Jump to content

Double turn


Worm

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, XReN said:

Losing a game because of failed charge roll sucks just as much as losing a game because of any roll, prove me wrong.

If you lost the game because of a failed charge roll, chances are you did a few other things wrong too.  There's a world of difference between failing a charge roll and losing, and failing the double turn roll and standing there for an hour doing nothing but removing models.

While it may be enjoyable to sit there as you put it for 30 minutes thinking about the game, or having patience, a lot of people don't find that a fun game standing there doing nothing two turns in a row.  

Based on their experiments with apocalypse and warcry, I have a feeling they know that thats the biggest killer of the game for a lot of people and I have hope that a new AOS version based on those experiments will be forthcoming in the next generals handbook.

Edited by Dead Scribe
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, XReN said:

And there is solution to both: why don't people who dislike the priority roll spend those 30 minutes of boredom thinking about how they should have played differently so double turn won't be decisive factor of a game?

 

The double turn as it stands or the threat of one is ALWAYS a decisive factor of the game, because it places the player going first perpetually on the back foot as they have to play assuming their opponent will get two turns in a row, while their opponent only has to plan for 1 enemy turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dead Scribe said:

If you lost the game because of a failed charge roll, chances are you did a few other things wrong too.  There's a world of difference between failing a charge roll and losing, and failing the double turn roll and standing there for an hour doing nothing but removing models.

While it may be enjoyable to sit there as you put it for 30 minutes thinking about the game, or having patience, a lot of people don't find that a fun game standing there doing nothing two turns in a row.  

Based on their experiments with apocalypse and warcry, I have a feeling they know that thats the biggest killer of the game for a lot of people and I have hope that a new AOS version based on those experiments will be forthcoming in the next generals handbook.

A change as big as that could be more suited for a new edition instead of a mere GHB IMO.

The biggest complain I find in my groups about the double turn is the time you stay watching the other player do his thing A SECOND TIME but it's mostly from the same people that don't like the IGOUGO itself, the rest of the people don't have any problem with IGOUGO or double turn (again, we are not a competitive group)

If someone don't like double turn for the "invalances" that it may generate... you can argue that part of the game is having in mind that you may get double turned but when it goes down to getting bored at the other player's turn I could say that the problem is not in the double turn mechanic itself, instead is with the IGOUGO system (at least that's what I've found with the rest of my local community ofc)

Edited by Dragobeth
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

If you lost the game because of a failed charge roll, chances are you did a few other things wrong too.  There's a world of difference between failing a charge roll and losing, and failing the double turn roll and standing there for an hour doing nothing but removing models.

While it may be enjoyable to sit there as you put it for 30 minutes thinking about the game, or having patience, a lot of people don't find that a fun game standing there doing nothing two turns in a row.  

Based on their experiments with apocalypse and warcry, I have a feeling they know that thats the biggest killer of the game for a lot of people and I have hope that a new AOS version based on those experiments will be forthcoming in the next generals handbook.

But you lose the game in any of those scenarios, I think we can agree that feelings are not a valid arguement.

I get my kick of action gameplay from Rainbow 6 Siege, it's also way easier to find time for.

I would gladly welcome changes to priority roll, but not removing of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Feelings are a valid argument, simply because what is and is not fun is entirely an emotion.

I would welcome changes to the priority roll provided they remove standing around for two turns doing nothing.  Barring that I would be in favor of its complete removal.

Edited by Dead Scribe
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, XReN said:

But you lose the game in any of those scenarios, I think we can agree that feelings are not a valid arguement.

I get my kick of action gameplay from Rainbow 6 Siege, it's also way easier to find time for.

I would gladly welcome changes to priority roll, but not removing of it.

I mean... losing becouse you made a mistake it's not the same than losing becouse the other player got another turn or becouse the other player bringed an OP army or something.

Feelings can be a valid argument, at the end of the day losing is losing, yes but the way you loose can affect how you see the game itself. If I lose a game after having good fight I can still go out with a smile becouse it was fun but If I lose becouse the other player just smashed my army with a double turn it's very undestable that I get angry at the game or the system.

Ofc in the case of losing becouse double turn it was my fault becouse I din't play with that possibility in mind, maybe I was too greedy and let my units in the open, maybe I lost a capture point becouse of that, etc but people tend to think first that it's not their fault when they lose.

I still think that double turn should stay but I also think that we should take into consideration the other players feelings and try , as a community, to fight agaisnt the idea of losing just becouse double turn (again, you can't do that much with the people who straight up get bored during the other player's turn aside from changing the turn system itself) since I've seen games where the player who got double turne'd ended up wining for 2 reasons: maybe he new how to prepare for it or the other player didn't know how to take advantage of that.

Again, we have another problem (not "we" it's more of problem for GW): there are armies that can't prepare that well agaisnt double turn and there are armies that can't really take that advantage from a double turn. If all the armies could do that, double turn couldn't be a problem outside the boredom of watching the other player get another turn.

