Priority Roll modification for a upcoming event.

[Aeon]

Just thought about putting this idea that I'm running at my local event in March out there for discussion.

A few players in my local area really like playing Age of Sigmar but hate the idea of the double turn.

While not getting rid of the double turn, the rule will be that when rolling for Priority; the player who went first in the prior battle round gets +1 to the dice roll.

This is for a few reasons.

Players who go for the double turn for the second turn have to contend with the fact that their opponent has +1 so going second may not be as default for some people/armies.

The person trying to retain priority will know that they will keep priority if they roll a 6. Conversely, their opponent if they roll a 1 will not be able to steal.

This is to represent that the momentum will continue with the person who went first and the opponent will need to roll well to seize the initiative; not simply wait for a 50/50 die roll.

For those saying its a massive change; it simply skews the result ~16% in the favor of the person who went first in the prior turn.

What are peoples thoughts on this modification? I think its a reasonable expectation that the priority should be a tad harder to steal and that it should be slightly easier to hold onto it once you have it.

[heywoah_twitch]

I think just getting rid of it is far better than baby steps with +1s to priority rolls and junk. It's not that people hate a 50/50 chance at a double turn and suddenly a 35/65 will make it great - they hate the chance of a double turn entirely. It feels bad to win due to one, and it feels bad to lose due to one. It was a ballsy departure from the YGIG of most other games, and props for trying something out of left field, but there's a reason it's the gold standard. 

esp in an edition meant to streamline rules and play, and which has some issues with pace of play. You wait long enough for your turn with all the movement in this game, when someone takes a double turn it's like their opponent could've gone to subway, eat a sub, and come back for all the waiting around they do. There are tactics based around the double turn that you'd lose by nixing it of course, but honestly they aren't very deep, and are often problematic when coupled with guaranteed first turn choice.

 

[someone2040]

If I was to start tinkering with the priority roll, probably the first thing I'd actually do is that the player who previously lost the priority roll wins ties. Straight out of the Hobbit/LOTR (Where I assume they borrowed the idea of the priority roll in the first place). This is a slightly different nuance to adding +1 as you basically wouldn't need to re-roll the priority as you couldn't end up with draws anymore.

3 minutes ago, heywoah_twitch said:

I think just getting rid of it is far better than baby steps with +1s to priority rolls and junk. It's not that people hate a 50/50 chance at a double turn and suddenly a 35/65 will make it great - they hate the chance of a double turn entirely. It feels bad to win due to one, and it feels bad to lose due to one. It was a ballsy departure from the YGIG of most other games, and props for trying something out of left field, but there's a reason it's the gold standard. 

esp in an edition meant to streamline rules and play, and which has some issues with pace of play. You wait long enough for your turn with all the movement in this game, when someone takes a double turn it's like their opponent could've gone to subway, eat a sub, and come back for all the waiting around they do. There are tactics based around the double turn that you'd lose by nixing it of course, but honestly they aren't very deep, and are often problematic when coupled with guaranteed first turn choice.

 

I think by the fact that 40k doesn't have priority shows that perhaps the priority experiment in AoS wasn't well received. There's a huge difference between how AoS does it and LOTR/The Hobbit does it (In that for the Hobbit, you can interupt your opponents priority and you each do your movement phase, then shooting, then combat).

I do agree, that while the double turn is an interesting mechanic, it does lead to more feels bad situations IMO than the more simple IGYG system but it's definitely an exciting roll to make during the game.

But it's what we've got, and what we have to live with. Some people love it, other people hate it, and most people accept it. 

[PJetski]

I think having set turn orders in 40k is incredibly boring and I like that rolling for turns in AOS because it adds an element of unpredictability and tactical depth.

[Twitch of Izalith]

Don't do it! The double turn is one of the mechanics that makes AoS an interesting and challenging game. Sometimes you lose or win because of it but mostly you lose or win because you didn't give it enough consideration in your strategy.

AoS gets criticism for being "too simplistic" - mostly from people who don't play it very much and who have only read the core rules. The possibility of the double turn is one of the things that makes it as complicated and challenging to play well as it really is.

It also affects everybody equally - which is always a positive thing in a competitive environment.

