Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Worm

Double turn

Recommended Posts

So it's a good thing they're not gonna! 👍

If there's one thing anyone should know about GW games and editions, its that there are no sacred cows that get kept at any time.  Any thing can change or be modified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

If there's one thing anyone should know about GW games and editions, its that there are no sacred cows that get kept at any time.  Any thing can change or be modified.

That is something about their games I really do appreciate!  😊

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the people who are super against the double turn because it puts too much luck on a single die roll, l really don't understand how you are ignoring the enormous elephant of "Who goes first" that comes with alternative activation.  Anyone who has played Warhammer for any amount of time has to know how big of an advantage that is.  It's huge to go first if you have no chance of being double turned.  

1. You can immediately gain objectives without needing to reinforce.   If a tough unit can hold out for one turn, they'll have the objective for two because there's no risk of being hit twice.  Plus, that allows slow units to hobble on in there or run at will because they know they will have two turns to get up there. 

2.  First player teleports become less tactical and way more powerful.  You only get one shot to kill that huge unit of skeletons, sequestors, saurus guard, berserkers....etc so you can drop them in without needing to reinforce.  See step 1 / 6.

3.  What's your movement?  Ok good.  I move/keep my unit of snipers that much away and shoot the garbage out of you.  Good luck ever getting to me.

4.  What's your spell range?  Ok good.  I move/keep my unit of anything that much away so you can never be in range.  Good luck with any of your spells.

5.  What's your charge?  Ok good.  I move/keep my.....etc.

6. If your opponent doesn't take your objective point EVERY turn, you'll crush them on points because while they are struggling and fighting to take the objective, you can just sit back and continue to hold it because unless they can completely wipe it in just 1 turn, you'll still get your points without threat while nonchalantly moving in support. 

7. If they DO get your objective, they've either fully committed, leaving the board open, or they're not supported and you can usually easily just take it back because they haven't gotten a chance to re-support after the claim.

It's not theoretical or dumb.  It isn't "wouldn't happen".  It's Warhammer Fantasy.

TLDR: 

I'm not saying they couldn't do away with it.  I'm just saying I've never played a Warhammer game that handled the "first turn power" problem with any kind of grace.  Why do you think they started the double turn to begin with?  It's super weird.  They did it because of how problematic going first was.  It's not a mystery, it's history (rhyme).

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going first also has its issues agreed, esp in this day and age where GW has made the game a lot more friendly to being able to do things in that first turn with some armies able to break things to an insane degree in their first turn.

The thing is it is still 1 turn. Any issues it raises tend to be issues with the actual army balance and design itself rather than as a result of the fact that there is a first turn. Furthermore both armies get to have a singular turn so you only get one round of actions. A doubleturn takes that first time issue and DOUBLES it. Only it might not happen first turn, it might happen second or third when most armies can really maximise their damage output as they will likely be in range with most models at that point in the game. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the sitting around for ages doing very little except taking your models off. It's not a fun play experience and I have yet to hear an argument that gets around it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who goes first being super powerful is also a problem.  The entire IGOUGO system is the problem.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I started I thought that it was stupid rule. One dice can change the result of the game. But after playing for some time I had to change my opinion. Yes, it is bad that one player stands there and just roll for saves and combat. But there is one thing that you might have forgoten. Player can only have double turn if they went second. This give list building another aspect. Player with many drops can gain advantage in deployment by having information when droping his powerful units but player with fewer drops decide who goes first and who second.

Going second means that enemy might have position and point advantage but you have an option for double turn and more importantly enemy cannot have double turn. I have played games where i could have double turns first 2 rounds and never took them so enemy couldnt get back into the game with double turn of theur own. 

Double turn also means that player going for agresive plays might lose to getting double turned after that so all in plays are worth it only when losing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Kirjava13 said:

It's the sitting around for ages doing very little except taking your models off. It's not a fun play experience and I have yet to hear an argument that gets around it.

There basically isn't one, that's why there's utterly no counter.

Even those who make claim that they adapt tactics to tackle the second turn issue, still can't avoid the fact that if it happens one player has to stand there for ages doing nothing but saves and removing models - with only some come back in close combat. Even then they can't control that phase and start any new combats. 

 

The whole turn issue has always been something with 40K and AoS that has been an issue, esp when GW started to make strikes in the first turn a possibility. However its small in comparison to the double turn, in my view, as at least the I Go You Go system still has only 1 turn of actions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Even those who make claim that they adapt tactics to tackle the second turn issue, still can't avoid the fact that if it happens one player has to stand there for ages doing nothing but saves and removing models

The counter is that the gain in some perceived tactical and strategic depth that the double turn gives coupled with it being a unique feature of AOS means that the negative of standing there for 2 turns doing nothing is an acceptable trade off.

