've not.

One thing I do think is that we as gamers/the community have this wonderful habit of finding reasons we lost - I lost to the double turn, I failed that important charge and most common - my dice rolled badly/I was unlucky with my rolls.  Although they're all valid excuses (excluding the dice) for losing, we perhaps hide behind them a little too much.  I can't remember the last time I heard "I lost because my opponent was better than me".

I would say that random initiative it's one of the most Marmite parts of the core rules though

[Nacnudllah]

26 minutes ago, Killax said:

In essence this is right. A double turn speeds up the game as it detirmines a winner more quickly.
I personally think the double turn should however be removed from AoS. To me the gain is minimal as a rule and while it speeds up the game players actually like playing and gaming to a grind.

So far I have never heard: "So cool, I had the double turn and won!" What I have heard a lot is "I lost to the double turn". This experience to me is essential to the health of the game. Removing it makes games dragging on however long games generate the best stories as the dice-off continues and isn't too largely affected by one roll, the possible double turn roll. 

TLDR, if I could vote against the double turn, I would. For the same reasons that things like Time Warp in MtG shouldn't cost 4, WarmaHordes Feats shouldn't make armies immume to damage for a turn or Gust of Wind shouldn't be part of Pokemon tcg
- If you deny your opponent to be an active part of the game your removing fun.  

I think we must just have different sensibilities on that one.  I prefer to have a decisive victory/defeat, or a dramatic comeback.  I find them to be cinematic and a more interesting end to the battle.  I've never been that enthused by "gaming to a grind".  Maybe there's a market for a MapleStory minis game?

[Paul Buckler]

Double turn is by far the best thing about AOS, I have seen loads of comebacks because of it and loads of early game wins from it.

The fact that you have to plan for both eventualities when you consider your moves is a huge tactical part of the game. 

Going back to alternate activation in 40K has really shown me I don't like it at all.

[Tzaangor Management]

 

49 minutes ago, Marc Wilson said:

Really? I'm forever hearing that... both in fact in battle reports / podcasts and the like. There is a common understanding that double turns are game changing and are accounted for in both build and tactics.

 

+1 for this.

 

40 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

One thing I do think is that we as gamers/the community have this wonderful habit of finding reasons we lost - I lost to the double turn, I failed that important charge and most common - my dice rolled badly/I was unlucky with my rolls.  Although they're all valid excuses (excluding the dice) for losing, we perhaps hide behind them a little too much.  I can't remember the last time I heard "I lost because my opponent was better than me".

 

I think this is occasionally true for most of us in life. I don't mean that that we're living like Luke Rhinhart's Dice Man, rolling a dice for every decision, but that we find excuses for losing in whatever form that takes. Playing a sport, computer game, a game like Age of Sigmar or some other competitive endeavor can highlight this and throw it into more stark contrast than we might see in daily life, but I think it's part of us as human beings to see an outside force as at fault, before looking to ourselves, or our opponents good play.

 

The above does not invalidate any arguments about whether the double turn is good or not, but both are good points and I've run out of likes for the day to indicate this ;-)!  

[Killax]

49 minutes ago, Marc Wilson said:

Really? I'm forever hearing that... both in fact in battle reports / podcasts and the like. There is a common understanding that double turns are game changing and are accounted for in both build and tactics. I can see on a superficial level how a new player might miss the subtleties around it and have an immediate adverse reaction.

The question becomes if it's sarcastically said, because you can quite easily win with a double turn because of the way the game is set up now. There are several phases not shaired and the one who can be active in the most of them gain the most advantages from said double turn.

It's also one of the reasons as to why I'd like to see shooting change. If there is no interaction at a basic level your opponent becomes a sitting duck. Especially if both armies are not capable of applying the same strategies. Which is something we see now and which is why the competitive meta is shaped the way it is and why outcomes of winners are not very difficult to predict. 

If you gain another full turn I wouldn't say it's part of your strategy. I would say it's a coinflip with too much attached to it. 

40 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

I think it'd be a shame to get rid of the random initiative rolling as it's one of the unique things about AoS.  I can see the argument that it favours certain builds of army (skyfire spam), but on the majority they have issues that wouldn't go away if random initiative was dropped.

For me I'd say that although the double turn has won and lost me games, it's not every game and I've benefited as often as I've not.

