The Dread Double turn

[Sleboda]

7 hours ago, tripchimeras said:

Too too often I find people playing the game to kill and not on objectives, and this bleeds into opinions on double turn.

Winner!❤️

[Mutton]

Personally, I've always been in favor of alternating phases, rather than full player turns; but I realize that would require drastic rules rewrites.

[Silchas_Ruin]

1 thing I would like to see is more interactions between battleplans and double turn. They tried with Relocation Orb, and while not my favorite battleplan I like that they tried. I have lost that due to taking the double turn to kill my opponent, it got me ahead on kill points, but ended up losing with 1 point. I would love to see more battleplans trying to make players pick between killing and victory points.

[Sedraxis]

The double turn is a big part of what makes AoS so good despites it's simplicity. Without it we'd have another 40k style game where winning by tabling an army through mathhammer is easier then actually scoring points through objectives.

The uncertainty of what happens next forces you to make tough decisions instead of autopiloting on track, which makes for a very interesting game.

Besides that, the excitement of that one roll is always fun! Unless it gets overtaken by salt I guess.

[Sagittarii Orientalis]

2 hours ago, Sedraxis said:

The double turn is a big part of what makes AoS so good despites it's simplicity. Without it we'd have another 40k style game where winning by tabling an army through mathhammer is easier then actually scoring points through objectives.

Really?

Because I have seen players taking double turn ruthlessly wiping out the entire opposing army in AoS as much as I have seen Iron Hands or flyer-heavy aeldari list do in 40K.  

I am not sure what kind of mission you use when playing 40K, but maelstrom missions and latest chapter approved  missions are quite far from winning by tabling an army. Scoring at the end of battle round or the start of the turn makes players to think ahead, and maelstrom cards reward taking objectives over destroying enemy units in many cases. ITC is often criticised for emphasising kill points over objectives, but ITC is not the only way of playing 40K. Chapter approved missions exist, and ETC adopts maelstrom cards. Even then, it does not mean ITC awards no points for taking objectives.

Granted, I do admit there are instances where one side quickly wipes out the opposing army even in missions I just mentioned. For example, Iron Hands will have little problem decimating Grey Knights or Chaos Space Marines in many cases. But I can also argue exactly same things happen in AoS. Take Hedonites of Slaanesh, Skaven or Flesh Eater Courts against, say, Slaves to Darkness or Nighthaunt.

Double turn does very little to prevent stronger armies wiping the floor with weaker armies. At best, the double turn allows weaker army to do a bit more damage compared to when not having double turn. At worst, the double turn allows stronger army to decimate the opposing forces even more efficiently. Hedonites of Slaanesh showing tournament win rate of over 60 percent and being foremost outlier in the meta for half a year cemented my belief.

 

P.S. 

What you want to point out about 40K would be the alpha strike issue, rather than simply tabling an army.

And yes, it has been an enduring problem in 40K since 8th edition launched.

But the sensible solutions would be placing more terrains that block line of sight, and using missions where players score victory points at the end of battle round or at the start of turn. The latter gives more control over objectives to players going second, as they can react to the manouevres of players going first and can actually deny their victory points. 

Double turn does not solve alpha strike issue.

It simply shifts the disadvantages to players going first as there is literally no downside for those going second.

Beta Strike, If I can address it this way.

If you do not get the double turn, it is typical IGOUGO and unexpected or abrupt problem rarely occurs.

If you do get the double turn, congratulations. Go wipe them out. 

Edited November 26, 2019 by Sagittarii Orientalis

[Kasper]

The exact same topic has been discussed a million times and reading through the replies there is nothing new that is being brought to the table. It feels like a dead horse by now.

[Charleston]

I actually am rather sceptical of the DT, but nevertheless I saw in this thread already some nice suggestion in how to deal with it on the board in terms of strategy, which I missed in the last thread. Thanks for that! I have the feeling that the mobility of an army and availability of screens is also a big factor in how much one can prepare to handle the DT.