[Jamopower]

Rolling for priority each turn just wouldn't work in 40k. The amount of dakka in the grim dark future is such much greater, that two shooting phases in a row would determine the winner 99% of the time. They had to already change the starting mechanism there, because just the first shooting phase was enough in some cases.

That said, the turn mechanism is the main reason I don't like 40k at all. The AoS system isn't perfect, but it's much more interesting (but again, would make the 40k even worse). IMO mainly shooting based games need some sort of alternating/reaction based mechanism so you can't shoot everything you have without worries.

 

[AdamR]

2 hours ago, Twitch of Izalith said:

Don't do it! The double turn is one of the mechanics that makes AoS an interesting and challenging game. Sometimes you lose or win because of it but mostly you lose or win because you didn't give it enough consideration in your strategy.

AoS gets criticism for being "too simplistic" - mostly from people who don't play it very much and who have only read the core rules. The possibility of the double turn is one of the things that makes it as complicated and challenging to play well as it really is.

It also affects everybody equally - which is always a positive thing in a competitive environment.

Agree with this completely!

 

2 hours ago, Jamopower said:

Rolling for priority each turn just wouldn't work in 40k. The amount of dakka in the grim dark future is such much greater, that two shooting phases in a row would determine the winner 99% of the time. They had to already change the starting mechanism there, because just the first shooting phase was enough in some cases.

That said, the turn mechanism is the main reason I don't like 40k at all. The AoS system isn't perfect, but it's much more interesting (but again, would make the 40k even worse). IMO mainly shooting based games need some sort of alternating/reaction based mechanism so you can't shoot everything you have without worries.

 

Quote

 

I think they had to change the going first procedure in 40k precisely because there was do double turning. Without the risk of that there's little reason for not going first if you can.

[Trout]

13 hours ago, Aeon said:

Just thought about putting this idea that I'm running at my local event in March out there for discussion.

A few players in my local area really like playing Age of Sigmar but hate the idea of the double turn.

 If you decide to make such fundamental changes to the way AoS is played, make sure you clearly advertise those changes in all of your advertisements. I would be quite upset if I arrived at an event and discovered they had made major changes to the way the game works. I would rather know ahead of time so I don't waste my time preparing for an event I'm not interested in.

 

If this is a closed group and their dislike of the double turn is unanimous, go ahead and change it. But chances are most people are fine with it and the "few players" who have a problem with it just need to learn to live with the fact that this is the way the game works.

[AverageBoss]

It is no more of a house rule than what people do with bases, so do whatever you wish. Though If I were you, I would just remove it completely, given your groups dislike of it. It takes some of the bite out of some of the power lists like Kunnin Ruk, Vanguard Wing, Aetherstrike, KO, and the like (which is only a good thing imo). Also creates less downtime for the other player (which is the absolute worst part of the double turn).

I would honestly prefer if AoS went full alternating activations (like the combat phase is now). That is something we are experimenting with at our club.

[Richelieu]

3 hours ago, Twitch of Izalith said:

Don't do it! The double turn is one of the mechanics that makes AoS an interesting and challenging game. Sometimes you lose or win because of it but mostly you lose or win because you didn't give it enough consideration in your strategy.

AoS gets criticism for being "too simplistic" - mostly from people who don't play it very much and who have only read the core rules. The possibility of the double turn is one of the things that makes it as complicated and challenging to play well as it really is.

It also affects everybody equally - which is always a positive thing in a competitive environment.

I wish I could give this post more than one like.  The double turn is positive in so many ways.  It rewards the player who can think furthest ahead, making decisions based around the risks of getting double turned and the rewards of not (and vice versa).  It also introduces an angle for winning when all other options have been exhausted. 

I remember a particularly thrilling double turn I had in round 5 of one game.  I had previously been double turned by my opponent and nearly my entire army had been wiped away. I knew my only shot at victory was to retreat with my single remaining Fulminator at the bottom of turn 4 and pray that I won the roll off so I could charge it into my opponent's unit of Blood Knights guarding an objective.  I got the roll off and wiped out a full unit of Blood Knights with my only two models on the board: the Fulminator and my Lord Celestant on Dracoth.  That extra excitement, which is just as likely to occur for both players would be absent with the predictability of alternating turns.

The double turn may very well be the defining rule of the game.