I would say that random initiative it's one of the most Marmite parts of the core rules though

I personally love rolling for iniative. I personally believe one of the possible solutions to this is to have it apply at all phases instead of the whole turn. Making the single roll less important and giving more randomness as a result to the outcome of a battle. 

As for winning and losing with a double turn, both are valid outcomes in any case. My question is what does double turning add to the game that is "fun". To me quick defeats are not fun because of the time you spend into this hobby. If I just want a dice off, why not pick up Yathzee? If I want to go for a coin flip, why not just play that game?

38 minutes ago, Nacnudllah said:

I think we must just have different sensibilities on that one.  I prefer to have a decisive victory/defeat, or a dramatic comeback.  

I think game grinds are the best because they do not give a decisive winner based on a single roll. The less important rolls become the more tactical ground is gained for the game, or any game for that matter. 

Cheers,

[Southern trolls]

2 hours ago, Auticus said:

I have never witnessed a dramatic comeback from a double turn.  WHat I have witnessed an awful lot is whoever gets the double turn first usually wins barring some really bad dice or someone being really far out of position.  

Thats why I feel the way I do.  I feel its a garbage mechanic and would rather full on alternating activation.  

In the last campaign I ran in June we used alternating activation, and a good number of people claimed to have loved it and wished it were the official way to do things.  A couple people hated it because they said part of playing AOS is trying to get the double turn to win and that alternate activation invalidated their lists that were built to take advantage of double turn.

This is exactly what I'd like to see removed.

As to how double turn forces contingency plans and strategy... please describe?  What contingency is it providing us to have to come up with?

What deeper strategy are you coming up with? 

If I go first and I'm facing off against kunnin rukk and they get double turn, I'm basically erased at that point.  What deeper strategy must I come up with to counter this double turn?  How do I mitigate being shot 480 times before I can respond?  (240 + 240)

Weight of dice means even if I had a 2+ save that I'm going to lose a good number of models, and in AOS heavy infantry is a 4+. In every single game that I've seen an army like kunnin rukk gain double turn, they've won after the double turn is complete.  This is not a very satisfying experience or good gameplay where one feels that they've been involved in the game and lost due to being outplayed.  It feels that one lost because kunnin rukk player beat them on initiative in turn 2 and shot them 580 times plus stonehorn mortal wounds and any other ranged shot that happened t be employed against them.

 
What strategy do we have to mitigate the double turn?  I've asked this before and never really gotten an answer.  

@AuticusTypically we are on opposing thoughts which I think is great for the community as everyone has their own thoughts and experiences to bring to the table which allows for more dialogue and "A-ha" moments. You've changed my mind on several things early on in AOS and I'm thankful for that!

However, I have noticed a repeating trend from your posts and a few others lately that I think has been getting thrown around a lot and mixed in with "why AOS needs to change this or that to be effective." I think from a general consusus (consensus being podcasts, the several AOS groups I am affiliated with, and reading TGA) that we all know Kunnin Ruk (Arrowboys) and skyfires are the biggest offenders in points or warscroll bugs. So naturally anytime an example is used and you bring either sky fire spam or kunnin ruks to justify your answer to me shows you are missing the underlying problem. There very well could be a justified reason on why it should be fixed or could be optimized, but once you throw in a well known busted comp. list (skyfires,kunnin ruk) in to justify the issue you are really only further pointing toward why those units need adjusting. I really don't ever see any examples from you or anyone for that fact on why shooting is OP and using wanderers to justify, free people or iron weld arsenal (which have some of the most shooting). It's always, shooting is broken because I got double turned by 12+ skyfires or double turns are busted because I was shot off turn 3 by kunnin ruk. (Sorry tangent ?) So lets all stop using broken units or comps to justify our reasoning behind why something doesn't work. ? Personally I think the double turn adds some extra flavor and suspense, I've won and lost by the whims of a bad initiative. But at the end of the game I am thankful my opponent spent several hours of his free time drinking beers with me and creating a story I can hopefully tell. 

