The dreaded double turn

[Carnelian]

Maybe it would be better balanced if whoever went second in the battle round got to move All the endless spells and not just the first one in a sequence

[Mutton]

I'm not a huge fan of the double turn for two major reasons:

1) Regardless of whether or not it swings the game one way or the other, it's hugely boring for the player who has to sit around for 20-30 minutes while their opponent has fun. "The Sitter" is relegated to making armor saves, unbinding, and alternating combat once that phase begins. It means they don't even get to touch their own models for a half hour or more except to remove them from the table. It's a poor player experience.

2) It excessively punishes armies who rely on heavier hero and shooting phases. If your army's thing is magic, you now get to go 2 whole turns without casting spells...if you focus on shooting (poor KO), guess what, if you lose out to the double turn then no pew pew for quite awhile. Close combat is alternating, so even if an opponent gets the double turn, if you're a cc heavy faction, then there's not nearly as much you're sacrificing. But if we want to see different types of armies in the game as a whole (melee armies, magic armies, shooty armies, etc), then something needs to be done about the double turn's ability to completely shut down those types of factions.

[Overread]

10 minutes ago, Carnelian said:

Maybe it would be better balanced if whoever went second in the battle round got to move All the endless spells and not just the first one in a sequence

Thing is that only benefits them if there are any predatory endless spells on the table at that point in time. So many times it might never happen and as endless spells are technically optional it might even mean some game groups might never have the option. Plus its only predatory endless spells so all it might do is devalue them a bit in the competitive scene, but otherwise give no net benefit.

Honestly I think the core issue is the mechanic itself. I'm not even quite sure why we have it since it appears at random rather than based on the game state. It sounds like one of those things that was fine in the AoS launch rules, but in the more serious 2.0 it just feels a bit oddball. 

[RuneBrush]

I think your own preference of the double turn is likely shaped by the people (and thus armies) you play against.  Some armies benefit more than others - primarily those with a high ranged damage output in the form of hero phase and shooting abilities (i.e. abilities they get to use twice without the opponent doing anything in return).  Conversely armies that are largely melee based tend to benefit a bit less (as the damage is focused largely on the alternating combat phase).  Personally, this is why I've found my most enjoyable games tend to be melee vs melee armies (e.g. Khorne vs Ironjawz), because both armies gain roughly the same from a double turn and you're both keen to get into range of each other.

Ultimately though, the double turn is one very unique feature of AoS and heavily pushes that it's a dice based game and that you can't plan too far ahead because all plans can go awry.

[Luke82]

8 hours ago, Mutton said:

1) Regardless of whether or not it swings the game one way or the other, it's hugely boring for the player who has to sit around for 20-30 minutes while their opponent has fun. "The Sitter" is relegated to making armor saves, unbinding, and alternating combat once that phase begins. It means they don't even get to touch their own models for a half hour or more except to remove them from the table. It's a poor player experience.

This is a a reason why I don’t like it, I don’t like it happening to me or doing it to others as I know it feel so rubbish. We can all chuckle when one of our key units is destroyed or an important charge or spell fails so it’s not the losing aspect, but just being more or less shut out of the game for so long is dreadful.

[XReN]

I find an argument of "sitting and doing nothing for a long time" very funny when I play against horde/summoning armies and I sit and do nothing for a long time no matter what! 

[Luke82]

Then when it’s doubled it’s twice as bad, pretty straightforward!

[InSaint]

But than it is twice as good for the other player. Which is fun and exciting!

Don't lie, I am sure you secretly enjoyed the high of endorphin when you win the double turn while trying to feel bad for the opponent. 

You also get a surge of adrenaline? Based on the knowledge that you are like going to suffer massive casualty when your opponent gets the double turn. I am pretty sure many players here feels the same way... which is quite evident by the amount of criticism. Probably also why everyone remembers the time they lost because of the double turn and not when they won because of the double turn.

These thrills are dangerously addictive. I mean look at gambling in real life. Statistically it does not make sense, it is game designed to make you lose in the long run, people know this but still gamble because it is fun and exciting!

[Overread]

@InSaint oh to be sure getting a doubleturn is going to be fun, but.

1) Once the novelty has worn off it can actually take away fun because any victory you get might feel akin to cheating. Oh I got the double turn - ok so I've basically won now.... Ergo you the player are winning because you're getting two turns in a row. This means that (barring a few specialist situations) you're really going to heavily swing the game in your favour. Sure your opponent gets to come back and hit you twice over, but you'll already have crippled them in the two turns you've got. Heck if you're shooting or magic heavy you're really going to do well. 

2) The idea of the game should be to end each single match with both players having had a good time. The doubleturn runs a higher risk that one ends having had a good time and one ends having had a rather bad time. This would be fine in something like Magic the Gathering where a game might last 5-10 mins; but in Warhammer you might only get one game a week. That means having a bad-time is really a big deal. Furthermore it only has to happen twice in a row to start putting people off the game. Your opponent getting a double turn on you in two consecutive games isn't a huge improbability but now that's spoilt your game for 2 weeks - that's half a month. 

