Jump to content

Real Talk about the Double Turn


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Auticus said:

An army that is far more powerful does increase its already odds of winning, because the sooner you can shut down your opponent with a double turn, the more assured victory is.  Whereas an army that is far weaker than a powerful opponent would require multiple double turns to catch up, but once they themselves face their first double turn against the strong opponent they are basically removed from the game at that point.

That's just not true statistically. The less randomness there is, the more the natural strengths of the army will influence the outcome. The more randomness you add, the more opportunity for outcomes that don't reflect the underlying strength of the army and skill of the players.

 

Think it through and you'll see how it works. In a game with no dice rolls or other random components, the strength of the armies and the people playing them will determine the outcome 100% of the time. When you begin to introduce randomness, that number goes down because now people can get lucky or unlucky rolls. The more randomness you introduce, the more that number goes down. Thus, arguments that the random initiative sequence introduces too much luck are valid. The argument that it makes stronger armies even stronger is completely backwards; it makes it less likely that the strength of that army will determine the outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 260
  • Created
  • Last Reply
8 minutes ago, Trout said:

That's just not true statistically. The less randomness there is, the more the natural strengths of the army will influence the outcome. The more randomness you add, the more opportunity for outcomes that don't reflect the underlying strength of the army and skill of the players.

 

Think it through and you'll see how it works. In a game with no dice rolls or other random components, the strength of the armies and the people playing them will determine the outcome 100% of the time. When you begin to introduce randomness, that number goes down. The more randomness you introduce, the more that number goes down. Thus, arguments that the random initiative sequence introduces too much luck is a strong one. The argument that it makes stronger armies stronger is completely backwards; it makes it less likely that the strength of that army will determine the outcome.

You're right that less randomness makes the victory more assured for whoever has an advantage off the bat. But the low drop armies remove that randomness by basically guaranteeing the first double turn will go to them. There's no denying that the double turn doubles the damage output of an army; if it does so to an army that is already stronger, then how is it helping balance the game? It's just making the predicted result happen in a shorter and less fun manner. 

If the weaker army always had the chance of the first double turn, your stance would make more sense to me. The problem with what you are saying is that the filth lists guarantee the first opportunity for double turn and are built around alpha-striking the enemy when they get it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a double turn makes it possible for a "less competitive" army to turn the tides against a "more competitive" army (e.g. SCE vs Wanderers) but the issue being that with "if I get a 1 drop army I get to determine who goes first" and the who goes first determines the potential for the first Double Turn... perhaps the solution is to change it from a "guaranteed decision" to a roll-off with a bonus to the roll for finishing your drops first?

 

WH40k runs that approach presently. (With the potential to seize the initiative.)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TheOtherJosh said:

If a double turn makes it possible for a "less competitive" army to turn the tides against a "more competitive" army (e.g. SCE vs Wanderers) but the issue being that with "if I get a 1 drop army I get to determine who goes first" and the who goes first determines the potential for the first Double Turn... perhaps the solution is to change it from a "guaranteed decision" to a roll-off with a bonus to the roll for finishing your drops first?

WH40k runs that approach presently.

Yes, I think that would be sensible. In fact, I don't think there's any reason to give a bonus to anyone. Just roll from turn one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be all for this.... The problem in 40k is getting shot off the board in the first round however.

The percentage of games where the player who goes first wins was crazy before that rule change. I think it's probably still high (just guessing), but the builds are very in flux in that meta right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Auticus said:

Stuff, I can mostly agree with or at least find understandable

 

I agree that fulminators are pretty good, but the range attack is 6" and is still d3 attacks, hitting on 3's.  It does get nasty within 3" but is still subject to the d3, 3+.  The armor isn't a rerollable 2+ either, you only re roll 1's unless it's buffed by something other than stormcast but I don't know what that is.  So rend is your friend not counting mortal wounds which bypass the armour completely and it doesn't take many to seriously knock down the effectiveness of their mortal wound output.  Even a casual list could probably dish out some mortal wounds. 

