Double turn

[HammerOfSigmar]

I am neutral about it. Either leave it there or remove it will be just fine for me.  I do discover that some people hate it because it makes the game less predictable and somehow invalidate their strategy, which upsets them a lot. However, the double does cause some trouble when the damage output is getting more and more crazy because a double turn might just remove most of the army .

Considering the apoc and warcry, the next edition might just remove the battle turn mechanism we currently have and only the battle round is left.

[tripchimeras]

2 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

Well... I've won a lot of games precisely because I got a double turn and got to wail on my opponent for two turns without recourse.  And I have armies that can charge across most of the table in one turn so there was nothing he could do to stop me from wailing on him.  

So I don't think its absurd to think that if you're on the receiving end of the double turn that it played a hefty reason in why you lost.

I mean its called screaners and bubble wrap.  Yes, easier said then done, but if you don't have a list that can take the initial punch its pretty essential.  And as to the cause and effect, I would argue that the cause was gambling on your opponent not getting the double turn and losing, not your opponent getting the double turn.  There are surely instances and situations where there is nothing you could have done, just like there are situations where in a game without double turns there are dice rolls that effect the game that there is nothing you could have done to stop them.  But USUALLY there are cause and effect reasons leading up to the double turn that go far beyond a single dice role.  Either your deployment didn't factor it in, or your list building was flawed, or you played too aggressively turn 1, or a road block unit that should have been able to hold an additional phase got blown up in a single round.  All of these can lead to getting blown up in a double turn, and many are only going to see the double turn as the culprit when many times smaller things previously are the real issue.   That being said there are plenty of bad army books, the game is certainly not perfectly balanced, and I am sure there are books that just do not have the resources to do anything about alpha strikes/double turns at all.  But these armies are the issues in and of themselves, not the fundamental game rules.

[willange]

I'm not a fan of it myself.  I prefer systems like Kill Team where the shoot and combat alternate turns, and only the movement is done "all at once".  Even then, alternating movement might not be terrible, but the issue there is that alternating movement might be a bit hectic especially with the charge phase being totally separate in this game.  Obviously a lot would have to change for that to go through.

For now, I'd be satisfied just to have have the turn order remain the same round-to-round.

EDIT: But I should add the double-turn isn't as bad as it sometimes is made to sound.  It mostly just requires a steeper learning curve and effective use of screens to learn how to play around it effectively.

Edited July 25, 2019 by willange

[Dead Scribe]

Screens and bubble wrap only go so far to mitigate a double turn against an army that has a massive damage output.

And then there are armies that don't really have anything that screens or bubble wrap.  Which invalidates a lot of play styles.

"Don't play that army" is the common recourse, but that is a negative play experience for a lot of people to be told.

I'd be happy with the turn order remaining the same or an alternate activation sequence of some type.

Edited July 25, 2019 by Dead Scribe

[Smooth criminal]

No, I hate it.

It's important and I don't like when important things are decided solely with "who gets more on a dice roll".

[Forrix]

1 hour ago, Planar said:

Out of curiosity why you choose to play a game that you absolutely hate one of its key features? 

Because its a popular game in my area with excellent models and otherwise pretty good rules. I've had plenty of games were the double turn didn't come into play either due to priority rolls or there not being an opportunity to capitalize on it. I've also had enough games were its turned a close game into a one sided slaughter fest or prevented a come back to detest it. I wouldn't call it a key feature anyways, endless spells aside, the game plays fine without it.

[sirbrokensword]

It's a garbage rule, and a major part of the reason I'm probably not going to play Aos.  It's existence means AoS can't be a serious game.  it's just beer and pretzels.

[Aelven supremacy]

2 minutes ago, Forrix said:

Because its a popular game in my area with excellent models and otherwise pretty good rules. I've had plenty of games were the double turn didn't come into play either due to priority rolls or there not being an opportunity to capitalize on it. I've also had enough games were its turned a close game into a one sided slaughter fest or prevented a come back to detest it. I wouldn't call it a key feature anyways, endless spells aside, the game plays fine without it.

“Not being an opportunity to capitalise on it”.

think about how that happened and you are mastering the priority roll dynamic.

[Aelven supremacy]

10 minutes ago, Smooth criminal said:

No, I hate it.

It's important and I don't like when important things are decided solely with "who gets more on a dice roll".

It’s a dice game... it’s determined by dice rolls.   I’ve had games determined by one charge roll, one run roll, one save roll etc.    Doesn’t make me hate charging, running or saving...

[Skipsalajan]

I love it, everybody in my gaming group loves it. It is pure genius. Also lots of tactical depth tied to it. 