Finally, to your post on "strategy" 

I run mixed destro. So I'll use my list as I have zero shooting  (making it that much harder) outside a few grot arrows and a chain trap to show you some things I'd do. I have 9+ drops so I never decide turn order, which I like. (Means I can decide what and where I want to place my big toys to counter troops or swarm objectives) strategy^

also, (going against a full shooty list and knowing I have a HIGH chance of going first and getting dbl turned I back line my army) I'm fairly fast and have rampaging destroyer + ironfist for extra movement when I need to go full steam! Assuming I go first per your request. I literally buff and don't move (strategy) if I'm lucky since I have balewind + orruks weirdknob my foot of gork goes off on a 7+ I attempt to snipe his lynchpin hero. (If I'm lucky he lost the savage big boss) NO more dbl shooting for that unit unless he runs two. Rinse and repeat if so. Let's say I'm not lucky, ? I've at least buffed up and stood my ground. 

Assuming he sat his units on the 12" line he is still out of range to shoot me turn one. ☺️ No double turn shooting, avoided that dilemma. 12" starting line + 5" move + 18" unblocked LoS shots = 35" threat range. Let's add in the double movement buff to ensure round 2 they are in range, you're now at an effective 40" range. (You should be using enough terrain to have LOS blocked by at least one model for a unit of 30 arrowboys) At which point it would be really close and army dependent if he can still hit me. Example: 12" start + 10" dbl move + 18" shooting range equals 40" threat range with one unit. If I setup under the 8" inch threat line I have still avoided the turn 2 double turn. By effectively cutting out one whole turn of shooting. If he is smart and I do mean smart he can maneuver his units up some to prep for a turn 3 double turn knowing I just nullified his turn two double. This then becomes a game of chance because he would have to win the next two iniatives to get that in his favor. If you hate luck/chance, you probably should not be playing a game decided by dice lol. ? Unless of course you use weighted dice ?

 

Turn 2: assuming he moved up for the turn two double(If I lost priority) he has to decide either to let me go first knowing he just moved up in my threat range. Or take the turn and try to do as much full strength shooting as possible giving up the dreaded double turn. If I went first, rinse and repeat buffs, attempt to snipe the lynch pin heroes, decide what my stone lord wants to eat, preferably any heroes that are lynch pins. Capture objectives based on mission (most important thing in AOS) chaff up any meaty monsters he has with my super swift grots. Put my (5)brutes and (10) brutes and arachnarok on advantageous combats and start chompin. He won't have a full strength double turn on 3 and if I am following odds I could have sniped 1 of his heroes at this point. Further neutering the army. 

If I win iniative, I can successfully keep him from ever getting another double turn by giving him that double turn until he wins the roll back. Which he then stares down MY double turn. Plus my army isn't one you want to have double turn you with Melee. Sure I'd loose some pieces from my army, but I'm fully buffed up so that should help, hopefully on some terrain with some units and hiding behind terrain. I'll take it like a man ? and enjoy my possible double turn or enjoy him not getting another double turn. 

 

This is is all speculation and I really don't think you can speculate games in AOS because there are to many extrinsic factors to count up in AOS. Also proper amounts of terrain can't be said enough. I'm not a know it all, but I do consider myself a very strategic player. I'm not trying to be overly critical to anyone and especially you @Auticus since you've been a big part of warhammer for many years. Just trying to stem the convo's away from using well known busted units to justify why (XYZ) are broken or messed up in AOS. It is a great gaming system, just has some kinks like ANY game will have. 

 

Best Desruction General @ Adepticon 

Best Destruction General @ Nashconn 

[eekamouse]

The above is why I actually do like Double Turns.... early game. 

 

[AverageBoss]

3 hours ago, Paul Buckler said:

Double turn is by far the best thing about AOS, I have seen loads of comebacks because of it and loads of early game wins from it.

The fact that you have to plan for both eventualities when you consider your moves is a huge tactical part of the game. 

Going back to alternate activation in 40K has really shown me I don't like it at all.

40K is not alternating activations. It's I go, you go.

Malifaux, Star Wars Armada and the AoS close combat phase are alternating activations.

[#SteveJames]

12 hours 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 have found this in a few games , I threw my Household Tree Lord Ancient in to my opponents main combat unit to hold them up if we had been playing alternating turns then there would have been very little chance of him killing the TLA as I could regularly heal him. However he got a double turn and was able to kill him off.

Another example I was playing Khorne Blood bound vs a full Murderhost which is able to move 2D6" after set up and a further 2D6" in each subsequent Hero phase. I deployed as far back as I could and let my opponent go first he. he came at me piecemeal as not all s units got in.  I got the double and was able too destroy his key units. Again if we had been playing alternating turns he could have march right up to me safe in the knowledge I would be unable to do enough damage then charge me next turn.