3) It's very punishing to newer players. Not only are they still learning the ropes but BAM now their opponent gets two whole turns against them. That's going to feel really unfair unless their opponent pulls their punches and deliberately doesn't play at their best. 

Now some might say that it depends on your playgroup and that so long as you're not playing "hyper competitive" people you should be fine. However to me that suggests there's a problem with the game when you have to check your own playing and tone it down for both people to have a fun time. This assumes two relatively balanced opponents in terms of their skill. 

3 hours ago, XReN said:

I find an argument of "sitting and doing nothing for a long time" very funny when I play against horde/summoning armies and I sit and do nothing for a long time no matter what! 

Yeah but there's a difference between waiting for a player to finish their regular turn and then getting yours; and waiting for a player to finish two whole turns of beating you down and then getting your turn. 

[Vextol]

I don't get that "bored" feeling from waiting.  I watch their moves, watch their dice, think how I'm going to react and talk to my opponent.  For those of you whose attention span runs out in 20 minutes I think you may be playing the wrong game!  It's a war game.  They're slow.

If the game had alternating turns I think I'd sell it.  The double turn is an amazing balancing mechanism.  It just needs to somehow be implemented tactically instead of randomly. 

This game, as it stands, CAN have alternating turns. I have played 6 or 7 games that had alternating turns just because 'dice' .   You know the expected and almost certain outcome?  The person who went first won.  Ghosts of the past anyone?  

I would not jump on the end the double turn bandwagon so quickly.  Unless the turn order can be influenced by the players, there will always be something "unfair" or "unfun" about it. 

[Dead Scribe]

there will always be something "unfair" or "unfun" about it. 

That can be said about any rule.  

[Kramer]

30 minutes ago, Overread said:

@InSaint oh to be sure getting a doubleturn is going to be fun, but.

1) Once the novelty has worn off it can actually take away fun because any victory you get might feel akin to cheating. Oh I got the double turn - ok so I've basically won now.... Ergo you the player are winning because you're getting two turns in a row. This means that (barring a few specialist situations) you're really going to heavily swing the game in your favour. Sure your opponent gets to come back and hit you twice over, but you'll already have crippled them in the two turns you've got. Heck if you're shooting or magic heavy you're really going to do well. 

 2) The idea of the game should be to end each single match with both players having had a good time. The doubleturn runs a higher risk that one ends having had a good time and one ends having had a rather bad time. This would be fine in something like Magic the Gathering where a game might last 5-10 mins; but in Warhammer you might only get one game a week. That means having a bad-time is really a big deal. Furthermore it only has to happen twice in a row to start putting people off the game. Your opponent getting a double turn on you in two consecutive games isn't a huge improbability but now that's spoilt your game for 2 weeks - that's half a month. 

3) It's very punishing to newer players. Not only are they still learning the ropes but BAM now their opponent gets two whole turns against them. That's going to feel really unfair unless their opponent pulls their punches and deliberately doesn't play at their best. 

Now some might say that it depends on your playgroup and that so long as you're not playing "hyper competitive" people you should be fine. However to me that suggests there's a problem with the game when you have to check your own playing and tone it down for both people to have a fun time. This assumes two relatively balanced opponents in terms of their skill. 

Yeah but there's a difference between waiting for a player to finish their regular turn and then getting yours; and waiting for a player to finish two whole turns of beating you down and then getting your turn. 

All good points... but for every occasion that occurs. It happens for your opponent. That's were this set of arguments falls down in my opinion.

1) for every battle that happens, you get one in return.
2) The next two weeks of that month you get that double turn. 
3) The new player, BAM gets two turns in a row to experiment and learn. 

In my experience it's maybe 10-20% of the games that's decided on the initiative roll. It does feel like more, because late game it usually becomes a last lifeline to get back into it. Not getting or getting that roll sticks with you. But with IGYG you don't have that last chance to get an advantage. 
So my two cents, yes your arguments hold true, but they balance out and your talking about extremes in my personal experience. The extremes balance out and the majority of games are not decided by the initiative roll but they create a more exiting end game. 
(again all based on my personal experience)

[sal4m4nd3r]

On 10/4/2017 at 3:03 PM, Rob Hawkins said:

The problem isn't with the double turn itself, the problem is that whoever finishes deploying first decides the order and potential of the doubles.  That's a problem that's not a simple matter of game play, it goes all the way back to list building.  Because winning deployment is so important, it encourages building a list with as few drops as possible.