 

 

[Pitloze]

I feel double turns should not come down to a single dice roll. Would have liked it if events in the previous turn had someway to influence who eventually gets to choose the double turn.

[wayniac]

I find it's either love it or hate it, sometimes both.  The major issue with it is that it's basically you rolled badly, so you spend two turns doing nothing except rolling saves (if you're lucky) and removing models.  That's bad.  The benefit is that it is pretty unique and I guess adds some complexity, but really not because "hinging on a single die roll" isn't complexity.  I have almost always seen situations where whoever gets the first double turn wins, because they get two free rounds of beating on their opponent while the other guy cannot do anything but sit there and take it.

Honestly I would have preferred getting rid of the IGO-UGO thing anyways and doing alternating activations like Bolt Action, then I could see a double turn mechanic mattering since if you drew two activations in a row, it means you use more of your units so you can't react when your opponent inevitably gets more of theirs.  That's good random chance IMHO.  Double Turn is, again IMHO, bad random chance because it's all or nothing.

So basically I think it's an alright mechanic but not in an IGO-UGO game.  If it was unit activations or the game itself had more reactionary things you could do (imagine like like a unit given an action such that if you move in range of them, they can counter-charge you on your turn) then it would make sense since the person who lost the roll would get something other than two turns of being kicked in the groin.

Edited July 25, 2019 by wayniac

[Mutton]

I like the idea of it. There's a better way to implement it waiting to be found. Just look at Warcry's solution.

[Acid_Nine]

I hate it, honestly. I always feel bad when I get the double turn and beat the living hell out of the opponent without him having a way to interrupt or attack, and when it happens to me I feel bad because my previous plan of attack is null and void. I may just need to plan ahead for a double turn, mine or my opponent's, but at the same time I'm not doctor strange. I cannot see different outcomes of different time lines trying to set up during this turn, and what I may prepare for may not be circumvented by a savvy opponent.

I am a reactionary player. I like in 40k where I have my turn, do what I do, then wait for my opponent to do what they do. I see what their attack is, and I like to make a plan of attack based off what was damaged, what wasn't, what my army's position is compared to my opponent's.  I may just need to "Git Gud", but judging how the game will swing based off something my opponent or I cannot control just... just doesnt feel right. it's what stopped me from playing AOS in the first place, and I was drawn back because 40k has it's own set of problems.

Edited July 25, 2019 by Acid_Nine

[Worm]

The problem with 2x turn is that it is just to strong if a good shooty army has two turns it is just to much for most of the armys and oposit if CC army has two turns against shooty army well that's it.

I don't like 2x turn as bad player with power list can win the game not knowing why and how.

So 2x yes, why not but not for match play.

[CommissarRotke]

3 hours ago, Overread said:

We've had a few threads on this in the past

 

 

Personally I dislike it greatly because it puts too much power into a single dice roll. A double turn in a game where turns are whole army activations is very overpowering to most opponents. From gamers I've chatted too I've very very rarely heard of anyone losing a game when they got a double turn; or winning a game when their opponent got a double turn. 

The other, and biggest issue, is that regardless of balance of battle; a double turn means one person stands there for twice as long and all they can do is roll saves and remove their models from the table. They can't react to changes; can't move, can't shoot; can't use spells etc.. They are left rather bored and their only benefit is the alternating close combat phase; but even then they are limited as they can't start any new combats. Plus against any ranged army they've got even less to do. 

 

To me its a bad feature that really should be retired out of the core game and into open play as an optional rule. It's just too powerful a mechanic that swings games in favour of whoever gets it and leaves you little means to counterplay it. In fact the only way to prepare to counter it, is to basically not move closer to your opponent. That's a bad feature in a game that only has 6 turns of action at best and where most victory conditions are going to involve moving fowrad to kill enemies and secure objectives. Plus holding back might only work for the first turn; after that you've got to get close and if not then your opponent has moved closer anyway. 

this is the best response against the double turn that I've read, and I am curious if there's an official count for double turns that goes with the W/L rate count

[NinthMusketeer]

I could go on and on about why I don't like it, but it all boils down to one thing: it reduces my enjoyment of the game. It isn't fun.

[CommissarRotke]

25 minutes ago, Acid_Nine said:

I hate it, honestly. I always feel bad when I get the double turn and beat the living hell out of the opponent without him having a way to interrupt or attack, and when it happens to me I feel bad because my previous plan of attack is null and void. I may just need to plan ahead for a double turn, mine or my opponent's, but at the same time I'm not doctor strange. I cannot see different outcomes of different time lines trying to set up during this turn, and what I may prepare for may not be circumvented by a savvy opponent.