Getting the double isn't always game breaking it just keeps you guessing and adds a lot of tension on that dice roll. When my opponent get a double I's sitting there trying to work out what to do next and planning what I would do if I get the next double turn.

[Criti]

I love the double turn. 

I can't think of any time since we've learned to utilize it that it has caused an "auto win" for someone, because we've built armies with it in mind.

And yes, it absolutely adds tactical depth to the game and eliminates my most hated feature of wargames: the stand off.

Here's the thing... both players know it is there before the game starts.  They both know they will have an equal chance to win turns.  They should, therefore, play that way.  Chaff and positioning becomes a thing with double turns.

This is going to be hard to explain in text, but I'll try... And I'm going to use Kings of War and Warhammer Fantazy as my comparison games, as they use set values and turns.

Low- you take 1st turn. You push up a brick of knight to be 0.0001" outside my charge range.  I can literally do nothing and take the charge on your Turn 2, or I can shimmy back and we repeat the process on Turn 3.  Or maybe I can push up a fast unit and we repeat the same thing, but reversed.  Is that tactical?  That you figured out that a 16" charge goes farther than a 12" charge?

And - you take first turn.  You know that I have a 50% chance of going twice.  What considerations suddenly change?  Do you push up that unit and complain when I wipe it with a double?  Or do you set a little farther back with a blocking chaff unit?  Far enough you're not likely to hit the charge roll on the chaff during your turn?  Then maybe you win the turn, but can't get to my good unit because my chaff is doing its job, but close enough that if I win the turn, I can shift the chaff out of the way and still attempt my charge?

As second player, do you push up aggressively and trying to grab the double, leaving yourself vulnerable if you don't get it?  Do you still do that if your opponent has layered his defenses and can weather it?

 Did you spend all your points on aggression and not have the means to counter being double turned?  

What about forcing your opponent into a BAD double turn?  He goes second in a round.  The combats don't go the way he expected and your really good units are still largely free.  Then you win the priority roll, give him the turn, and laugh to yourself since you know that he won't be able to bog down your good units, and now you have the chance to grab a double turn for yourself?

Surely I can't be the only one who has done that?

The double turn adds a lot to the gameplay.  Strategies you wouldn't consider in other games becomes via me with it in play.  It's up to us as players to incorporate that element of the game into our strategies. 

[SpiritofHokuto]

12 minutes ago, Auticus said:

I'd need to see examples of all of these 'strategies'.  All I can think of is "ok i'm going to take it down my throat if I move closer, but if I stand still i'm going to get picked off piecemeal.  Unless I get double turn.  Then he'll take it down his throat."

It will be an interesting day when a game designer puts out a game that does alternate activation in a fantasy setting with nice models to see what happens to the overall community. 

There was one, Confrontation. But we all know what happened to Rackham 

The rules might have been a bit sketchy but the alternate activation/combat resolution made for great bluffing and mind games.

[eekamouse]

20 minutes ago, Auticus said:

I'd need to see examples of all of these 'strategies'.  All I can think of is "ok i'm going to take it down my throat if I move closer, but if I stand still i'm going to get picked off piecemeal.  Unless I get double turn.  Then he'll take it down his throat."

It will be an interesting day when a game designer puts out a game that does alternate activation in a fantasy setting with nice models to see what happens to the overall community. 

The Song of Ice and Fire game from CMON that's on Kickstarter and has alternating activations. The mini quality seems fair.

[Sleboda]

3 hours ago, Auticus said:

I use kunnin rukk because they are extreme examples that show why the mechanic is broken very clearly. 

I agree with Southern trolls in both bits - 1 you are great to have here and 2 your examples for this are not actually helping.

Yes,  extremes can shed light on stuff, but not always the right stuff. 

For example, we can talk about a person who had 23 shots of whiskey (extreme by most standards) and got behind the wheel.  He hit and killed 7 ppl on the way home.   Very bad, and cleary shows how bad automotive transportation is ... right? Let's not focus on the 300,000 ppl who drove the same roads, in cars, the next morning communte and killed zero ppl.

[Sleboda]

24 minutes ago, SpiritofHokuto said:

There was one, Confrontation. But we all know what happened to Rackham 

The rules might have been a bit sketchy but the alternate activation/combat resolution made for great bluffing and mind games.