[Aeon]

Yep, it has been advertised along with two other house rules; models like the Changeling that can’t be attacked can’t hold/contest objectives, and Compendium Warscrolls can be allied into their Grand Alliance (so you can use the compendiums without breaking allegiances, if this is abused, future events will limit it even further; ie Slaves to Darkness being the only Chaos alliegiance to ally in Warriors of Chaos, only Wanderers/Slyvaneth to ally in Wood Elves, etc.)

For a fundamental house rule rules change obviously this is being advertised in the pack for the event.

[WoollyMammoth]

I went through several phases with the double turn. I tried to understand it, i started to appreciate it. But recently I have been playing death lists against armies like Fyreslayers and Tzeentch - being forced to go first then having to sit through a double turn that obliterates 2/3 of my army. If the game were really well balanced, the double turn would be an interesting and appealing concept. But in the current state, where netlists can force you to go first and/or or can do guaranteed insanity first turn no matter what - the double turn really hurts. Most of the rules are designed to make melee armies not be able to do well when you are forced to go first. The GH compounded this concept further, while leaving shooting completely unchecked. The discrepancy between what you can do with a heavy shooting/magic army vs a melee heavy army is very unbalanced in the current state of the game. The double turn roll compounds this imbalance.

To mitigate the double turn, you have to be aware of it, plan for it, know the game very well and understand exactly what you need to do and what you have to prevent your opponent from doing. When you are at this point, you have two options:

A. Play one of the currently competitive armies. There is no way around it, if you can't bring the pain like your opponent can, you are at a huge disadvantage and will have a lot of depressing one sided games. GW wants to sell you more models, so its time to oblige. Pick your favorite netlist and get started.

B. Don't play people with netlists. Pre-screen your games. Don't play kunnin rukk, fyreslayers or tzeench (in most cases). Don't play stormcast or kharadron if they are using a battalion. Generally don't play anyone using a celestial hurricanum or a balewind vortex. You want to screen people - there are people who just play for fun, people who play for fun but bring tough lists, and netlisting powergamers. You want to make sure they fall into the first two. In this case you really cannot go to any tournament or answer a request for someone to try out their 'tournament list'.

- or of course you can have two lists, you fun list and your power list and take both. Take your fun list for fun or pain list if someone is trying to bring the pain to you. You can get experience with your powerlist and take it to tournaments. 

[Jamopower]

27 minutes ago, WoollyMammoth said:

To mitigate the double turn, you have to be aware of it, plan for it, know the game very well and understand exactly what you need to do and what you have to prevent your opponent from doing. When you are at this point, you have two options:

A. Play one of the currently competitive armies. There is no way around it, if you can't bring the pain like your opponent can, you are at a huge disadvantage and will have a lot of depressing one sided games. GW wants to sell you more models, so its time to oblige. Pick your favorite netlist and get started.

B. Don't play people with netlists. Pre-screen your games. Don't play kunnin rukk, fyreslayers or tzeench (in most cases). Don't play stormcast or kharadron if they are using a battalion. Generally don't play anyone using a celestial hurricanum or a balewind vortex. You want to screen people - there are people who just play for fun, people who play for fun but bring tough lists, and netlisting powergamers. You want to make sure they fall into the first two. In this case you really cannot go to any tournament or answer a request for someone to try out their 'tournament list'.

- or of course you can have two lists, you fun list and your power list and take both. Take your fun list for fun or pain list if someone is trying to bring the pain to you. You can get experience with your powerlist and take it to tournaments. 

Haven't this been the case no matter the rules practically since Warhammer (and the internet) was created?

[WoollyMammoth]

@Jamopower
For sure. But it seems like they are trying to balance it out. They are getting closer but they are taking a step back for every two steps further.

[Richelieu]

39 minutes ago, WoollyMammoth said:

- or of course you can have two lists, you fun list and your power list and take both. Take your fun list for fun or pain list if someone is trying to bring the pain to you. You can get experience with your powerlist and take it to tournaments. 

I try to do this wherever I can.  I'd never want to play anyone who wasn't having fun, whether that person wants to play against the bleeding edge or just have some cool models on the table hacking at each other.

