Double turn

[tom_gore]

Looks like the conversation is starting to go in circles (like in all previous threads about this subject).

I like the priority roll mechanic a lot, but I do feel there could be more strategy in it. Something like Warcry is doing, so aiming to go first would (almost) always be a tradeoff. Endless spells are a good start (nobody wants that Purple Sun sailing into the middle of their army), but I feel the roll itself could use some more elements, too.

 

[tom_gore]

17 hours ago, sirbrokensword said:

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.

Even with the priority roll removed, AoS will most likely never be the "serious" game you're looking for. And a lot of us players prefer it that way.

Edited July 26, 2019 by tom_gore

[Kramer]

13 minutes ago, Overread said:

 

One could argue that as its a feature that creates quite a powerful divide in many communities/groups and as something that people either really like or really dislike; it should be retired to Open Play as a mechanic that is optional for games on agreement with your opponent. 

 

In that case I also want the horrible strike first twice FEC abilities out of matched play

[Inquisitorsz]

2 hours ago, Kramer said:

In that case I also want the horrible strike first twice FEC abilities out of matched play

We'll things like that a certainly also part of the problem.

Its all linked. The double turn can often exasperate problems who's root cause is different, like overpowered FEC or NPE experiences like whole armies who strike first or skaven with enough magic and shooting to wipe multiple units out each turn. 

That being said, it's also the low hanging fruit in terms of a fix.

Improve the double turn problem and you'll reduce the impact of these overpowered armies/units. 

That doesn't necessarily mean removing the priority roll btw (see my previous post on the last page for more on that). 

Ideally they should fix both, the double turn and OP units/armies, but you know, baby steps. 

[InSaint]

What I think about Double Turn?

[SirPergrin]

I believe that the priority roll is  Age of Sigmar's most unique feature and if that went away, we would have a terribly bland game in our hands, at least tactically. 

 

 

[Overread]

3 minutes ago, SirPergrin said:

I believe that the priority roll is  Age of Sigmar's most unique feature and if that went away, we would have a terribly bland game in our hands, at least tactically. 

 

 

How so? The vast majority of the games tactics remain the same. In fact tactically it has a marginal impact because beyond holding still and keeping back you don't do anything different with or without the double turn. Screening your units with chaff; protecting leaders etc... are all things you should be doing anyway regardless of double turn or not. 

The issue is that the double turn gives one player an advantage in being able to put a plan into action without the opponent being able to stop them - for a whole turn. For a shooty army its a godsend as they can now do exactly what they want for a whole second turn - sit back and fire and take the opponents models off the table 

 

The tactics remain the same and honestly I don't see even GW advertising the double turn in any big way to make it "the" AoS feature. I'd rather say things like Endless Spells are far more uniquely identifying 

[Dead Scribe]

The tactics wouldn't change.  A tactic is a choice.  You don't lose choices by not having a double turn.  Your strategies may certainly change, but again I don't see the absence of a double turn removing the strategic depth of the game by any meaningful amount.

[Kirjava13]

I can take or leave whether it's a tactical consideration, because my main gripe is that it means one players stands around for ages barely doing anything. There's no getting around that.

[Wraith01]

I've never had a problem with the double turn.

It could be because AoS was my first tabletop game and it's the first ruleset I ever played with, so I didn't know anything else.

After 3 years of wargaming and trying other game systems I still don't have a problem with it. I think it's part of AoS's identity and I actually enjoy the randomness... I also like the way Warlords of Erewhon handles it; the Bolt Action style where you could have a few turns without activating anything at all since you're blindly drawing dice out of a bag to determine who gets to go. 

[Silchas_Ruin]

I enjoy the turn roll. Sometimes it ****** you over and there is nothing you can do, but its a dice game, games can turn on other rolls.  I use several screen units and I'm in my current games trying to play for giving away the turn early and coming back later.  It can be hard agains high dmg lists.

The main reason I like the double turn is the feeling that the game can always turn. I had to many 40k games where a look at the army list and seeing who gets to go first can tell you most of the game, and if not from the start then after turn 1 you see where its going. The turn roll makes me feel like there is always the option of a comeback, unless you lost almost everything. Would much rather sit around watching my opponent play 2 turns in a row than play the second half of a game just deciding the size of a victory.