(I think that I'm talking too much and saying the same things like 4 times sorry)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Battlefury
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Feels like this has been a hot topic since the start of AoS, so I went back through my game notebook and tried to put some numbers on the impact of the turn roll. I included only 2,000 point matched play games from the last two years where I had recorded (or remembered) who won the priority rolls on turns 2 & 3. This gave me a sample size of 33 games. That includes 10 games from 2-day tournaments, 18 games from local 1-day tournaments, and a handful of pickup games. I used KO in all games. 

Here are the numbers:

  • In games where I won the Turn 2 priority roll (13 games) I won the game 64% of the time vs 42% when I lost the Turn 2 roll (19 games)
  • In games where I lost both the Turn 2 & 3 priority rolls (14 games) I won the game only 29% of the time, vs winning 68% of the time when I won at least 1 of the first two priority rolls (19 games)

Not a huge sample size, so you can't draw any firm conclusions, but indications are that the those first two priority rolls swing your chance of winning +/- 10% or so. Really important dice rolls, for sure, but far from completely determining the outcome of the game on their own.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, WatcherintheWater said:

Feels like this has been a hot topic since the start of AoS, so I went back through my game notebook and tried to put some numbers on the impact of the turn roll. I included only 2,000 point matched play games from the last two years where I had recorded (or remembered) who won the priority rolls on turns 2 & 3. This gave me a sample size of 33 games. That includes 10 games from 2-day tournaments, 18 games from local 1-day tournaments, and a handful of pickup games. I used KO in all games. 

Here are the numbers:

  • In games where I won the Turn 2 priority roll (13 games) I won the game 64% of the time vs 42% when I lost the Turn 2 roll (19 games)
  • In games where I lost both the Turn 2 & 3 priority rolls (14 games) I won the game only 29% of the time, vs winning 68% of the time when I won at least 1 of the first two priority rolls (19 games)

Not a huge sample size, so you can't draw any firm conclusions, but indications are that the those first two priority rolls swing your chance of winning +/- 10% or so. Really important dice rolls, for sure, but far from completely determining the outcome of the game on their own.

Of the two day event games what percentage of those loses came in the 2nd day of the event?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, whispersofblood said:

Of the two day event games what percentage of those loses came in the 2nd day of the event?

I finished middle of the pack in both of the 2-day tournaments, so nothing too out of line with the rest of my results (and a small sample). So of the 4 games I played on day two I went 3-1. Is there a specific question you are trying to get at?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, WatcherintheWater said:

I finished middle of the pack in both of the 2-day tournaments, so nothing too out of line with the rest of my results (and a small sample). So of the 4 games I played on day two I went 3-1. Is there a specific question you are trying to get at?

I think the viewpoint is that if the double turn can be prepared for then, in theory, at the second tournament day - ergo the day of higher skill and more even skill distribution. Players should see a more even 50-50 win/loss rate based on skill rather than being attached to who got the double turn first. Of course you'd need to pool results from all the players from multiple events to see such a pattern. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WatcherintheWater said:

I finished middle of the pack in both of the 2-day tournaments, so nothing too out of line with the rest of my results (and a small sample). So of the 4 games I played on day two I went 3-1. Is there a specific question you are trying to get at?

Yeah I'm trying to figure out if there is a way to see determine what games you were going to lose before the double turn affect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it keeps things interesting for casual games, and don't take issue with it.  If you get doubled, it makes for a laugh usually.  And its nice to double someone and feel like you are hitting them really hard every now and then.

 I am not a tournament/competitive player so I cant weigh in on that scene, but I would tend to lean towards not having it in competitive play.  That's a lot of power in a single dice throw. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, gotcha. Of those 4 games, twice i lost both turn 2 & 3 piority rolls, going 1-1 in those games vs going 2-0 in the 2 games where I won at least one roll. But yeah, not a big enough sample size to say anything based on that.

Scenarios can play a really big role in determining winner, too.  For an army like overlords, there are some scenarios are were pretty close to auto-lose in GHB 2018 (depending on opponent). So there can be a lot of noise in a 33 game sample.

Edited by WatcherintheWater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/27/2019 at 5:47 PM, Acid_Nine said:So, question: would an initiative system like from warcry (roll 6 dice looking for singles) be better than the single dice roll?

Warcry has alternating activation, so going first (or rather: getting to pick who goes first) is advantageous but overwhelmingly so. That game also provides benefits to the player that loses the initiative roll (fewer singles means more dub, trips or quads),

AoS lacks an "empowerment" of the player losing the priority roll. There are elements that may tempt a player to elect to go second, but those are very situational - there is no core rule compensation to the player losing the priority roll, and no core rule benefit to electing to go second.

Some situations where I would likely be happy to go second:

E.g. There is the possibility of being the first player to move a predatory spell, but that seems very marginal in the early rounds. There are also situations where going first means a lot of wasted potential: units starting the battle round out of position and out of practical range, units engaged with distraction units,

E.g. Claiming objectives at the end of your own turn means it is sometimes advantageous to first do a round of close combat against an entrenched enemy in their turn in in the hope of whittling down the defenders, gaining two turns of close combat before checking objective control instead of just one turn.