While seeing comparsions to 40k there are additional aspects to 40k that make the balancing different:

Spoiler

40k has another wounding mechanic and is also much more depending on shooting. Latter one leads to what @mikethefish described: I go you go means in 40k terms a constant downward spiral of shooting down the enemy. Meanwhile the Strengs-vs-Toughness-Approach to wounding makes the game deeper in terms of what is supposed to strike what. This makes list building even more important, but leads to balancing issues when an opponent plays a list like knights or one w.o. big monsters and tanks, as a part of the weaponary is rended useless. Also combat in 40k is more aggressive in terms of activation order(units that charged fight first..come on, this would break AoS), but nevertheless often less impactfull due to missing wound spill and worse wounding of bigger enemies. Small critters can´t kill an Tank easily. A tank can´t wipe out a whole unit too easy. This shows also how complicated it is to compare the rules sets.

AoS is much more focused around movement and positioning that 40k. Take alone the fact that AoS has this absurd 3" deadzone for meele which allows several positioning sheningans, compared to 1" in 40k. Having 2 turns in a row to move and charge in a game in that positioning is A and O is simply a mighty bonus which can flip games as we see in this thread. Whenever to the good or bad.

[gronnelg]

@KramerI just wanted to hear other peoples opinions, to help me make up my mind. I hadn't even thought about finding one of the older threads. My bad 

A lot of insightfull comments in here. Thanks guys! 
Personally I've had a lot of fun with the double turn, but then also some games that were basically over after a double. But at the same time I'm not good enough to really plan around the potential double turn.  What people say about 40k being predictable sounds even more dreadful to me than the double turn though.
And for now it's an official part of the game, so I guess I'll just have to learn to play around it

[Overread]

Out of interest how many people let their opponent have two turns when the rolls allow for it and when playing a competitive game. Ergo when you are playing to win the game rather than any other social elements, do you allow your opponents to take a doubleturn and if so is it ever at any other time than the first turn when they might already have burned one whole turn being quite ineffective (ergo just moving into position). 

Because we tend to always talk in terms of either neutral situations (it allows an underdog to win in a theoretical game we aren't involved with) or we talk about how we prepare for our opponent taking a doubleturn. The subtle message there being that we would not "give" them a doubleturn; since if the player has the initiative roll then its their choice (a known element) and all the preparations appear designed to be as if the opponent chooses to take a double. 

 

 

 

[Overread]

11 minutes ago, gronnelg said:

  What people say about 40k being predictable sounds even more dreadful to me than the double turn though.

"Some" of the predictability is slightly overblown. Other times its not so much highlighting tactical weakness but inherent balance problems in the game that GW should "in theory" address. This might even be down to simply a better player fielding a better designed army whilst an opponent has less experience/understanding and is fielding a very poorly put together army. Ergo its not so much highlighting problems in the game, just differences in the players (and again I'd come back to the point that the doublturn only helps the underdog purely by accident and has just as much chance to not appear or even help the player in the superior position). 

[Paul Buckler]

5 minutes ago, Overread said:

Out of interest how many people let their opponent have two turns when the rolls allow for it and when playing a competitive game. Ergo when you are playing to win the game rather than any other social elements, do you allow your opponents to take a doubleturn and if so is it ever at any other time than the first turn when they might already have burned one whole turn being quite ineffective (ergo just moving into position). 

Because we tend to always talk in terms of either neutral situations (it allows an underdog to win in a theoretical game we aren't involved with) or we talk about how we prepare for our opponent taking a doubleturn. The subtle message there being that we would not "give" them a doubleturn; since if the player has the initiative roll then its their choice (a known element) and all the preparations appear designed to be as if the opponent chooses to take a double. 

 

 

 

Happens a lot, passing the turn to prevent the double at you, or possibly for scenario scoring reasons is very common.  I would say maybe 10-20% of my games I do this., and see it happen regularily on tables next to me.

