Double turn

[Overread]

Personally I'd like to see GW retire double turn to an openplay rule and not have it for the matched play. It's just far too swingy in terms of the game state. Esp when you start to watch videos and battle reports and the like and start to notice the pattern that very few people lose the game when they opt to take a double turn. It turns from "I'll damage that monster for a turn and weaken it" into "ok now I can till that monster". 

 

I think the only reason there isn't more shouting about it is that AoS is currently very ranged light (compared to 40K) and much more close combat heavy where at least the combat "who goes first" alternates between players. However any ranged or magic heavy army really shines with getting a double turn. 

[Dead Scribe]

I think the game overall could do with a little more grit in its terrain rules, its activations, and positioning.

[Overread]

Terrain rules I very much agree could do with fleshing out. I think that in the drive to the the nubmer of pages of rules down the terrain area suffered quite badly. I think its also not helped that GW is currently trying to push their own terrain more so. Now that isn't bad, but we've seen them focus more on the idea of each terrain item having "its own warscroll" at a cost of things like rivers, swamps and more generic terrain features that GW isn't really making but which can still be amazing parts of the battle experience.

I also think that tables look better than they have with the new terrain featuers GW makes; but at the same time sometimes you've just got to have more generic stuff. Otherwise they are just swapping a few pages of rules for a few pages of warscroll cards

[Hvy]

On 9/20/2019 at 5:18 AM, Overread said:

Personally I'd like to see GW retire double turn to an openplay rule and not have it for the matched play. It's just far too swingy in terms of the game state. Esp when you start to watch videos and battle reports and the like and start to notice the pattern that very few people lose the game when they opt to take a double turn. It turns from "I'll damage that monster for a turn and weaken it" into "ok now I can till that monster". 

 

I think the only reason there isn't more shouting about it is that AoS is currently very ranged light (compared to 40K) and much more close combat heavy where at least the combat "who goes first" alternates between players. However any ranged or magic heavy army really shines with getting a double turn. 

If they retire the double-turn then it goes back to I-go-you-go- and quite frankly that is pretty boring. At least with the double turn you have some unpredictability. I mean, you don't always get a double turn. Sure, it sucks having to sit through and second turn- and the in-game consequences can wreck your army- but they don't always. And there are ways to at least mitigate some of the damage. I think the next iteration could see the system evolve into something more similar to an Apocalypse-style turn sequence.

If it doesn't I'd rather take my chances with the double turn than change it to IGUG.

[Overread]

@Hvy I disagree that it makes the game too predictable. Your opponent still has their full turn to surprise you and do their thing with their army. The key difference is that they don't get to redouble that impact in a second immediate turn. The unit they wounded in their first turn (your unit) gets to retaliate or hide or run and charge or such - however if they get a double there's a good chance they'll take it off the table. 

For you its cutting down your actual choices dramatically and removing options for your play; indeed it pushes you a long way from being able to push the game state and fully into a reactionary position. 

The game is already I Go You Go; the double turn just messes with it. You even admit that you still have to sit there with nothing to do save react to dice rolls for a whole other turn of the game. 

 

I Go You Go has its flaws in AoS/40K and is already a very swingy system. I think its a bit more muted in AoS because not every army runs around with lots of powerful ranged weapons/spells and thus you don't always get that feeling of staring down a hail of ranged fire that strips an army. However you still have a lot of power potential in each players turn, esp in the early game when they've more of their army around. 

I agree that alternate unit activation would be a very interesting thing to see in AoS and increases much of the tactical elements of reacting to a game state change in the moment. 

[Seraphage]

On 8/22/2019 at 4:32 PM, Battlefury said:

The mechanic is very unforgiving. If it works out is just unbelievebale reliant on the army, that is played. As @Xaszmentioned, we Khorne players just can't take a double turn. In most of the cases we will be shred to pieces, just ebcause the army concept itself is not working good.