[Hvy]

I'll happily take the current priority roll and chance of double turns over I-go-you-go. That was horrible. I would rather have an activation system (similar to Bolt Action perhaps) or where players alternate each unit through each phase. The Apocalypse rules look like an interesting take on that.

I've never been tabled on a round 1 double turn- usually a turn 2 or 3 double is where the pain happens. Thankfully, alternating who picks a unit to fight in the combat phase helps with weathering a double turn. If your opponent doesn't make good choices on which units they charge and which they choose to fight first with, you can either deplete attackers from another one of their units or pile in with your own units- a lot of that depends on what you did when you moved. That is where I really see the tactical choices forced by the potential double turn show up.    

[whispersofblood]

When it comes to new players, definitely the attitude of how they are introduced to the double turn will flavour how they think of it. 

If you surprise a new player with it then yes it will give them a sense of powerlessness and a negative play experience. But if you explain and introduce it during the first priority roll of the game. And, explain how it can work in the future, while talking them through in game actions before the priority roll. Well that is actually teaching. 

Your interaction with the priority roll starts in your movement phase if you are 1st player. You need to give your opponent the most questions to answer in their turn that you can. 

Endless spells

Putting skirmish units 3.1" away to take away movement

Putting pressure on the opponent's backfield objectives 

Basically do what you can so that the opponent can't just move forward and unpack their army into yours in ways you are not prepared to handle.

Honestly I think the priority roll and the ability to plan for it and use that uncertainty actually divides good players from great players.

[Luke82]

On 7/25/2019 at 6:04 PM, Nin Win said:

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.

I think this is a large part of it. If the initial intent of AoS was smaller games with a steady churn of micro factions, picking up a start collecting and playing your pal with a start collecting box, then getting double turned wouldn’t be too bad as the turns would move fast. But as the 2,000 point standard is the norm now getting doubled is excruciatingly boring to be on the end of. I never play with the rule and don’t think I ever will again, as i prefer big narrative games as other games handle small conflicts better (got to give another shout out to warlords of erehwon here!) in my opinion.

Interestingly it’s the matched play guys in our group that like the rule, and us narrative / open play buffoons that don’t. I guess cause the narrative games we play are more aggressive in nature and not as ‘gamey’ so spending turn after turn quivering in our own deployment zones lest we get double turned isn’t to our taste.

Good on the people who enjoy it though, we all get to play the way we like, long live the houserule!

Edited July 27, 2019 by Luke82

[Aegisgrimm]

I've always thought that AoS and 40k could have worked much better since the beginning if GW just threw out the IGOUGO mechanics and made everything alternating.  First dice for Deployment, followed by alternating deployments.  Then dice for Initiative, and alternate activating units.  From second turn onwards, the player that finished activating first in the previous turn has Initiative for this turn.

Eliminates anything dealing with the double turn, removes all downtime so your opponent isn't just standing there as you go through your turn.

One Page Rules does this with their Grimdark Future and Age of Fantasy games (indie rulesets to use GW minis with), and it works great.

[SirPergrin]

On 7/26/2019 at 9:28 PM, Overread said:

How so? The vast majority of the games tactics remain the same. In fact tactically it has a marginal impact because beyond holding still and keeping back you don't do anything different with or without the double turn. Screening your units with chaff; protecting leaders etc... are all things you should be doing anyway regardless of double turn or not. 

The issue is that the double turn gives one player an advantage in being able to put a plan into action without the opponent being able to stop them - for a whole turn. For a shooty army its a godsend as they can now do exactly what they want for a whole second turn - sit back and fire and take the opponents models off the table 

 

The tactics remain the same and honestly I don't see even GW advertising the double turn in any big way to make it "the" AoS feature. I'd rather say things like Endless Spells are far more uniquely identifying 

If there was no double turn, the purpose would be to deal the first crippling blow to the enemy, where in a true IGOUGO system the opponent would be very hard pressed to strike back. The alpha strike armies would reign supreme without fearing a possible retaliation for two turns, as we have now with the priority roll. 

In my opinion, AoS would become more of a list building game, closer to 40k, than the one we have now with most updated factions be equal in the hands of experienced players. 