Edited November 26, 2019 by Paul Buckler

[Overread]

11 minutes ago, Paul Buckler said:

Happens a lot, passing the turn to prevent the double at you, 

Wait I think I know what you're saying but not quite how you're wording it. 

You're saying you pass the turn to your opponent to give them a double to prevent a double coming at you? 

[Ahriman]

16 minutes ago, Overread said:

Out of interest how many people let their opponent have two turns when the rolls allow for it and when playing a competitive game. Ergo when you are playing to win the game rather than any other social elements, do you allow your opponents to take a doubleturn and if so is it ever at any other time than the first turn when they might already have burned one whole turn being quite ineffective (ergo just moving into position). 

Because we tend to always talk in terms of either neutral situations (it allows an underdog to win in a theoretical game we aren't involved with) or we talk about how we prepare for our opponent taking a doubleturn. The subtle message there being that we would not "give" them a doubleturn; since if the player has the initiative roll then its their choice (a known element) and all the preparations appear designed to be as if the opponent chooses to take a double. 

 

 

 

I give them the double an awful lot. Usually my army has more drops than their's due to lack of battalions, so they make me go first in the first battle round. I move forward defensively, they take their turn and can't achieve much, and often I make them take a double where they can't achieve that much again. So their choice is to either 'waste' their second turn not doing anything by playing passively again, or to commit and allow me to charge where I like.

 

I've also lost games by taking a double turn. It often comes down to too much dying in back to back combat phases, opening up any chokepoints I'd created on the board to allow their reinforcements to come in and deal the killing blow. The most memorable one for me was at a WHW campaign, where the celestant prime came down - his huge base unable to get through to my squishy rat ogors.

Then two of my turns later lots of his liberators had died, as had my stuff, meaning the prime could move all over the place - bringing the pain!

[Paul Buckler]

Potentially yes, also passing to keep in turn order.

EG

I go first, stand still, opponent goes and moves up but cant complete charges.  I win priority, give them the turn so they get 1 go at charging me, leaving me the potential of 2 back at them.

More likely

Opponent goes first, I take turn 2 win priority and pass so they have no chance of a doubel turn at me.  I may even do this all game if I keep winning prioirty, until turn 5, as it just takes the double out of the game.

 

This is a good tactic with shooting armies to prevent combat armies getting 2 turns of charges etc.

 

 

 

[mikethefish]

24 minutes ago, Overread said:

 

Meh.  Not worth it.  Please delete.

Edited November 26, 2019 by mikethefish

[Overread]

@Paul Buckler ah yes I meant passing the turn to your opponent purely to give them a double as opposed to taking a turn yourself and preserving the turn sequence alternating or to take a double turn yourself. 

[Paul Buckler]

Ahh ok, possibly one reason to do that would be to let your units win combats and be free to move/charge, or keep your opponents in current combats to prevent them doing the same if you took the turn

 

 

[Dead Scribe]

I don't like the double turn and would rather it went away.  

[Sleboda]

13 hours ago, Overread said:

However I ask you how the doubleturn "helped" in that regard if the dice had rolled the other way. If that one roll had instead either been even or the other player (the one with Kroak) had got the double turn. 

It's 9 a.m. I'm still drunk from last night, so I may be limited in my ability to reason, but I think my point stands.

Without the possibility of a double turn, there would have been no possible way to catch Kroak. He could have teleported and then summoned free skinks to hold objectives every turn.

It was only the chance to go twice, and the catch him, that made any other outcome possible.

In happy to discuss more if I've missed your point.

[Overread]

Just now, Sleboda said:

It's 9 a.m. I'm still drunk from last night, so I may be limited in my ability to reason, but I think my point stands.

Without the possibility of a double turn, there would have been no possible way to catch Kroak. He could have teleported and then summoned free skinks to hold objectives every turn.

It was only the chance to go twice, and the catch him, that made any other outcome possible.

In happy to discuss more if I've missed your point.