[Marc Wilson]

Players who decry the double turn can just build a list that’s likely to second. Thereafter they can ensure that double turns play no part in the game. The power to remove the dynamic is already built into the game.

[heywoah_twitch]

To clarify my earlier post a little, and maybe clean up some humor about my personal feelings about rolling for priority:

IF you're going to change priority at all for your event because your local players don't like it, you should just straight up use YGIG and save everyone the headache. If your local players don't like it, I don't think an extra 16% chance of it not happening is going to solve anything.

 

Edit: As others have said, make sure to advertise clearly that you're using house rules such as this. It could turn some people away who want to play by the real rules (and I don't begrudge them that at all - I play by prio because thems the rules) but who knows it could bring some people out (one of my reasons for not liking prio is my extended group of friends from DnD, MtG, and twitch games are interested in aos but were instantly turned off by random time walks and stay out of the hobby mostly from that).

[Kramer]

Seeing as you are asking for feedback to i'll throw my two cents in the bag, although i'll pre phrase it by saying if you wan't to change the game, go for it! The only exception is competitive settings. As it's most likely to result in gimmicks/loopholes you hadn't thought of. (for example I think the engine of the gods has some kind of effect on turn order? and if so, what about points, battalions that include it, etc etc.)  

If the double turn is turning people of the idea of playing AoS... are those the people who will in time strengthen your AoS community? And more importantly will they leave the second the AoS players feel they are loosing out and want the roll off back?

Or is it only a short term goal you are after (more players in the tournament)? In which case will they be the players that make the tournament the most fun it can be?

If you consider these questions and feel they should be there, and i mean this sincerely, than of course change the rule. But in that case don't half *ss it, and get rid of it completely not only to prevent people seeing a negative roll of proof that AoS is a bad game but to get that player count up. Hope this helps and your tournament is a succes. Looking forward to the reports  

[Slayerofmen]

Being one of the people that is in Aeons area and plays AoS, I can pretty safely say that the game is dead in the area at this current time, his idea for the modification is to try and turn around some of the people that were turned off by the double turn mechanic and it should be kept in mind that as players go the core group are all long time gamers and have played or coached in ATCs/ETCs/Masters events etc for both 40k and WFB so the get good and prepare a list that can take a double turn argument is thin in regards to the defense of the mechanic in OUR AREA. 

like with a lot of places the game was DoA when it launched many (myself definitely included) hated the game and what GW had given in place of old WFB, BUT when the GHB came out the game picked up and had upwards of 16+ players at one day events which for our area is a good turn out and this number was growing as we stole people from 40k and even the card game groups, but as time went on and more games got played and lists changed more and more all we started to hear was "it was a great game until the double turn" or "it was a close game but....i got double turned" or even worse "it was a close game until I got the double turn then it ruined it".

After awhile it turned the vast majority away until there was 2-3 playing 1 or 2 games every few weeks an then just a handful of people based out of the local GW who are not likely to go to the LGS for the one day events.

As it stands the crew that would play AoS have moved to 40k as to them it feels like AoS but better.

 

The group loves the IDEA of the game and the setting is really starting to grow (I love everything nagash) but the turn mechanic has just killed the game locally.

TLDR: He is trying to revive the game in an area where the core group of gamers that WOULD play the game wont due to the turn mechanic.

 

[Lewis.Sloan]

When AOS first dropped I was a fan of the double turn mechanic. Without wanting to get into a massive debate about balance and opening a can of worms, I feel like this is the issue with it: The game on release was very different in a 'matched' setting, most people agreeing beforehand or taking wound amounts for games as there were no points. Since then, AOS has grown and we have seen the (relatively slow compared to 40k) introduction of new battletomes and armies. The majority of armies (but not all) with their own books - Stormcast, Tzeenetch, Khorne, Kharadrons etc. are on a different power level to those without and even some with  (e.g beastclaw) - for example GA Death, most of the aelf factions, duardin etc. The double turn highlights the difference in power levels between the top tier and the low tier armies and that's  (IMO) down to the game not being as balanced as it could be. Case in point: Aelf army takes on Tzeentch army.  Aelves go first as Tzeentch player has battalions available so can dictate who has chance of double turn. Aelf player moves army up table, maybe positions for charges and shoots a few units. Tzeentch player takes first turn and throws up Gaunt Summoner on balewind, and throws out typically between 10-20 Mortal wounds in first magic phase. Tzeentch player wins priority and proceeds to do the same thing again. Aelf army has had 20-40 mortal wounds thrown at it before it can do anything of note. Might not be the best example but you can see the idea. I don't think it makes for a balanced game- I'd be happy if they got rid of it Altogether. There are a good amount of people in our local gaming group who feel the same way.