That circumstances give us a clear point, where we lost a game due to a double turn of the opponent. People, who do have mechanics to outcome those ( Stormcast resiliance, Nightuant / LoN uprisign of units for 1CP, etc. ) might not have this issues with the double turns, ut certain armies do.

And therefore we got to be very anxious about this. If all armies where balanced, then it wouldn't be an issue, but they are not.
That makes the IGOUGO mechanic a problem for the entire gameplay balance itself.

Many other games got rid of that IGOUGO aspect and have other options to interact. And those are the way for the future.
Just as I saied, Bolt Action does have a really good system, where each player can interact with the opponent while playing the game turn.

That's the way to go.
And to balance the armies.

Your realm problem - and unlike the double turn is totally understandable - is the lack of balance between armies. 

Ideally this must be fixed, agreed. Double turn has nothing to do about it. If the balance won't be fixed, you' ll still lose 95% of games against a top tier army. Only thing that would change is that you 'd lose a couple of turns later - same result. Just waste time. The only thing that double turn does in these situations, is give an extra chance to the underling

[mmimzie]

20 hours ago, Overread said:

The game is already I Go You Go; the double turn just messes with it. You even admit that you still have to sit there with nothing to do save react to dice rolls for a whole other turn of the game. 

Where the double turn matters and is important for breaking up the game is that it forces you off hard and solid math. 

Currently in the very melee focus game where charge rolls are very predictable on paper, you have abit too much control if you go first, letting you skirt enemy charge ranges or  walk into enemy charge ranges at your leisure. Unlike WHFB you could retreat or stand and shoot and do other things when an enemy was going to charge. Now your units only stand there and eat it. So, as the person going first you can dictate the game out side of a high ball charge roll. 

The double turn forces you to play more passively or go all in to win the game. If your whole army most up allowing enemy units to skate into easy combat and gets a double the game is over, so you have to play more passively in many situations. So it adds a very random element that make it so you can't really predict how the game is going to go. Sure you can skirt my charge range this turn, but if i double turn you than your gonna be stuck on your side of the table while i get the charges i wanted off any way, and get all the objectives. 

I think you'd need to add more random elements to movement to make I-go-you-go viable in AoS, such as retreating from charges, standing and shooting, more melee fight interupts that are baked into the rules to shift the game out of the control of the player going first. 

I think the times when the double turns break down are when you have super fast armies, alpha striking armies, and alpha shooting armies. Because you have no real counter play against the opponents double turn and your held very much helpless to them.

 

[Overread]

With a game with only 6 turns at most where its most likely going to take at least 1 turn to get into range to do anything with most units and where the 6th turn might not happen (game state won before that) then you've really only got 4 turns of full action. That does not leave much room to sit back and be passive. In fact in general if you're playing with objectives sitting back and being passive tends to fail. 

Plus sitting back would only work for one single turn - probably the first. If the game had a lot more turns and things were spread out more then doubleturn wouldn't be as bad. If the game ran with say 20 turns then having one or two doubles in there wouldn't swing things so much; but with only a 6 turn game where the last turn is likely going to be more of a mop up - so a practical 5 turns - getting to take two at once isn't just adding random to the game; it's providing a massive swing. 

 

I get the idea of increasing random to break up tactics, but in general double turn actually allows one player to maximise their maths efficiency. If they get the option then not only do they get another turn, but their maths and tactics get to actually happen exactly how they want with no negatives. Because now their opponent can't mess with their position or approach. It actually rewards more "risky" charging forward and aggressive play far more so if you get the doubleturn. Meanwhile if you held back and got it then you can still gain advantage. 

 

And there's an issue, its very hard to actually pass on a doubleturn. The vast majority of times its advantageous for a player to take a doubleturn first when they get the option. 

Adding more tactical elements to the game such as reactionary retreats and hunkering down/bracing for charging etc.. would be very neat features for the game to consider. Heck adding something like a pool of limited "opponent turn reaction points" which you could use to issue orders like "hunker down" "brace for impact" etc... such as give +1 save rolls or -1 to hit for charging opponent could be neat things to work with. They'd give an option to protect a unit during a turn and could be balanced with attack bonuses in your own turn etc... It would be something more engaging and tactical and based on choices rather than a doubleturn which in the end is purely a tactical choice based upon a single, unmodified roll of the dice. 