I am a reactionary player. I like in 40k where I have my turn, do what I do, then wait for my opponent to do what they do. I see what their attack is, and I like to make a plan of attack based off what was damaged, what wasn't, what my army's position is compared to my opponent's.  I may just need to "Git Gud", but judging how the game will swing based off something my opponent or I cannot control just... just doesnt feel right. it's what stopped me from playing AOS in the first place, and I was drawn back because 40k has it's own set of problems.

I've heard a lot of complaints about 40k though, where army comps want to go first to obliterate their opponent with ranged/arty. None of us can control the dice, which are technically what drive the game.

[Nin Win]

I love the double turn.  I don't play large games though, only to around 1250, so I could definitely see the wait time being less than fun for 2000+ point games.

[CentralKarma]

2 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

Well... I've won a lot of games precisely because I got a double turn and got to wail on my opponent for two turns without recourse.  And I have armies that can charge across most of the table in one turn so there was nothing he could do to stop me from wailing on him.  

So I don't think its absurd to think that if you're on the receiving end of the double turn that it played a hefty reason in why you lost.

It can definitely be a factor.  One of many factors that result in a win or loss.  I've played AoS for a few years now, started when the first GHB came out.  I hardly pay attention to if my opponent got a double turn against me.  If I lose I look at how I played the scenario/ objectives, my list, how I deployed, and how to deal with tough enemy in units in the future.

To me blaming the double turn is the same as blaming bad dice, it can definitely cause a loss, but its part of the game. 

[Acid_Nine]

19 minutes ago, CommissarRotke said:

I've heard a lot of complaints about 40k though, where army comps want to go first to obliterate their opponent with ranged/arty. None of us can control the dice, which are technically what drive the game.

well yea that's why I switched over to AOS. We may not control all the dice in either game system, but we control movement and positioning.  Those are far more important here than in 40k, but with the double turn mechanic we cannot control when we get to have full movement. if it was a regular game of my turn your turn, we know when we move and position, and can react to the opponent's movements. When it's a double turn, then even that is controlled by a single die.

Edited July 25, 2019 by Acid_Nine

[Dead Scribe]

 it can definitely cause a loss, but its part of the game. 

Well with how warcry is setup and with how apocalypse has gone, it is a part of the game I hope starts seeing its removal in the near future.

[Charleston]

3 hours ago, XReN said:

I love the double turn and I find people saying that it wins games laughable. It's not priority roll that wins games. It's being unprepared, not waiting for it like ever, thats what wins games. We all know it's going to happen, right? Right. Why not prepare for it? Plan for it? I get screwed by failed charges and casting rolls much more than priority rolls.  

Build your lists and strategy considering priority roll, bring endless spells, reactive abilities, position correctly. 

Complaining about priority rolls is the same as complaining about any rolls. There are games won by last turn run, 1 passed save, failed bravery test, cast spell, any roll can be as crucial as priority roll.

 

Yeah, actually thats bollocks. How do you want to prepare on a doubleturn`? Especially when you plan an slower/defensive army it is really not possible to do so. People always brag about "preparing for a Doubleturn" but never deliver any examples or tactics for it. How to stop the enemy from 2 turns shooting to pick your heroes out? How to stop your enemy from charging the most sensible units you have when he has enough time to deal with screens and position in any way he wants. Not all armies are build as a deathstar that kills the enemy on contact. 

Also, comparing it to charges is also quite an issue as you can actively play to alter the chances for a charge. Go closer to an enemy, reroll it and so on. The initiative roll is a single roll off that really can close the game in an early turn or, even worse, ruin the fun for one of the player quite hard or make him at least endure 2 turns of damage. Together with the really frustrating step in power level between newer and older books such a thing can really ruin a day.

 

[SerialMoM]

I like the double turn, because in 40k getting the first turn is so important, that sometimes/ quite often the game is lost with the first roll, which decides who starts. In AoS this can change and gives you another chance to turn around the game.

[Overread]

Honestly I think preparing for  a double turn is more a mental preparation than a tactical one. Also I think that when you say that you don't log if you win/lose in conjunction with doubleturns then you're ignoring the issue and perhaps missing that a reason for win/loss is the doubleturn itself not something the player has done right not wrong.

 

And that's part of the issue. It swings games in such a massive way that is outside of a players control. Ideal for fun open games or such but for matched play, which aims to produce a fair and balanced game for both players, its just never going to work; esp with GW's current system of whole armies. Now if it was alternate unit activation it might work out ok - two turns on one model now and then might work out (though could be confusing to record keep, esp for armies with more individual units)