And it is not unreasonable at all to expect to not get rolled by a power list at a casual narrative event but it can still happen, happens to me when I play my buddy at chess all the time, it's as balanced as can be but he is really good.  Not saying "git gud" just saying that getting rolled can happen in any game and you never know unless you roll them dice. 

That said, wish you all the luck turning the tide in your area.  I know you said the group is small, but is that really a problem?  Before AoS dropped I had the same garage group of 4-5 guys for almost 20 years.  I never thought of it as a problem.  If you have 2-3 other like minded guys and some variations in armies... well, you got enough to game on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Trout said:

Yes, I think that would be sensible. In fact, I don't think there's any reason to give a bonus to anyone. Just roll from turn one.

I also agree that this would solve a lot of problems. If people wanna keep the double turn, at least remove the primary mechanism lists use to abuse it - guaranteeing themselves the first double turn. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Auticus said:

 

 I've seen a few almosts where a weak army got two double turns and the strong army never got one (they still lost but it was a closer game), but I've never seen what you are describing.

 

 

This can't happen right? Can't have two double turns for one player without giving one up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Tidings said:

 If people wanna keep the double turn, at least remove the primary mechanism lists use to abuse it - guaranteeing themselves the first double turn. 

This I can get on board with.   If you couldn't drop an entire army in one drop it might mitigate the problem somewhat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never once said I wasn't competitive.  I said that I want the game to be tighter so that balanced lists have a better chance and that extreme lists can not be as dominant.  I want to be able to play casual games in a casual environment without the game allowing for people showing up with a steam roller.  I want more of the game to be viable.  Thats the basis of every complaint I've ever voiced here.

I also never said or thought double turn is the cause of competitive list building.  Thats a pretty absurd assertion.

Forums are supposed to be a place to have discussion.  In a debate, you supply counter points.  If you're going to make assertions as you are above, provide proof and context.  Otherwise, if you want a forum where everyone agrees with each other, then yeah... hit the ignore button.

  

 

Granted my final sentence was a little churlish.

 

We're not having a discussion you were having what appeared to hissy fit over my use of the word fallacy. It smacked of some sort of point scoring rather than a discussion over toy soldiers.

 

I don't see how changing his rule will alleviate what you claim. It seems entirely linked to the personalities of the people involved at your club you included.

 

If you'd like context I've played the game without the turn roll I didn't like it as much. Here's very little you can do to effect it, and then only with very characterful choices.

 

There's no proof to be had only our opinions on this one.

 

The fact remains regardless of points being perfect in each respect the game has synergies between units there's always going to be better ways to choose armies.

List building will always be a thing.

 

You have linked the double turn to power list building.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Power list building does not exist because of the double turn.  Power list building has existing for decades, well before the double turn.
However power list building absolutely abuses the double turn as one of its elements that makes it a power list in AOS.
Removing double turn is not going to remove power list building.
Removing double turn removes a mechanic that is essentially spinning the roulette wheel and if the ball lands on your color, if you have properly abused the double turn and your opponent has not, you will likely win.
Extreme list building will always be a thing so long as the games developers continue to let it flourish.  Extreme list building can be combated by the game developers; they choose not to.  As they choose not to, and as the community as a whole seems to accept and even enjoy this power disparity that allows extreme list building to flourish, you're right - it will likely always exist in the GW universe.
I've also not alluded to my opinion as being biblical fact, nor have expressed it in a way where its nothing more than an opinion.  So yes pointing out my opinion is nothing more than an opinion seems obvious.
We're not having a discussion you were having what appeared to hissy fit over my use of the word fallacy. It smacked of some sort of point scoring rather than a discussion over toy soldiers.
Using the word "fallacy" to discredit an opinion can be seen as insulting and an attack, because the word "fallacy" indicates something is incorrect or illogical (or both).  It would be the same if I had used the phrase "your opinion is wrong and illogical".  You would likely take offense to that as well.


Well I was more going for a misconception based on faulty reasoning. But I guess we're boring people [emoji6].