[Dead Scribe]

I don't think that the aos community really wants or is ready for complex rules like those that let you flee from charges like in whfb.  

Edited September 23, 2019 by Dead Scribe

[Overread]

17 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

I don't think that the aos community really wants or is ready for complex rules like those that let you flee from charges like in whfb.  

I think they could work without being too complex, but yes some areas of the game still need shoring up before adding more mechanics. Areas like terrain still feel like they have room to be improved. 

[Kramer]

1 hour ago, Dead Scribe said:

I don't think that the aos community really wants or is ready for complex rules like those that let you flee from charges like in whfb.  

Im with you on that one.  But I also think it depends on how much you play. If I play two times a month it’s a good month for AoS. But in a year time it’s only 24 games. So for me the amount of time it takes to get bored of the current rules and go looking for more depth is very different if you play two games a week plus 4 tournaments in a year.

If I played those amounts of games a year I do get the ‘need’ for some rules changes or add on options to shake things up. 

[Dead Scribe]

I still think AOS should remain the bastion of simple rules, shallow depth, but is fun because its all about dice management and maximizing your odds.  Thats really where it appeals most and I think from a business standpoint you will get the most people involved.

Otherwise the more complex and deeper the game, the more gotchas exist and the game turns into a rules mastery exercise where you win games simply because you know the rules better than the other person, which I have found to be a killer of enthusiasm.  

There are other games on the market that are deeper.  If you want a deeper game, there is Kings of War and 9th Age for fantasy, or Bolt Action and what have you for shooty shooty modern or sci fi people.

I think that there is a reason why 40k and AOS have so many players, and its because things are intentionally kept shallow.

[stratigo]

12 hours ago, mmimzie said:

Where the double turn matters and is important for breaking up the game is that it forces you off hard and solid math. 

Currently in the very melee focus game where charge rolls are very predictable on paper, you have abit too much control if you go first, letting you skirt enemy charge ranges or  walk into enemy charge ranges at your leisure. Unlike WHFB you could retreat or stand and shoot and do other things when an enemy was going to charge. Now your units only stand there and eat it. So, as the person going first you can dictate the game out side of a high ball charge roll. 

The double turn forces you to play more passively or go all in to win the game. If your whole army most up allowing enemy units to skate into easy combat and gets a double the game is over, so you have to play more passively in many situations. So it adds a very random element that make it so you can't really predict how the game is going to go. Sure you can skirt my charge range this turn, but if i double turn you than your gonna be stuck on your side of the table while i get the charges i wanted off any way, and get all the objectives. 

I think you'd need to add more random elements to movement to make I-go-you-go viable in AoS, such as retreating from charges, standing and shooting, more melee fight interupts that are baked into the rules to shift the game out of the control of the player going first. 

I think the times when the double turns break down are when you have super fast armies, alpha striking armies, and alpha shooting armies. Because you have no real counter play against the opponents double turn and your held very much helpless to them.

 

you just described all the armies that break the game.

 

But, like, the combat activation thing just pushes you to make one big super unit where you dump all your stuff on. Or play a faction where you usually fight first anyways. Or play skaven and don't care if your units die, because they just attack in death anyways.

 

6 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

I still think AOS should remain the bastion of simple rules, shallow depth, but is fun because its all about dice management and maximizing your odds.  Thats really where it appeals most and I think from a business standpoint you will get the most people involved.

Otherwise the more complex and deeper the game, the more gotchas exist and the game turns into a rules mastery exercise where you win games simply because you know the rules better than the other person, which I have found to be a killer of enthusiasm.  

There are other games on the market that are deeper.  If you want a deeper game, there is Kings of War and 9th Age for fantasy, or Bolt Action and what have you for shooty shooty modern or sci fi people.

I think that there is a reason why 40k and AOS have so many players, and its because things are intentionally kept shallow.