A lot of people seem to like it simply because its the only game that has something like it.

Edited by Dead Scribe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Overread said:

here basically isn't one, that's why there's utterly no counter.

That there is no argument against it is because while factually true it’s also inherently part of the way it’s played and apparently that’s not a deal breaker. 

The positives of the game, including potential double turns, apparently overshadow the negatives of the double turn. Otherwise nobody would be arguing against that here because they wouldn’t play it. 

Of course this is all my opinion. But there are plenty of people who really don’t like this part, and other parts, of the hobby and don’t play AoS because of it. It’s a differentiating feature of the game just like the setting and there will always be pro- and opponents. 

 

All that said, from my personal experience, I do agree that waiting two turns while my opponent moves his horde army sucks. But the fact that I can get hit so hard I couldn’t come back in a turn... but there is a chance I get two turns for my comeback really outweighs that. 

This post also brought back horrible WHFB memories with mages and artillery hiding behind rings of chaff. Losing first turn because my opponent rolled irresistible force and me knowing I needed two turns to get to them minimum 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/4/2019 at 10:09 AM, Kirjava13 said:

It's the sitting around for ages doing very little except taking your models off. It's not a fun play experience and I have yet to hear an argument that gets around it.

Play faster.  Hear me out, that's not supposed to be a nasty.

Honestly, the hero phase, movement phase, shooting phases and charge phases are admittedly one sided (hero phase a little better but...meh...not much).  There is the occasional sprinkled in unit like aetherwings that gets to do something but unlike most, I don't use exceptions to prove the rules.  

I play with the same guy almost always and the "long wait" has never been an issue.  Now...when I play with other people who I'm less comfortable asking to speed up a little, it becomes an enormous issue.  I've played games where, no joke, there is two hours between my turns.  It's awful. 

It's also completely unnecessary if everyone just agrees:

1. It's a game

2. Let's move at a reasonable pace and not take forever to make decisions

3. Understandyou may make mistakes

4. Learn from those mistakes

5. Learn to enjoy the game at a much more reasonable pace.

A 2000 point game is supposed to take what..1.5-2 hours?  That's 9-12 minute turns.   Means that the longest you should ever have to stand around before a combat phase is like 5-7 minutes.  We play a game that takes hundreds of hours to paint and assemble and costs hundreds of dollars for small plastic dudes.  Learn a little patience.

There's no 'game rule fix' to counter  "Every time I play, my opponent and I smash all our pieces" either except... maybe you're doing it wrong?

TLDR: use chess timers.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Vextol that is a good point, the majority of my gaming is at tournaments under timed conditions. My turns are generally very fast, as I know within a couple inches what I'm going to do by the time I get to go. Assuming I'm not using a new army for the first time. And, the people I'm playing are generally of a similar level, so I've never really experienced a large amount of down time. Even the really time consuming builds like Changehost or heavy infantry builds we tend to finish before the time runs out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At 10 mins a turn that's still 20 minutes for 2 turns to resolve. And that's playing "fast" as you say, many might not play at that speed, even without being sluggish. Also if that's a 20min shooting or magic heavy army that might mean no comback close combat attacks so its all model removal. 

 

The thing is the issues with the doubleturn are essentially twofold. On the one is the time issue in the game, even if you play super fast one person is still spending double the expected time of the game doing nothing but reacting to attacks and taking models off the table. The other is the imbalance and the increased power it gives to whichever player gets it to deal out considerable damage in a single turn.

 

In general both of those issues get progressively worse the lower down the experience chain you go. Pros might be able to tolerate/adapt to both; but your average beginner is going to get utterly trashed by both. The time issues are going to make the game feel boring whilst the double attacks and spells against them will make the game feel vastly unfair. It's already hard for many to get used to an opponent getting a whole turn to do whatever they want; getting two in a row is just brutal.

And the thing is in any game one person where a double turn happens, one person has to take it. So even if we can argue that getting it is fun and playing against is unfun then in every game it happens only one player is having the best of fun (and that's before they start to realise that its an easier/cheaty feeling victory). 

 

 

 

In the end I really don't see any benefit to keeping the rule. Tactically it doesn't introduce much into a game with only 6 turns maximum (for most games) where holding back and being super defensive is just not practical in the vast majority of games. 
It adds nothign to the speed or pace of the game and can mess it up for one player. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm amazed at the 'long wait' argument. I can't remember the last game I played where I didn't touch any dice for 'hours' while my opponent did their double turn. It's a two player (or more sometimes) game. It requires interaction on both sides in order for it to work. The combat sequence is a prime example of the player how has to 'wait hours to do anything' having an active roll in determining how the outcome of their opponent's turn will turn out. 