Having to account for the possibility of being hit twice demands different tactics than if you always know you will be in the head of a turn. Personally, if i am going second in the first round i rarely take the double turn even if i won the priority roll for the second. If i am not well positioned for example, taking it would mean i am offering the possibility to the opponent to punish me in a later, more crucial stage of the battle. 

Of course, the system is not perfect and i want to add my voice to all those who wish an alternate activation system for warhammer. But in comparison to a strict IGOUGO, the one we have now is a million times better, at least for me. 

[Frowny]

The problem is that the biggest alpha strike happens not on the top of t1 but on the bottom. I think the advantage is to the second player, with most spells, charges and abilities having only an 18 inch threat range. So the first player can't do much damage and then takes both a big alpha and has the possibility of being double turned against to seal the deal.

For me the challenge is that the person who has fewest drops can both build their list around an alpha and gaurantee the best turn to take advantage of it.

I think even as I'm taking about it I don't mind the double turn, I mind the automatic first pick priority based on drops. I'd rather it be a roll with a plus one like every other turn

[Vextol]

Another double turn discussion!  I think you MUST have it. 

Shooting becomes too powerful without it because you can almost always sneak away before the opposition get there.  Teleporting snipers are frustrating enough.  Imagine if you could never get there in time for them to pop away again.

Also, a ton of magic becomes very weak.  It's range is way too low.  You would always just be a little away every time because you knew that next turn, you could just be a little away again.

Anyone else ever make a 9 inch charge?  I know I haven't.  Dropping in units becomes the worst because you are basically signing up to get your face smashed in by your enemy next turn when you inevitably fail that 9 inch charge.   The alternative?  Everyone is always 10 inches farther away than the other person's move characteristic.  Yawn.  If you think waiting two turns is boring, try playing a game where all you are doing is making sure you can't get charged.  Welcome back to fantasy.

The double turn is absolutely fine with a small modification.  Players need some control over it.  That's it.  As long as it's not just TOTALLY random, it's fine. 

For everyone who hates it, try this small mod (my area has been doing it for months now).  Each team gets 5 "tactical dice".  Each of those dice can be added to the initiative roll once per game.  Before rolling, select in secret how many extra tactical dice you're going to roll along with your initiative die.  Highest total wins.

I've never heard a single complaint about the double turn since we've started doing this. I have heard "I should have thrown more dice" or "I wish I'd have saved my dice instead of throwing all of them".  It puts the game back on the players and not on the luck of the dice.

[Luke82]

29 minutes ago, Vextol said:

Another double turn discussion!  I think you MUST have it. 

Shooting becomes too powerful without it because you can almost always sneak away before the opposition get there.  Teleporting snipers are frustrating enough.  Imagine if you could never get there in time for them to pop away again.

Also, a ton of magic becomes very weak.  It's range is way too low.  You would always just be a little away every time because you knew that next turn, you could just be a little away again.

Anyone else ever make a 9 inch charge?  I know I haven't.  Dropping in units becomes the worst because you are basically signing up to get your face smashed in by your enemy next turn when you inevitably fail that 9 inch charge.   The alternative?  Everyone is always 10 inches farther away than the other person's move characteristic.  Yawn.  If you think waiting two turns is boring, try playing a game where all you are doing is making sure you can't get charged.  Welcome back to fantasy.

The double turn is absolutely fine with a small modification.  Players need some control over it.  That's it.  As long as it's not just TOTALLY random, it's fine. 

For everyone who hates it, try this small mod (my area has been doing it for months now).  Each team gets 5 "tactical dice".  Each of those dice can be added to the initiative roll once per game.  Before rolling, select in secret how many extra tactical dice you're going to roll along with your initiative die.  Highest total wins.

I've never heard a single complaint about the double turn since we've started doing this. I have heard "I should have thrown more dice" or "I wish I'd have saved my dice instead of throwing all of them".  It puts the game back on the players and not on the luck of the dice.

I did consider trying this after you posting it before, had it snap shotted on my phone, but never got round to it. Matched play dudes prefer to play with rules as they are, because tournaments, and narrative guys were just happier forgoing it as we had been already. 