 

AoS has a lot of gotchyas. Like more than most balanced games. Have you not played slaanesh before? "Oh, no, on a two plus you have to fight last. Gotchya" Skaven? "Oh I cast two spells that allows every dead rat to attack twice. Gotchya". Like this is a big thing. The complicated rules are offloaded to battletomes, but they exist.

[Acid_Nine]

3 hours ago, stratigo said:

 

AoS has a lot of gotchyas. Like more than most balanced games. Have you not played slaanesh before? "Oh, no, on a two plus you have to fight last. Gotchya" Skaven? "Oh I cast two spells that allows every dead rat to attack twice. Gotchya". Like this is a big thing. The complicated rules are offloaded to battletomes, but they exist.

I never realized how right that is before you mentioned it. It's how I feel playing IDK. I love the faction and how they play, but it's full of this. "you wanna shoot my character? you can only shoot my ignore rend eels. Gotcha. Oh, did I forget to mention this turn I have cover? or that turn two I run and charge?" and dont forget the gotcha of high-tide...

[stratigo]

You have to be really engaged with the game to avoid the gotchyas. And even then, unless you play against armies, you often still don’t grasp it. This is fine for competitive players, who practice often (even then though I’ve seen tournament players getting caught out by an army they don’t experience much), but for a casual or new player, it is murder. I’ve had players not understand me when I say “hey, I can drop in a gun that if it causes a casualty you have to take an immediate battleshock and I can teleport him in with a ship” and leave a big unit out to get nuked

[Dead Scribe]

5 hours ago, stratigo said:

you just described all the armies that break the game.

 

But, like, the combat activation thing just pushes you to make one big super unit where you dump all your stuff on. Or play a faction where you usually fight first anyways. Or play skaven and don't care if your units die, because they just attack in death anyways.

 

 

AoS has a lot of gotchyas. Like more than most balanced games. Have you not played slaanesh before? "Oh, no, on a two plus you have to fight last. Gotchya" Skaven? "Oh I cast two spells that allows every dead rat to attack twice. Gotchya". Like this is a big thing. The complicated rules are offloaded to battletomes, but they exist.

The gotchas do exist yes but I have found that people don't mind the gotchas being on warscrolls as much as they mind feeling that they have to read a 200 page rulebook and not memorizing it and having those gotchas hit them in the game.  

[Tropical Ghost General]

Double turn is fine. Current damage output is the issue. 

I've started running a narrative/open evening. No army build restrictions, only rule is leave the cheesey game breaking stuff at home. It's meant people are using their dusty 'less than optimal' units, that would never see the table in a competitive sense. The result is that stuff like the double turn is powerful, but it doesn't create moments of 'feel bad' from getting hit twice fromunits that attack 4 times doing 5789 mortal wounds before dealing 998899999789 damage from their attacks (I exaggerate a bit but you get the meaning 😂). 

The issue of player 2 doing nothing for 2 hours on the double turn hasn't been a problem in my local scene until the activation wars started happening, when the game truly created moments of 'zero interaction' other than removing models. But I haven't seen much been mentioned about finding solutions to that in this thread. 

Also the game currently is already too long with lots of bloat to the rules as it is. So alternative activation would  only increase the game time 10 fold. I play necromunda a lot, which has alternative activation and even with 10 models each, some games have lasted 4hrs+. Moving units one at a time slows down play a lot. It works for GW's skirmish games, but no one is going to want to go to a tournament with average game times of 4hrs per round, most are currently 2.5hrs and thats enough for each game tbh. 

Now other games like warcry or LOTR have very different mechanics, that allow for faster play to compensate for the additional time of alternative activations, such as no saving throws. So for those wanting an alternative activation system, what other elements of the game mechanics are you willing to drop to speed up game play? Should units not get saves. Should there be no chance to unbind magic? 

Also, also, the comments of player 2 waiting around for hours with nothing to do, I have to ask, how slow do you play your games, if you and your opponent can't get two player turns of actions completed in a couple of hours? There are 10 player turns in a full game, do these games last 8hrs or something? 