I was put off 40k due to the 1st turn power. As player one goes first and reduces the opposite army by say 10-15%. Player 2 then has 90-85% of their army to attack back with. They maybe do 5-10%. It generally carries on in this manner, so that by turn 3, the player going first has well over double the points of their opponent. The double turn in AoS shakes that guaranteed scenario from happening. Now does it always make for a fair fight, no, but it certainly provides more of an opportunity for a struggle force to counter their opponent and win the game, compared to a me go-you go-me go-you go game structure does.

The main issue that AoS currently has with 'long hours of waiting doing nothing but removing toys without even rolling dice, etc...' is that there are more and more auto-kill elements in the game. More and more units that offer literally zero player interaction. Units that do such a gross amount of damage or sheer weight of attacks (or sometimes both) that it offers literally zero counter. Now that isn't an issue of the double turn, that's an issue of balance within the game. Newer elements like the activation wars have created more 'long waits doing nothing' that the double turn ever has, due to the fact that the older game mechanic of alternate activations in combat has been effectively removed but only for certain factions and not others. How do you address this as an issue, I don;t honestly know.

Now timings are certainly a problem. Anyone who has played against an army like Tzeentch will know that they naturally have a heavy hero phase, which can be followed by a heavy movement phase, which can be followed by a heavy shooting phase and again followed by a heavy combat phase. In all of the tournaments that I've played, at both 1k and 2k level, my only games that have ever been timed out have been against Tzeentch. So whether I played those games in a alternating turn system or a double turn system, it doesn't change the fact that the time spent 'waiting around doing nothing' in a game. It's still the same amount of time that is spent waiting whether it's in a big chuck or several slightly less bigger chunks. Now again this isn't the fault of the double turn, it's the issue with the mechanics of the army, being that it has a lengthy hero, movement, shooting and combat phase.

Now the timing of players can be self policed a lot, I play hordes at times, so have my dice in bundles that don't have to always be individual counted out, I used movement trays to speed up movement, etc...there is a lot that players can do to improve their own play during games. And whether it's a double turn system or alternate activation system, slow play still leads to games getting timed out. I've had numerous 40k games at comps get timed out and in those games I've played for maybe 20-30% of the time allocated for that game. So would changing to an alternating turn system get rid of those 'long waits doing nothing'. definitely not, because a slow player is still a slow player regardless of the game mechanics.

It's really simple. At the end of the day, if both players know their warscrolls and know their spell lores (if they even have one), even at 2k a double turn shouldn't take more than 40-50mins max, and that double turn will still involve the 'non-active' player moving endless spells and engaging in combat and doing pile ins and rolling dice. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/2/2019 at 9:00 PM, Kamose said:

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.

Well in 40k taking first turn never really meant for me a victory, then again I’ve been playing khorne Daemons in that game and have literally lost every single game with them.

too much shooting against something that doesn’t survive shooting at all I guess😅

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like going second should guarantee double turn, at which point the order simply alternates. 

It may have its problems, but double turning from 2 to 3 with Idoneth Deepkin is always disgusting to me. I would rather the double happen early when there is still a risk of over extension if the opponent full commits, as opposed to the double on turn 3 or 4 where they go "Hey, sweet, my entire army is right where I need it to be and I go twice!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somebody played the new Relocation Orb Mission from GHB2019? It really shows the huge hidden potential the double turn has for the game.

For people not aware of it: On Relocation Orb the player on first turn gets 1 point for scoring the Orb, the player on the second turn gets 3 points if he holds the orb.

This was a blast to think of how to approach your turns and plan ahead. This really needs to be embodied heavily into all missions of AoS (and 40k), as it is a awesome trade off between "let me do the damage" or "let me get the points". I've won the priority roll, had a potential doubleturn, but thought like 10 minutes about it as i really needed the points and i passed the priority, had to take a beating but scored the objective in the end, being able to win on points but got beaten to near death. It was a blast clinging to the objective with all you had knowing you get ahead when you just survive and hold it.

Make second turn allways an way better option on the mission (like in relocation orb) and this would add a ton of depth to the game and make first turn (and double turns) way weaker. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I loathe the double turn. When you play against armies with fast units it just means that your entire army is going to die. If the opponent gets a double from turn 2 to 3 with armies like Idoneth, Slaanesh, Gristlegore etc you are just going to die unless you are 30 Hearthguard Berzerkers. There is nothing apart from doublescreens (which is easier said than done, and if they are screening your own combat unit and the opponent DO NOT get the double you're also bummed since the screen is now blocking you) that can prevent this.