[Lysandestolpe]

Getting rid of the double turn would just aid age of sigmar to become just another generic game mechanic. If you dont like it, play another game? Play ninth age of those other fantasy based games. You can pribably use the GW models for those right? I feel like this discussion pops up every 6 moths in what appears to be as similar to the endless cycle of reforging that Sigmar has created. I therefore root for Nagash on this one, just accept the mechanic as an overall rule. If you want to host tournaments that alter those rules, please do! If they were close to RVA i would most likely go as i just like to game, despite the fact that you’d change an extremely core mechanic of the game,  But my criticism is, to word it differently, is that many have tried to rid the game kf the doubble turn, and it never seem to work for them. The top tier armies and builds will still be the same against lower tiers, except thr double-turn wont be there to give the lower tier army a chance to regain their foothold with a lucky die roll.  

this constant pointless debate in hopes of making the overall community band onboard with this type of major change feels redundant. The double turn goes both ways. And as much as i agree with @Lewis.Sloan and his tzeentch scenario. I played a pretty nice tzeentch lost on Heat 1 and lost despite the fact that my rolls were amazing all game and his were super poor. The double turn didnt really change that. Although, had I gotten a double turn when i needed one, I might have had a chance to win that game. Which makes some armies in the lower tier, like Ironjawz, actually have a chance against top tier armies. So Id say the double turn goes both ways. It can further an inevetable devastation, or it can give the underdog a chance to win. 

[Moonlightwolf]

Double turn is just something you have to plan for, sure occasionally it will be the deciding factor in a game but not often and its a good come back mechanic sometimes the side that's been loosing the whole game gets a double turn at just the right moment and turns things around but plenty of times it doesn't make a huge difference. I like it. Tactically you always have to take it into account but sometimes you gamble and it pays off, or explodes in your face either way its fun. People have a tendency to blame the double turn for things that really had little to do with it, mortal wound spam always has been a problem in AoS but that problem will eventually solve itself in time as they seem to be building in ways of mitigating it for most new battletomes.

[Ollie Grimwood]

I’m all for house ruling to suit the players’ requirements it’s the very essence of AoS. Would add the following caveats though 

1. Matchplay points are calculated for use with matchplay AoS rules, changes to the rules may well have unforeseen knock on effects on the balance of the game (such as it is).  

2. Make sure you’re doing to benefit the maximum number of players, canvas everyone’s opinion where possible (privately if you can) Just to make sure it’s not just a vocal or influential minority colouring perception.  I’d also listen more carefully to those who are definitely attending your event than those who aren’t. 

[Kirjava13]

Is it perhaps possible not to characterise the actions of those unhappy with the double turn mechanic as, "endless whining"?

[stratigo]

On 1/18/2018 at 8:09 PM, Aeon said:

Just thought about putting this idea that I'm running at my local event in March out there for discussion.

A few players in my local area really like playing Age of Sigmar but hate the idea of the double turn.

While not getting rid of the double turn, the rule will be that when rolling for Priority; the player who went first in the prior battle round gets +1 to the dice roll.

This is for a few reasons.

Players who go for the double turn for the second turn have to contend with the fact that their opponent has +1 so going second may not be as default for some people/armies.

The person trying to retain priority will know that they will keep priority if they roll a 6. Conversely, their opponent if they roll a 1 will not be able to steal.

This is to represent that the momentum will continue with the person who went first and the opponent will need to roll well to seize the initiative; not simply wait for a 50/50 die roll.

For those saying its a massive change; it simply skews the result ~16% in the favor of the person who went first in the prior turn.

What are peoples thoughts on this modification? I think its a reasonable expectation that the priority should be a tad harder to steal and that it should be slightly easier to hold onto it once you have it.

make them roll off to see who gets first turn and then chuck the double turn.