By forcing your opponent to take the first turn, they basically won't be in range to do anything effective on their turn, If they move up enough to score any VPs on objectives, they risk being in a position to get charged and then doubled.  You'll be able to move up cautiously and position units to both receive their charge if they win the priority or capitalize on your double.  If the opponent was reckless, you might even be able to charge turn one.  Either way, you have the first opportunity for a double. 

If you win the roll for turn 2, you can capitalize on the double, or not take the double, in which case you maintain the "2nd player" position.  (Note that you can do this for the entire game (dice permitting) denying any double turns at all, simply because you finished deploying first.)  If the opponent wins the roll for turn 2, they have the choice to either take a single turn, and remain the 1st player with no opportunity for a double on the next turn, or give you a double turn, which (if you've played correctly) could be devastating for them.

So, by winning deployment and going second,  you have controlled the double turn until at least turn 3.  If you didn't already get a double, you are still the player who will get the first double.  Either way, the 1st player cannot get a double until after you have already had one.

That is where the problem lies.  I don't really mind the double turns, but I would rather see 1st turn decided by a random roll rather than by whoever engineered their list for the fewest drops.  It could be a roll-off with +1 for finishing deployment first, and allowing the opponent to seize initiative like 40K, or any combination of that.  That would make the strategy more dependent on placement and turn order during the game rather than it ending at the list building stage because I took a Battalion.  I want to out-play my opponent, not "out-list" them.

Which is so funny because I have a conspiracy theory it wasnt this way. This is what I think happnened:

I think the learn to play video they spent a lot of money making (where they got the geek and sundry girl to be in it) got it wrong. Either by old habits or by misinterpretation of the rules. They cant scrap the video they just spent all this money making. And they cant put out a learn to play product with incorrect rules... so they rolled with it. 

Exhibit A: Is just the GHB, its clear they intended to have a roll off. 

Exhibit B: The maggotkin of nurgle battletome. I dont have it with me (work) but read the entry for placing the "free" feculent gnarlmaw that a Nurgle player gets at the beginning of the game. It says something like "before rolling off to determine who choose first turn." We all know Maggotkin was the "first" 2nd edition battletome. It was the first with a resource bases summoning mechanic and was clearly designed for 2nd edition. They INTENDED ALL ALONG to have a roll off until this dumbass video. 

 

One thing I will point out is that there is an inherit advantage to going first. But also there is a balancing where the player who goes second will ALWAYS have the first double turn, unless they lose every priority roll. 

Edited April 2, 2019 by sal4m4nd3r

[RuneBrush]

2 hours ago, sal4m4nd3r said:

Which is so funny because I have a conspiracy theory it wasnt this way. This is what I think happnened:

Got to love a good conspiracy theory

My own thoughts is along the same lines.  I think the rule to roll off the first turn crept in by mistake.  I expect it was decided at some point to change it and then they decided against it as it went through playtesting.  That (now incorrect) rule got passed over to Becca Scott who did all the filming as per documents she had, but when it got released the mistake was discovered.

[sal4m4nd3r]

2 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

Got to love a good conspiracy theory

My own thoughts is along the same lines.  I think the rule to roll off the first turn crept in by mistake.  I expect it was decided at some point to change it and then they decided against it as it went through playtesting.  That (now incorrect) rule got passed over to Becca Scott who did all the filming as per documents she had, but when it got released the mistake was discovered.

So you think it was first a roll off. Then it was decided to have it drop determined. This got passed to ms. Scott. Then they decided to change it back to roll off. Printed the book. Never informed ms. Scott...then had to faq it back?

This is all convoluted. But there was clearly inner turmoil..as I said it is clear they wanted a roll off of you look at the Maggotkin battletome. This is kind of good news, as a roll off is probably coming. MAYBE this GHB??!

 

[PlasticCraic]

17 hours ago, sal4m4nd3r said:

One thing I will point out is that there is an inherit advantage to going first. But also there is a balancing where the player who goes second will ALWAYS have the first double turn, unless they lose every priority roll. 

That's actually the only time I feel like there are "bad beats" in the game.  Not when there is a double turn...but when there isn't.

If you go first and put your opponent on for the double, and they get it, then them's the breaks and you knew the risk when you went first.

If your opponent goes first and puts you on for the double, and then they hold on to the priority all the way through, they're the ones who got lucky. 

In that regard I actually preferred the old rules of rerolling ties for priority...the move to slightly reduce the amount of double turns has actually made the game slightly less balanced and fun imo.  

I have never heard an experienced player complain about being double turned, because we all understand that it's part of the game and how to play around it.  What you will sometimes hear is "my opponent won every priority" and what that usually describes is the situation above. 

Player A goes first and risks getting double turned, but gets lucky and holds on to priority all the way through (or at least for the first 3 or 4 turns by which time the game is effectively resolved).

TL:DR if anything I would like to see more double turns, not fewer!