However getting back to the double turn I'm not sure maximising one ability to capitalise on it is necessarily abusing it. Surely that's the sweet spot in a tactic situation , being able to capitalise on an advantage when it occurs. Yes it's based on chance but you do know when it's may occur so it can be planned for/mitigated against. The fact a lot of power are, until your next phase, is probably in the rules because of it (how that is effected by the rules of one is an interesting convo on how seemingly isolated rules changes can effect the whole game).

I've probably won as many games when people went for a double and overstretched as I have lost because they've got it and I've been poorly placed.










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Auticus said:

I don't see that as tactical anymore than I would consider a high school football team (pick your version of football, it applies) matching up against a pro-level football team very tactical for the coaches involved.  Its too simple and too swingy.  Its the extreme cases in both situations.  

Note that the rules of football do not prohibit this. The rules for their respective leagues, however, do. GW cannot make the players in any area abide by "gentlemen's agreements" on playing to a certain tournament/casual standard. It's up to the event organizer or individuals in a play group to do that. If everyone wants to go hardcore, great! Pro football it is. If everyone wants to go casual, great! Pickup football it is. 

The problem, as I see it, comes not from the rules but from the varied expectations of different players. Yes I've lost to the double turn. Yes I've won with the double turn. But every game has been fun (and most have been competitive) because my opponent and I had the same intentions. Don't blame the rules, blame the players. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding double turn I believe quite strongly that the difference in opinion comes from one side being cool with very random and swingy mechanics dictating the result of a game and the other side not being ok with it. 

 

Surely that's the sweet spot in a tactic situation , being able to capitalise on an advantage when it occurs. 
I'd agree with you except that this particular tactical situation could be figured out by a four year old and capitalizing on it is as simple as loading everything into a formation for one drop and thats it.  

I don't see that as tactical anymore than I would consider a high school football team (pick your version of football, it applies) matching up against a pro-level football team very tactical for the coaches involved.  Its too simple and too swingy.  Its the extreme cases in both situations.  

 

 

Yes it's obvious but the whole concept of WFB (Charge them in the rear or flank) was obvious. While capitalising on it is generally easier dealing with it is much more interesting process. I don't believe that the winner of every 2day tournament we've had has done so purely by getting a double on turn 2 in every game. All the tactical choices add up though regardless of how small.

 

I do like swingy randomness I don't like games that run on rails.

 

I'm not too sure tightening the rules as you suggest will help you have casual laid back games you, certainly doesn't seem that is the case with Warmachine. The level of competition in a game is determined by the players the same as sports

 

Again not too sure the football analogy really fits but I will borrow it to point out that they very much do list building in that as well, if one is taking it seriously they play their best players in their preferred positions or they don't do very well. There's also circumstances in American football where a scoring team will receive the ball back effectively having a double turn (though not based on chance however). Also Premiership football sides will pick weakened sides to play preseason friendlies against lower league opposition.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting thought talking about imbalanced games. With the Open War cards coming and apparently more support for the open and narrative play... which will allow you to do interesting scenarios where one side is "double" the power of another..... I don't know.

I can't see them keeping a random double turn in those scenarios.

Say you flip a scenario where one side is 1000 points vs. a side that is 2000 points. Well.... if the 2000 point player gets a double turn.... ummm..... that can't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, eekamouse said:

Interesting thought talking about imbalanced games. With the Open War cards coming and apparently more support for the open and narrative play... which will allow you to do interesting scenarios where one side is "double" the power of another..... I don't know.

I can't see them keeping a random double turn in those scenarios.

Say you flip a scenario where one side is 1000 points vs. a side that is 2000 points. Well.... if the 2000 point player gets a double turn.... ummm..... that can't work.  Until that mentality changes, I don't think it will be something that we see change.

It will because GW doesn't seem to mind.  Part of the underlying issue seems to be that GW is okay with one-sided games and see those as part of the "narrative" that can happen with AOS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, wayniac said:

It will because GW doesn't seem to mind.  Part of the underlying issue seems to be that GW is okay with one-sided games and see those as part of the "narrative" that can happen with AOS.