My point is that the doubleturn doesn't give the opposing side any greater chance of winning than the doubleturn gives Kroak the chance to get two turns in a row summoning even more skinks. 

Ergo that it's purely by chance that a doubleturn might land early enough in the game to allow the opposing side two turns to catch him. It might have not happened until turn 5 or 6 where the game might be neat over already; or it might have happened to the Seraphon player who then got two rounds of summoning from Kroak.

 

So I'm not saying that the doubleturn didn't take place and help in your game, but that it only helped by pure random chance and that there was as greater chance of it not happening or even of it hindering. 

 

[Gilboy]

Another thread on the double turn...   Here are some basic opening statements:

1. It is not "double turn" it is "priority roll".  The importance of this distinction is that games can still play out as "I go you go" even with priority rolls
2. If you automatically take the first turn every priority roll you win then you are not thinking strategically 
   • I am certain that 90% of people who complain about the "double turn" play like this 
3. EVERY battle round you should plan for the scenario where you go first next BR and the scenario where your opponent does - or otherwise play to force your opponent to take the turn/ give it away when it may not be optimal for them
4. You can win this game even if you are tabled - I have won games with only 2 battleline models remaining.  Double turn me all you want if I am winning on objectives.
5. There are FIVE battle rounds in this game, not one, not two, FIVE.  In any given game you are likely to have at least one double turn as is your opponent.  The idea that a double turn is an auto-win or auto-lose is ludicrous in this context.

I regularly (50% of the time) give away priority when I win it.  Here are the reasons:

1. My opponent is locked in combat/ otherwise held up and will not be able to do much with the turn
2. I am otherwise locked up or held up and will not be able to do much with the turn
3. I have gotten all my spells off so my army is fully buffed: giving away the turn I can guarantee the buffs are on for my opponent's turn rather than risking failing to cast them in the next
4. Going second in any battle round that is not the fifth one is a flexible position to be in: you cannot be double turned from there but you can double turn them.  Staying in second until you need the double turn is a strong move
   • Note:  this frequently means when I am given first turn in BR1 I then give my opponent the first turn in BR2 (if I win priority) (i.e. let myself be double-turned.  NOTE: I DO NOT THEN LOSE THE ENTIRE GAME FROM THIS DECISION.  I cannot emphasise this enough,  GIVING AWAY A DOUBLE TURN DOES NOT LOSE ME THE GAME)  Quite frankly I am astonished at the blanket statements other posters on this thread are making about gaining a double turn being an auto-win

So how do you plan for it?  Two scenarios, one where you went first in the previous BR, the other when you went second:

1. Going first in BR: Here you know there is a sizeable chance your opponent will have two turns in a row.  You need to plan your moves, spells, plays etc. to last through two turns.  And (if you want to) make plays that force your opponent to give away/ take priority (depending on what you want) or that at least make your opponent pay if they pick to go first
   • Cast and place endless spells strategically.  Like a Purple Sun nicely placed to smack into their key support hero (for 2D6) and take them off if they give you second
   • Screen  your units
   • Don't get greedy.  Remember there are more turns beyond this one.  Don't overreach for objectives/kills if  they put your key units in dangerous positions
   • Bluff.  Make it look like you would be unable to make use of a turn if your opponent gives you first turn. (But actually do have a plan (ala Tzeentch))
   • Do what you can to make sure your buffs go off (arcane terrain, any abilities that allow rerolls to cast/prayer etc.)
2. Going second in BR: this is always a more comfortable position to be in.
   • You can play aggressive, but unless you really need to you shouldn't go all-out just in case you lose priority and your opponent has some easy  plays to make back
   • If you want the double: Make plays that make your opponent consider giving away the first turn next round: 
     • Cast endless spells near their support pieces that they HAVE to ensure don't move to their pieces.  (again, i'd give away a turn if it meant I could move that purple sun away from my key support hero rather than risk losing them)
     • Moves with less clear threat potential (e.g. make your opponent believe there is not much you could do with another turn)
   • If you do not want the double: 
     • Bait: offer up a "juicy" target that your opponent will want to kill (especially if they are likely to overextend themself in order to do so)
     • Try and arrange no/ an even number of endless spells

 

Hope that helps those of you reading this thread who want to understand the dynamic a bit better.