The best way to change this is just to remove the double turn and then change the missions. Make it like the ITC format in 40k where you score several of the points at the end of each battleround. For the people who doesn't know how this works: There are 4 main ways to get points: Kill a unit, Hold a point, Kill more units than your opponent and hold more points than your opponent. The latter two are scored at the end of the battleround which gives an advantage to the player that goes second since that player gets to dictate the scoring. This would make for a lot less frustrating play experiences.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/3/2019 at 10:24 AM, Dead Scribe said:

If there's one thing anyone should know about GW games and editions, its that there are no sacred cows that get kept at any time.  Any thing can change or be modified.

I hope you're right, because IGOUGO has been ruining 40K for years, and I can only think it endures due to stubborness on the part of GW.

I want it to be the amazing wargame that the models and setting deserve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2019 at 5:32 PM, Marzillius said:

Make it like the ITC format

No, thank you.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, XReN said:

No, thank you.

I'm not saying to literally adopt 40k ITC missions into AoS, I think they are boring and flavourless, but if you remove the double turn mechanic you could balance it out by making some scoring happen at the end of the battleround.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Marzillius said:

I'm not saying to literally adopt 40k ITC missions into AoS, I think they are boring and flavourless, but if you remove the double turn mechanic you could balance it out by making some scoring happen at the end of the battleround.

GWs are testing it with ME already

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ITC missions ruin the game.. It makes it 99% list building because the missions are 100% predictable.. Let us hope GW doesnt think we want them to change their missions to predictable garbage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/4/2019 at 2:02 PM, Vextol said:

To the people who are super against the double turn because it puts too much luck on a single die roll, l really don't understand how you are ignoring the enormous elephant of "Who goes first" that comes with alternative activation.  Anyone who has played Warhammer for any amount of time has to know how big of an advantage that is.  It's huge to go first if you have no chance of being double turned.  

1. You can immediately gain objectives without needing to reinforce.   If a tough unit can hold out for one turn, they'll have the objective for two because there's no risk of being hit twice.  Plus, that allows slow units to hobble on in there or run at will because they know they will have two turns to get up there. 

2.  First player teleports become less tactical and way more powerful.  You only get one shot to kill that huge unit of skeletons, sequestors, saurus guard, berserkers....etc so you can drop them in without needing to reinforce.  See step 1 / 6.

3.  What's your movement?  Ok good.  I move/keep my unit of snipers that much away and shoot the garbage out of you.  Good luck ever getting to me.

4.  What's your spell range?  Ok good.  I move/keep my unit of anything that much away so you can never be in range.  Good luck with any of your spells.

5.  What's your charge?  Ok good.  I move/keep my.....etc.

6. If your opponent doesn't take your objective point EVERY turn, you'll crush them on points because while they are struggling and fighting to take the objective, you can just sit back and continue to hold it because unless they can completely wipe it in just 1 turn, you'll still get your points without threat while nonchalantly moving in support. 

7. If they DO get your objective, they've either fully committed, leaving the board open, or they're not supported and you can usually easily just take it back because they haven't gotten a chance to re-support after the claim.

It's not theoretical or dumb.  It isn't "wouldn't happen".  It's Warhammer Fantasy.

TLDR: 

I'm not saying they couldn't do away with it.  I'm just saying I've never played a Warhammer game that handled the "first turn power" problem with any kind of grace.  Why do you think they started the double turn to begin with?  It's super weird.  They did it because of how problematic going first was.  It's not a mystery, it's history (rhyme).

I agree. The only time I found this problem negated in AoS game was when we adopted alternate activation of units rather than alteranate activation of armies as an experimental battle round. It was complicated but far more strategic than "you move and shoot your army and now I'll do the same." Its the way Dystopian Wars and others structure a battle round and it kinda works (although you still prioritise your strike units obviously, so there's a microcosm double turn going on, but not for the entire battlefield.)

Putting it simply, we rolled for initiative of choosing which unit moved/shot/charged etc first, and then alternated picking units to go through all the phases until every unit had gone from hero phase to combat. My opponent had 2 more units than me which meant he had 2 unopposed turns with those units. This worked well for his counter attack after my deep strike. All in one battle round.

We might try this again for 2000point battle with more units. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think IGOUGO in general is bad and should be removed entirely and that a more interactive alternate activation sequence be used in its place.  A lot of games have moved to this and I tend to like those more.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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...