They listened enough to change the initiative mechanic in 40k after like a month though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, eekamouse said:

They listened enough to change the initiative mechanic in 40k after like a month though.

Yeah but 40k is the cash cow.  They also put out immediate errata and FAQs for 40k, while they are reluctant to do that for AOS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

I don't believe that the winner of every 2day tournament we've had has done so purely by getting a double on turn 2 in every game. 

This is exaggerating/changing what we are saying. Not at all what we mean. We're talking about lists like Thundertusks, SCE deepstrikes, Kunnin, Skyfire, etc being able to do three things. These are all pretty dominant lists, though yeah there are obviously others. But these are the most common cheese lists. Here's the three things they do. 

1 - they can almost always finish deploying first, allowing them to choose the 2nd turn. Some of them can sit far enough back or off the table entirely to deny the opponent an entire turn. That means cheese goes first and gets 5 turns, possible with a double, while victim goes 2nd without a chance at double and only gets 4 turns basically. 

2 - they can move into range in one turn to do most or all of their damage

3 - they do a LOT of damage that is one-way. Not melee damage where you at least activate back, just tons of one-way damage that in many cases you can't prevent (two Thundertusks doing 14 mortal wounds in my last tournament for example). 

They've built a list designed to have the first chance at a double turn, and designed to abuse how much damage they can do without the opponent interacting at all. taking 28 mortal wounds, plus more from the charge and combat on the 2nd turn, is unrecoverable. Even if you can come back, you are so far behind that it's not a balanced game anymore. Even if you get a double turn, you have so much less power on the table that it rarely makes a difference. Against casual lists it can absolutely swing, but these lists are DESIGNED to take such advantage of the turn that you don't have enough strength after the double to come back. 

Sure there are OP units and shooting mechanics that should possibly be improved. But saying the double turn isn't the problem is ignoring the fact that these lists are built around the double turn and without it, they would not be able to instant win literally 50% of their games. There are so few lists that can take 2 turns in a row from these lists and mount a comeback, and even then it takes him having bad luck and you having great luck for the rest of the game. 

The game isn't fun when you have 1/3 your army gone before you get to use any of it and have very little chance of winning. The double isn't helping you come back, it just ensured he could use OP units and shooting mechanics to do way more damage than he should have. And finally, even if you nerf certain units or change shooting, the problem is there will always be something that is OP, and the double turn is what lets people exploit it like crazy. 

Only two fixes I see are remove the double turn, or remove the ability to guarantee who goes second. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just playing Khorne Bloodbound against Beastclaw Raiders. Opponent won roll and allowed me to go first. Nothing happened. He moved and tried a couple of missile attacks which failed.

Turn 2 he won the roll...double turn! He killed my Mighty Lord of Khorne in 1 attack, then my Exalted Deathbringer and by the end of turn 2 I had lost half of my army 30 of 61 models.

That's just the way it goes....getting into turn 3 now so will see what happens next!

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well.....turn 3 came and went and I had 13 Blood Warriors, a Skullgrinder, an Aspiring Deathbringer and 2 Khorgoraths left. Opponent won turn 4 roll and wiped them out. I didn't get a double turn this game but the one my opponent got didn't help him all that much to be fair. It was the mortal wounds that those Beastclaw Raiders dish out. Very powerful army!

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Azlak the Damned said:

Well.....turn 3 came and went and I had 13 Blood Warriors, a Skullgrinder, an Aspiring Deathbringer and 2 Khorgoraths left. Opponent won turn 4 roll and wiped them out. I didn't get a double turn this game but the one my opponent got didn't help him all that much to be fair. It was the mortal wounds that those Beastclaw Raiders dish out. Very powerful army!

Beastclaws are a really tough match for Bloodbound as you need your characters to kill the big beasts and they're the ones that normally get removed first with shooting.  Lasting until turn 4 was a good achievement though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...