Is the dearth  of "go second" incentives a problem, though? I can't imagine players throwing down their rule book and go on strike to earn "go second rights", the game isn't perfect in this respect but it's not broken. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate the notion that the game needs an element of chance and incentive to keep an eye on movement placement but double turn feels like sword where a scalpel would be better.

In short not a fan. Just dosent seem necessary. I am a BIG aos fan and ive seen plenty of wins and loses because of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The double turn also incentivizes across the board in one turn murder armies. You don’t have to plan for the double if you win in one battle round, but if your army isn’t fast and can’t bring overwhelming damage in that first turn, going first is strictly worse than going second. 

 

Which helps feed feed into one of the biggest issues aos faces, the first turn murder armies

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if the player who’s opponent got the double turn receives a bonus movement phase before his/her opponent takes their turn. This could help to get into a position where the double turn isn’t as effective, but still good to get.

Or maybe just give both players their cmd pts in the beginning of a battle round for inspiring presence or reroll 1s for saves as a defence against the double turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First turn murder armies is definitely a problem that has stopped me from playing. 

Just watch guerrilla miniature gaming latest sigmar battle report of Beast of Chaos vs Stormcast. 

if you couldn't be bothered here's the quick take:

Stormcast goes first turn: Shuffles forward.

Beast men goes: Shuffles into position.

Roll off for turn 2: Beast men wins roll. 

Beast men goes: Wipes out most of the stormcast army. Takes enough objectives to win the game. 

That is not an ideal game scenario to play as the stormcast player, if this sort of game play happens to any new prospective gamers then the game will shrivel and die. It's not an uncommon occurrence either in my opinion. Sometimes its less severe but the win/loss is the same. 

Most of this has occurred with damage creep in the newer battle tomes and less to do with double turns. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Rollcage said:

First turn murder armies is definitely a problem that has stopped me from playing. 

Just watch guerrilla miniature gaming latest sigmar battle report of Beast of Chaos vs Stormcast. 

if you couldn't be bothered here's the quick take:

Stormcast goes first turn: Shuffles forward.

Beast men goes: Shuffles into position.

Roll off for turn 2: Beast men wins roll. 

Beast men goes: Wipes out most of the stormcast army. Takes enough objectives to win the game. 

That is not an ideal game scenario to play as the stormcast player, if this sort of game play happens to any new prospective gamers then the game will shrivel and die. It's not an uncommon occurrence either in my opinion. Sometimes its less severe but the win/loss is the same. 

Most of this has occurred with damage creep in the newer battle tomes and less to do with double turns. 

This batrep only shows how Ash brought weak af roster for entertaiment purposes, SCE are far stronger than BOC with the right list.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, XReN said:

This batrep only shows how Ash brought weak af roster for entertaiment purposes, SCE are far stronger than BOC with the right list.

 

Let me know how blaming the player works out for you. That beast men player clearly showed his strategic genius on the battlefield with superior unit choices that could crush him in a single round of combat. 

My point that's relevant to this thread topic is that Double turns have existed since the start of sigmar but the movement and damage capabilities were never this high.  When you cannot rely on winning a double turn you do the next best thing, You wipe the opponent off the battlefield so badly and so fast that the double turn becomes irrelevant.

Just wait until your army gets a little old and they nerf you like they did beastclaw raiders and bonesplitterz, suddenly your high damage build doesn't work or it costs too many points to do the same damage it once did. Then you can join Ash in the "weak af roster" section of the gaming group. 

That next shadow elf/light elf battle tomes will surely bring in the great new meta of even higher damage numbers and even faster movement with pure teleporting into melee range style rules. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rollcage said:

Let me know how blaming the player works out for you. That beast men player clearly showed his strategic genius on the battlefield with superior unit choices that could crush him in a single round of combat. 

Works like a charm, thanks for asking. What should have happened is: Anvilstrike list killing all fast/dd units turn 1

 

12 minutes ago, Rollcage said:

but the movement

There were

12 minutes ago, Rollcage said:

You wipe the opponent off the battlefield

Learn possitioning

13 minutes ago, Rollcage said:

Then you can join Ash in the "weak af roster" section of the gaming group. 

They kicked me out for actually trying to win

14 minutes ago, Rollcage said:

That next shadow elf/light elf battle tomes will surely bring in the great new meta of even higher damage numbers and even faster movement with pure teleporting into melee range style rules. 

SCE already were capable of it and than it got scraged

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, XReN said:

This batrep only shows how Ash brought weak af roster for entertaiment purposes, SCE are far stronger than BOC with the right list.

 

Do you expect newer players to put in dozens of hours finding out what the  best lists are, optimising them, then only buy the models for that list, even if they dont like them or enjoy using them? That's an utterly ridiculous assumption and a fantastic way to drive people away from the hobby, which will result in, ultimately, the whole thing collapsing.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...