My personal dislike for the rule isn’t down to any tactical decisions (I never have any of those anyway) just the negative play experience of it. I don’t like it happening to me, and derive no joy when I get it as it just makes me remember all the times I’ve been doubled. I don’t personally get how people can say it’s better than normal IGOUGO as it takes the bad aspect of it, the long period of helplessness, and literally doubles it. It’s twice as bad!

[Vextol]

2 hours ago, Luke82 said:

 I don’t personally get how people can say it’s better than normal IGOUGO as it takes the bad aspect of it, the long period of helplessness, and literally doubles it. It’s twice as bad!

It's not really better than igougo.  It's just different.  However, in a game that was developed from the beginning with it in mind, it's hard to go back without a lot of overhauls.  BTW, for those of you who say they play igougo and it works fine, I've tried it and I respectfully disagree.  It's not the same game at all.

Also, I only play matched.  I agree, it's hard to get matched players to consider different options (unless they do..see malign portents, malign sorcery spells, realm rules, realm spells, every command ability they didn't like until it was FAQed, hidden agendas....but I'm being coy.  I actually do agree).  The only army that arguably benefits from the initiative modifier is Idoneth as they are very turn specific...however, knowing that, you could save all your dice to throw against them....which means it's just regular initiative again, so no real impact.

I know I'm a broken record on this idea (again, wasn't mine so I don't feel bad doing it) but it's hard to explain how much better it makes the game.

Edited July 29, 2019 by Vextol

[Luke82]

I definitely agree it’s not the same game without the double turn, hence my preference for swapping it out! Although I can see the merits of the idea you put forward I still think my preference will be to just drop the rule, as even being able to impact the roll won’t change my dislike of the double once it happens, whichever direction it lands.

I usually play in a very personalised way anyway, and nearly always with a custom battleplan, and it’s far easier to formulate this with a normal turn order in mind.

[Tidings]

Too much impact on the game from a single die roll. There's really not THAT much tactics that come from it, despite what people say. Like others have said, the little bit of strategic depth it adds is massively outweighed by how much a game swings off one roll. The entire reason people find it exciting is because the roll has such an impact on the game.

I've played local tournaments where the double turn was removed, and in my experience, those were more fun, more fair, more strategic and had less people just rolling in with lists designed to get the first double turn and win off that. 

[Dead Scribe]

48 minutes ago, Tidings said:

Too much impact on the game from a single die roll. There's really not THAT much tactics that come from it, despite what people say. Like others have said, the little bit of strategic depth it adds is massively outweighed by how much a game swings off one roll. The entire reason people find it exciting is because the roll has such an impact on the game.

I've played local tournaments where the double turn was removed, and in my experience, those were more fun, more fair, more strategic and had less people just rolling in with lists designed to get the first double turn and win off that. 

I agree with this.  Double turn could work if there was a form of alternate activation where you couldn't just do your entire turn... twice in a row.  

Edited August 2, 2019 by Dead Scribe

[prochuvi]

It is horrible and must go away.

A dice roll cant be who set the winner of a game.

In a game with both armys 100% balanced and where luck usually is balanced due to the raw numbers of dices,the winner must be who played better and not who got the doubleturn.

Sure we can minimize the lost of a double turn with good position of minis etc,but end of the day is a single dice roll that have too much impact in the game and it is random.

For me and everyone at my city is horrible and with every general handbook the first thing we look in it is if they removed the double turn finnally

[Kamose]

I personally don't mind the double turn. In fact I prefer it. This is coming from someone with awful priority roll luck. My record is nearly 20 failed priority rolls in a row (over multiple games of course). 😁

Other people have said this but I've played games of 40k where I looked at deployment and who won first turn, and knew the outcome of the game with certainty. That sucks!

The double turn removes that possibility. Yes, you can go second, win the double and try to "alphastrike" your opponent. However this very different from what happens in 40k.

In 40k, my opponent wins the first turn and I lose by the end of their first shooting phase. In AoS, my opponent wins priority, gives me an entire turn to prepare my defenses, takes their turn and has less than a 50% chance (I win ties) of getting the double turn.  This far more interesting, counterable, and fun than how 40k does things.

No one in my community has any issues with the rule.  It's just another rule to take into consideration. Frankly I'd be sad if they removed it. So it's a good thing they're not gonna! 👍

Edited August 2, 2019 by Kamose