I'm getting off track. Going back to the original point. The double turn is fine if you don't run pure cheesy, meta chasing, the next hot stuff, kind of armies that have a ridiculous amount of damage potential. And if you want to run that stuff, then you'll be playing against others who are equally running filth, and when it's filth vs filth, what do you expect to happen in games, it's not chess ffs and it's a product of a company that is primarily a model manufacturer before it's a games manufacturer, and if you want proof of this, wait for the obscene levels of filth that the latest boney boys will bring to the game (as filthy rules helps sells those shiny new toys). 

[stratigo]

7 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

The gotchas do exist yes but I have found that people don't mind the gotchas being on warscrolls as much as they mind feeling that they have to read a 200 page rulebook and not memorizing it and having those gotchas hit them in the game.  

I have found people, in fact, do mind. I don't actually like losing to "Oh yeah, you didn't know I could do this huh?" And I feel uncomfortable when I win because the player I was against went "Oh, I didn't know you could do that".

 

Offloading the gotchyas to warscrolls and battletomes doesn't make them feel less bad. It might make a lower barrier to entry for the base game because you can go "wow, there's only four pages of rules" And then get handed the remaining 396 pages through the GHB, warscrolls, battletomes, expansions (like malign sorcery), and FAQs in pieces as each of those rules rolls them repeatedly (Like i have had to tell people playing KO that I've seen "Sorry, but, uh, those drill cannons don't do three damage any more. I'm sorry"). Like, just at a basic level, you have to know the scenarios, the base rules, and malign sorcery and your armies battletome and scrolls. That right there is probably around 200 pages mate. I personally haven't memorized every single army's rules. Despite being pretty engaged with rules, I haven't even read all of them yet. I haven't read the sylvaneth book yet, and I never got around to beasts of chaos. And I know players with those armies. 

 

And this is beyond people who simply get rules wrong (I do plenty) or have weird interpretations, or just cheat (yes those guys exist). Do you sit there and ask them to prove every single special rule in the book? Or do you let them get away with it cause, hey, it is their army? 

 

The bespoke rules era sort of obfuscates complexity, but it actually does nothing to eliminate it. I do find it somewhat better for book keeping. Unless you're playing an army that is 90 percent FAQ now (*cough* kharadrons *cough*). 

While AoS isn't as complex, as, say, infinity (Cause, wow), it is easily as complicated as, say, Middle earth SBG, for all that SBG's rule book is chunky. I don't now which approach is strictly better, but we're no longer in the halcyon days of AoS where the rules fit on a dozen pages for everything (They weren't very halcyon days). Today a strong army consists of loading a unit up with a dozen different spells, prayers, and special abilities, often enacted in a very specific order, some with counter play, some without, and then hurling that unit at the enemy's lines and watching them blender what they touch. I mean, have you seen how daughters of Khaine play? "Oh, this unit has mind razor, reroll save blessing, more saves, more attacks, more speed.... etc". 

2 hours ago, Tropical Ghost General said:

Double turn is fine. Current damage output is the issue. 

I've started running a narrative/open evening. No army build restrictions, only rule is leave the cheesey game breaking stuff at home. It's meant people are using their dusty 'less than optimal' units, that would never see the table in a competitive sense. The result is that stuff like the double turn is powerful, but it doesn't create moments of 'feel bad' from getting hit twice fromunits that attack 4 times doing 5789 mortal wounds before dealing 998899999789 damage from their attacks (I exaggerate a bit but you get the meaning 😂). 

The issue of player 2 doing nothing for 2 hours on the double turn hasn't been a problem in my local scene until the activation wars started happening, when the game truly created moments of 'zero interaction' other than removing models. But I haven't seen much been mentioned about finding solutions to that in this thread. 