[PlasticCraic]

In addition to the above, I would just like to add to those voices that have advocated how much they love the excitement and tactical challenge of the double turn.  It's one of the best things about the game imo.  

I would also not be sad to see first turn priority no longer locked in / guaranteed by whoever drops first...an element of uncertainty (first round roll off with +1 to whoever dropped first?) would be good to see.  

But the main and most important thing for me is...please keep the double turn!

[Ratcliff]

3 minutes ago, PlasticCraic said:

In addition to the above, I would just like to add to those voices that have advocated how much they love the excitement and tactical challenge of the double turn.  It's one of the best things about the game imo.  

I would also not be sad to see first turn priority no longer locked in / guaranteed by whoever drops first...an element of uncertainty (first round roll off with +1 to whoever dropped first?) would be good to see.  

But the main and most important thing for me is...please keep the double turn!

 

 

The double turn isn't going anywhere. I think if they changed the first turn to a roll off, we'd see even more list diversity, but battallion points would have to change, as they would lose value

[RuneBrush]

15 hours ago, sal4m4nd3r said:

So you think it was first a roll off. Then it was decided to have it drop determined. This got passed to ms. Scott. Then they decided to change it back to roll off. Printed the book. Never informed ms. Scott...then had to faq it back?

This is all convoluted. But there was clearly inner turmoil..as I said it is clear they wanted a roll off of you look at the Maggotkin battletome. This is kind of good news, as a roll off is probably coming. MAYBE this GHB??!

Pretty much 😁  We know that GW started thinking about AoS 2 not long after the first version appeared, so it's really easy to see how something like this could be missed.  I would also hazard a guess that the video was produced by the GW Marketing department (aka the Community team), and we've heard in the past that they're not privy to all of the thoughts from the design team.

Like you say though, it's convoluted and we're using loads of guesswork!

3 minutes ago, Ratcliff said:

The double turn isn't going anywhere. I think if they changed the first turn to a roll off, we'd see even more list diversity, but battallion points would have to change, as they would lose value

I'm not sure the battalion points would need to change much.  We already get loads - (choice of) single drop of models, an additional artefact, a command point & special rules.  The going first mechanic isn't guaranteed if your opponent is also running a low drop army.

[King Taloren]

If they switched to a roll off for turn one I could see them also adding the 40k roll off rule of +1 to the army that finishes deployment first.

I rarely see double turns. Though I also tend to go second most of the time anyways. By choice more than being outdeployed. Roll offs tend to just keep the status quo the whole game.  Also I kind of prefer going second most of the time to be able to get a good judge of my opponents moves and easier to plan around even if it does cost a few points early in the game depending on objectives. Though I do play Idoneth so it’s a bit easier to counter my opponents moves and endure taking some damage that first turn.

[Carnelian]

How about if this was added to the core rules about objectives? 

After scoring an objective, you cannot score the same objective again until after your opponent's next hero phase. 

That would mean if you did take a double turn, you couldn't score any objective points from that turn. The decision would be therefore do I cream my opponent or go for objectives. 

Is that too harsh? 

[King Taloren]

I could also that rule going wrong the other way. 

Do I take the turn or force my opponent to take a double turn so he cannot score the objectives and then steal them for myself. A whole turn of your opponent not scoring can be just as good as them not having an objective to score in the first place.

Edited April 3, 2019 by King Taloren

[Vextol]

Played last night using the added mechanic that each player has a pool of 6 dice they can use throughout the game to modify any initiative roll. 

All I can say is that our group will never go back.  It was SO much fun.  I highly recommend everyone try it.  It totally changed the way I felt about initiative and didn't change the game-play or mechanics really at all.  No one's army was hurt even in the slightest and armies that benefited the most (Idoneth primarily) just got countered by having the opposition throw more dice at the most important initiative roll (basically, just making it even odds again).

If you get double turned, you don't feel bad you just feel like you should have thrown more dice at it. 

Everyone I played with agreed and gave it glowing endorsements.  Well done @JPjr.    

Second test: Played against khorne.  Guy threw all 6 dice to guarantee back to back turn 1.  Allowed me to win every initiative from that point on.  Awesome game.  I got smashed but it was because I had a terrible SCE army.  Still loving the initiative!  Adds an exciting element. 

Edited April 4, 2019 by Vextol

[JPjr]

ah that's really great to hear, glad to have helped in some small way. I'm looking forward to trying a few different variations next time I get to play a bit.

[Inquisitorsz]

I just think it's time GW started accepting what other tabletop wargame rules have been doing for ages now. 

Per unit activation. 
We already do it in the combat phase. Why should the other phases be different? 
You can even do it in a few different ways. Eg:
unit 1 activates and does all it's things, hero-move-shoot-charge-combat 
or
unit 1 activates and moves, unit 2 activates and moves, etc etc etc. 

It's more tactical, more dynamic and removes downtime keeping both players engaged the whole way through.