Plus, they launched Big. Cry Havok was an amazeballz publication. The models were stunning. They used card references. All was top top top quality.  Heck,  their founder even met with GW bigwigs of the day to try to keep things in tge friendly competition realm.

They did it up right.

And still ppl chose Warhammer.

Do not underestimate the power of early, sustained dominance in this market. GW is (was?) arrogant for good reason. 

[Criti]

38 minutes ago, Auticus said:

I'd need to see examples of all of these 'strategies'.  All I can think of is "ok i'm going to take it down my throat if I move closer, but if I stand still i'm going to get picked off piecemeal.  Unless I get double turn.  Then he'll take it down his throat."

Well, I detailed one utilizing a chaff blocker.

Usong blocking unit to protect a shooter is another.

"Stacking" units with reach is another double turn protection method.  Example, I want my Protectors in combat.  I don't necessarily want my Liberators there (I often want them hunkering down in terrain and holdong objectives).  But I may want to put a line of Libs in front of my Protectors if I'm risking losing the double turn.  I can still fight over them if I get charges.  And back, knowing that prickly block is there and that most opponents won't be able to hit the Protectors might discourage my opponent from even charging.  If it does, that double turn just burned 2 of his 5 charge phases. 

I might also form up my units in a V formation,  utilizing the 1" coherency rules and pointing the skinny tip at the opponent.  It will minimize the effectiveness of the double,  because if I line it up right,  on the initial turn, my opponent will have fewer models in the fight,  and I'll get a good strike back after my pile in.  Hopefully,  I can whittle him down a bit so the double doesn't hurt as much. 

[Carnelian]

7 hours ago, Auticus said:

I have never witnessed a dramatic comeback from a double turn.  

I genuinely feel very sad for you! Keep on playing and I'm sure you'll get this glorious experience soon enough 

[Killax]

What Id love to know though is what some feel it adds to the game, an description of excitement and added fun!

I really get how it can influence the game and thus some tactics, but I don't know why players like to see it continue exactly like it is now. The prime reason for me is that no matter how the cake is cut I do like the grinds, I like it because it means impact units who have a bonus on charges have a tactical purpose.

I guess I generally like it because I feel I can get the upper hand in difficult grinds, where suddenly good placement and pre-placement is even more important. Likewise I get that some like the added luck factor, but would you feel the AoS experience would be worse without it? 

[BunkhouseBuster]

In my experiences, the Double-Turn only ever confirmed the direction the game was heading.  If I was starting to lose at any point, it helped me lose quicker.  If I was winning, it helped me win quicker.  However, I have had enough games where a double turn helped my army rally and pull back a victory (or at least a closer defeat).  That said, I have never faced off against a really powerful net-list or shenanigans army that everyone talks about, so my experience on being the recipient of a Double-Turn shooting army is limited.

I would be okay with alternate activation.  I have even toyed with the idea of a combined Turn Initiative and Alternate Activations that could shake up the game a bit.

[Oppenheimer]

40k doesn't have a double turn? Do they not roll for initiative? How do they do it instead?

[AverageBoss]

1 hour ago, Oppenheimer said:

40k doesn't have a double turn? Do they not roll for initiative? How do they do it instead?

The player who finishes deploying first picks whether they want to go first or second (just like AoS). If they choose to go first, the other player has a chance to steal initiative by rolling a 6 on a D6.

From there, every turn plays out the same with the same player always going first, and the other always going second.

[Carnelian]

14 minutes ago, AverageBoss said:

The player who finishes deploying first picks whether they want to go first or second (just like AoS). If they choose to go first, the other player has a chance to steal initiative by rolling a 6 on a D6.

From there, every turn plays out the same with the same player always going first, and the other always going second.

In the tournament scene (specifically ITC) they are testing modifications to this because as it stands it is very powerful to have the first go and thus grt all of your shooting in on the enemy before they shoot you.

Double turn avoids that.

[eekamouse]

3 minutes ago, Carnelian said:

In the tournament scene (specifically ITC) they are testing modifications to this because as it stands it is very powerful to have the first go and thus grt all of your shooting in on the enemy before they shoot you.

Double turn avoids that.

That's Apples and Oranges though. 40k is overwhelmingly "shoot heavy" compared to AoS (understandably). It's a different system entirely even though the rulesets are similar. If you had Double Turns in 40k... the game would be dead by the end of the summer.