 

[WatcherintheWater]

I find it helpful to put some numbers on how big an impact the double turn actually has. I while ago, I took a look at the tournament games I had played over the past ~2 years (mostly local 1 day events, but a couple 2 days), and did some analysis on who won turn rolls and how that effected who won the game. It's not a huge sample size, but here's what I found:

• 36 games where I could remember who won the rolls. I won 18, drew 1, and lost 17 (51% win rate).
• I used Overlords in almost every game.
• In games where I won the turn 2 priority roll, I went 9-1-5 (63%) vs 9-12 (43%) when I lost the turn 2 roll.
• In games where I won the turn 3 roll, I went 9-4 (69%) vs when I lost the turn 3 roll 9-1-13 (41%).
• Cutting the data a little further (small sample caveat applies double here): In games where I won both priority rolls, I went 5-3 (63%), Won one roll & lost one roll, 8-1-3 (71%). Lost both rolls, 5-11 (31%).
• Based on those numbers, I would estimate that the turn 2 & turn 3 priority rolls are each worth between 10% and 15%. Meaning that if at the end of turn 1 you had a 50% chance of winning, and you won the turn 2 priority roll it would become about 63%. That is just based on my army of course. KO are probably more turn dependent than some other armies, due to the all the shooting.
• To me this is a big dice roll, but not something insane, where is you lose it the game is over. I don't actually think it's that out of line with the randomness in other games I've played (Fantasy, 9th age, Wild West Exodus). Fantasy especially felt like that sometimes, where there was huge randomness in how powerful you magic phase was, or when the whole game could swing dramatically on break & pursuit tests.

I think removing the priority roll would cause a huge shift in the balance of power and cause some big issues with scenarios & rules. The main thing I worry about is that alpha striking on the top of turn 1 would become too powerful, since you could do it without any worry that you might get doubled back, and I don't think there is an easy solution to it.

However, I would like to see some more mechanics that advantage the second player, like in shifting objectives. The easiest would be to make it so both players score objectives at the end of each game turn, not each player turn. 

 

[Satyrical Sophist]

1 hour ago, WatcherintheWater said:

 

However, I would like to see some more mechanics that advantage the second player, like in shifting objectives. The easiest would be to make it so both players score objectives at the end of each game turn, not each player turn. 

 

I really like the scoring at the end of each battle round, not turn. Maybe it wouldn't work out balance wise, but I'd love to give it a try. That's another advantage to going second, since you get to know how many models your opponent has on objectives.

[mikethefish]

One point that the "random turns suck" crowd always seems to ignore is, if the Double Turn is such a godlike effect in AoS, then why do the same people keep winning the big tournaments over and over again?

  I mean, if Double Turns always determine the winners and losers of each game, and Double Turns are so utterly random, then why do the same crop of people keep reliably winning the big tournaments?  It should just be a random dice-shoot, right?

The top-tier tournament crowd is a pretty small fraternity.  You keep seeing the same names year after year (some flux of course, but there are definite repeat winners).  Could it possibly be that the Double Turn, while very strong, isn't THAT  god-tier powerful, and people are resorting to hyperbole just because they don't like a particular game mechanic?  Surely not (insert sarcasm here)

Edited November 26, 2019 by mikethefish

[Sleboda]

1 hour ago, Gilboy said:

You can win this game even if you are tabled - I have won games with only 2 battleline models remaining.  Double turn me all you want if I am winning on objectives.

This should be the tagline of TGA.

It should be the first post in every thread.

This is not Warhammer, the Game of Fantasy Battles. This is Warhammer, the Age of Sigmar.

Objectives.