Also the game currently is already too long with lots of bloat to the rules as it is. So alternative activation would  only increase the game time 10 fold. I play necromunda a lot, which has alternative activation and even with 10 models each, some games have lasted 4hrs+. Moving units one at a time slows down play a lot. It works for GW's skirmish games, but no one is going to want to go to a tournament with average game times of 4hrs per round, most are currently 2.5hrs and thats enough for each game tbh. 

Now other games like warcry or LOTR have very different mechanics, that allow for faster play to compensate for the additional time of alternative activations, such as no saving throws. So for those wanting an alternative activation system, what other elements of the game mechanics are you willing to drop to speed up game play? Should units not get saves. Should there be no chance to unbind magic? 

Also, also, the comments of player 2 waiting around for hours with nothing to do, I have to ask, how slow do you play your games, if you and your opponent can't get two player turns of actions completed in a couple of hours? There are 10 player turns in a full game, do these games last 8hrs or something? 

I'm getting off track. Going back to the original point. The double turn is fine if you don't run pure cheesy, meta chasing, the next hot stuff, kind of armies that have a ridiculous amount of damage potential. And if you want to run that stuff, then you'll be playing against others who are equally running filth, and when it's filth vs filth, what do you expect to happen in games, it's not chess ffs and it's a product of a company that is primarily a model manufacturer before it's a games manufacturer, and if you want proof of this, wait for the obscene levels of filth that the latest boney boys will bring to the game (as filthy rules helps sells those shiny new toys). 

Necromunda takes a long time because Necromunda is a mess. A great amazing glorious time, but also a mess. I adore the game, but an example of tight rules it is not. Say, do you know if a flame template can go through smoke? How about if models can move through friendly models? Hey can enforcers buy stuff not in their house list? Why are Van Saar so Bloody overpowered!?

 

On the other hand, I also play kill team, have played warcry, and play apoc. All these games take significantly less time than AoS with alternating activations. Necromunda isn't long because of alternating activations. Alternating activations would, without changing a single thing, extend absolutely no time, as you would be taking exactly the same amount of actions as you would in your turn.

 

I mean, I think one of the most elegant ways to address a lot of issues would be to take from Apoc and have all damage and saves apply at the end of a turn, both players having gone. That's be neat and hamstring activation wars and super duper glass cannon units hurtling across the field in one turn. But GW is not gonna rock that boat any time soon.

 

SBG, on the other hand, doesn't take appreciably less time than AoS because every fight and sometimes every shot occurs individually, since there are no squads. 

 

The excuse of GW being a model manufacturer doesn't mean it is okay for them to put out any old game and we should be glad they deign to do so. They tried this with AoS at the start and it slopped HARD. It is neither true nor acceptable. As consumers, it is not our job to understand that GW doesn't want to do things. We are under no obligation to accept anything GW does. GW is under obligation to provide a product we want to purchase so that it can get more money to shareholders (and also other things that are way less savory because that is how business works. For now. Glimmers of hope in the future if you follow economist news. Faint glimmers).

[XReN]

12 minutes ago, stratigo said:

On the other hand, I also play kill team, have played warcry, and play apoc. All these games take significantly less time than AoS with alternating activations. Necromunda isn't long because of alternating activations. Alternating activations would, without changing a single thing, extend absolutely no time, as you would be taking exactly the same amount of actions as you would in your turn.

 

I mean, I think one of the most elegant ways to address a lot of issues would be to take from Apoc and have all damage and saves apply at the end of a turn, both players having gone. That's be neat and hamstring activation wars and super duper glass cannon units hurtling across the field in one turn. But GW is not gonna rock that boat any time soon.

 

SBG, on the other hand, doesn't take appreciably less time than AoS because every fight and sometimes every shot occurs individually, since there are no squads. 

With alternate activations you will have to make decisions based on what your opponent is doing right now instead of having an entire turn to think it through, you don't have much to do during move and charge phases - so that is plenty of time to build a strategy, so for the most part alternate activations will most certanly increase time required to play a game. A 3 turn Infinity game of 300 points takes just as much as a game of 2000 points of aos because of it's extensive reaction mechanics, though you only have around 30 models on the table between both players.

Apoc rules would be interesting to look at though, also when we played AoS "apoc" organisators found somewhere rules that I believe are official GW stuff - that units fight at the same time and all models are automaticaly in range to attack. I will check if that is actually official later.

[Solaris]

On 9/23/2019 at 10:29 AM, Overread said:

With a game with only 6 turns at most where its most likely going to take at least 1 turn to get into range to do anything with most units and where the 6th turn might not happen (game state won before that) then you've really only got 4 turns of full action. That does not leave much room to sit back and be passive. In fact in general if you're playing with objectives sitting back and being passive tends to fail. 

Plus sitting back would only work for one single turn - probably the first. If the game had a lot more turns and things were spread out more then doubleturn wouldn't be as bad. If the game ran with say 20 turns then having one or two doubles in there wouldn't swing things so much; but with only a 6 turn game where the last turn is likely going to be more of a mop up - so a practical 5 turns - getting to take two at once isn't just adding random to the game; it's providing a massive swing. 

I get the idea of increasing random to break up tactics, but in general double turn actually allows one player to maximise their maths efficiency. If they get the option then not only do they get another turn, but their maths and tactics get to actually happen exactly how they want with no negatives. Because now their opponent can't mess with their position or approach. It actually rewards more "risky" charging forward and aggressive play far more so if you get the doubleturn. Meanwhile if you held back and got it then you can still gain advantage. 

And there's an issue, its very hard to actually pass on a doubleturn. The vast majority of times its advantageous for a player to take a doubleturn first when they get the option.

I actually disagree with most of what you've written in this post and in others. The double turn adds a LOT of tactical consideration to the game, forcing you to be very careful with your positioning when there's a risk of your opponent getting a double. In many scenarios it's actually perfectly valid to sit back passively for up to three turns, scoring with chaff and screen units as much as you can and waiting for your opponent to commit.

If my opponent is in no position to inflict heavy damage on me, I'll happily give them a double turn (I actually did that in a game I played just two days ago). That way, I can get into an advantageous position later in the game instead. It's all a matter of being in the right position at the right time. If your opponent is able to attack your monster or important unit for two turns in a row, then you've made a mistake earlier in the game to enable that.

If I position well, I can mitigate my opponent's double turn. If I position well, I can also maximize the the damage I inflict should I get a double turn of my own. At all times, you need to be prepare for both winning and to losing the next initiative roll. The players that do this tend to do well in tournaments consistently, and the players that don't do this tend to lose and/or complain about the double turn on the internet.

I actually think IGOUGO would make the game incredibly dull. Turn predictability would take away so much from the game in terms of tactical positioning and maneuvering. It would significantly empower gunline armies, making kiting and screening reliable ways of ensuring several turns of shooting.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Solaris

[Overread]

Surely the doubleturn empowers gunlines too though. In fact if a gunline army gets a doubleturn then in theory they get to do two whole rounds of exactly what they want - sitting back and shooting with very little to no retaliation for their opponent. It even highlights one of the major failings because now the opponent really has nothing to do save roll saves and remove models as a gunline doesn't even want anything (or much of anything) in close combat to offer alternate close combat rounds during the turn. 

Sure you can argue that if they don't get it it will hurt htem very hard as their opponent can use it to cross the ground to them. In that it highlights the very swingy nature of the doubleturn. If they get it they are getting a huge bonus, whilst if they get it played against them they get a huge negative.

 

You also mention screening and such as if they are unique to the doubleturn mechanic, a good player will be screening and using chaff without the doubleturn. The importance of protecting units, using chaff, tarpits etc... doesn't diminish in any way if you have an ordered alternating turn sequence for the game. 

[MrZakalwe]

On 9/24/2019 at 10:20 AM, XReN said:

A 3 turn Infinity game of 300 points takes just as much as a game of 2000 points of aos because of it's extensive reaction mechanics, though you only have around 30 models on the table between both players.

Not when you get used to the rules. Infinity starts slow but it gets much quicker.