Jump to content

The Dread Double turn


gronnelg

Recommended Posts

I had come to embrace the double turn. Then recently talked to a friend. We both prefer close, exciting games. Now, somtimes the double turn has led to exactly that - an uneven game is suddenly even. But oftentimes a double turn will be THE deciding factor as to who wins. You were equal, now someone has pretty much won. 
Is the double turn - a signel dice roll - to much of a factor in deciding who wins?

Also, sorry but bringing up this topic again :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've had this chat before and your conclusion is basically the issue. 

There are some who say you can "plan" for the double turn however they never really show how you can plan for it. They might suggest that you build a list that allows you to make a very fast first turn attack on the enemy so that you're already in close combat (since combat always alternates the person who's turn it is has less effect on already active combats - of course if it is their turn they can start more). However that is hardly a unique strategy and its not one open to all armies. 

Another option is to turtle and basically hold back in the early turns so that if your opponent gets a double turn they can't as easily maximise as they've got to "waste" a turn getting in range. However in a game of only 6 turns (at most) and where many victories are won based on objectives which are often at least in the mid-table; then holding back just does not work. 

 

 

The core issues of the double turn are:

1) It's boring. One person has to spend a whole two turns of the game where all they can do is resolve combats and remove their models. They can't start new combats; they can't move around or react to the enemy. They can't even deny the enemy their movement and such. Sure they might get to control one or two endless predatory spells if they are lucky; but they can't do much else. 

2) It's boring. If you get the double turn it makes victory for you a LOT easier. You get two turns impunity to act upon your plan. For a close combat army you get to pick the fights; for a magic or ranged heavy army you get to deal out damage without risk of reprisal. However in turn it makes the victory feel very hollow after a while. Sure hte first time it happens it might be cool and heck you might get a double turn after the enemy really hammered you so it "feels" nice. But in the end it makes victory a hollow affair.

3) It's terribly swingy. When you start to read battle reports you start to realise that in a significant number, whoever gets a double turn first tends to win the game. It's not an abnormality, its an almost fact that getting a double turn first - generally means you can maximise your chance of winning the game. 

 

Honestly its a mechanic I wish was moved to open play. For competitive games its just far too powerful. It would be fine if the game was unit "I go you go" (ergo you move and shoot a unit then your opponent does etc....). However for a game where your whole army activates at once its just broken. Whole army activation has often had the issue taht a really good turn can swing the game; giving a player two attempts at that is just broken. 

 

It's honestly something that I still can't work out why GW hasn't moved it to open play or removed it entirely. I can only assume that its one of those "Oh its unique" features. Furthermore it tends to favour small unit count armies that take the second turn and armies like Slaanesh which can force the opponent to fight last in combat rounds (which means even when they get assaulted they can still deal out damage first). 

  • Like 15
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh lord, here we go again! My usual: Hate it, don't feel its necessary in AoS as more often than not there is no advantage in going first. Would require an edition change to eliminate due to Endless Spells and at least one scenario working off of player order.

Edited by Forrix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Forrix said:

Oh lord, here we go again! My usual: Hate it, don't feel its necessary in AoS as more often than not there is no advantage in going first. Would require an edition change and substantial changes to eliminate due to Endless Spells and at least one scenario working off of player order.

Not really - all those things work just the same without the doubleturn. You just don't get the double-chance for it happening. So the way predatory Endless Spells work keeps working (remember its only predatory ones); meanwhile the one scenario might be a casualty, but then again it just moves to open play along with the double turn. 

Removing the doubleturn is perhaps one of the most easy changes to make to the rules system; indeed quite a few local clubs "house rule" it out of games. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have found that games where I ceded the turn to my opponent (even when not beneficial in any way for me) to enforce the regular turn order all turned out much closer than those where I, or my opponent, took the double turn. 

 

Often with the double somebody gets creamed. One way or the other. I find the situations where it enforces advantage leading to "hollow" victories like @Overread stated to be too common. I also find the "bonuses" given to the player choosing or forced to go second to be so garbage that they may as well not exist. Move endless spells first? Only predatory spells, only the first move, most faction specific endless spells either cannot be controlled or do not affect their own faction on top of the fact that most endless spells are rarely taken make this beyond useless. Keeping defensive buffs active? Why not just take the turn and re-apply them or more commonly just buff your shredder unit with offensive buffs and immediately remove the enemy unit rather than try to tank hits. 

 

Wholly anecdotal based on games I play. But I do play frequently (2+ games a week) with a variety of armies (CoS, Stormcast, Ironjawz) and my group is a mix of competitive and casual players. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Whitefang said:

Boring

”you can plan for it blah blah” is just a excuse to cover up.

Boring is just an excuse to cover up you can’t plan for it. 😉

big fan of the double turn  but @gronnelg what’s your point with this thread? You set up a situation to your question if it has a too bit of a factor in winning in such a way the answer is already there. Yeah it can be deciding, yeah it can level the playing field. Yeah you can actually plan for it. Yeah it isn’t always possible. 

what do you want out of this thread? Otherwise just read one the old ones.  I’d love a different take on this point of discussion. 

  • Like 8
  • Confused 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...But you CAN plan for it.  Like either you eventually learn how to deal with it and you learn to like it or you never learn to deal with it and you hate it.  Like I don't know what else can be said.

Either you live in the world the game has created and you play under the assumption you will never get the double turn and your opponent always will, or you are going to get shocked every couple of turns and be continuously pissed at the game.  I admit it has an exceedingly steep learning curve, but I can confidently say that I don't find myself losing to the double turn any more then I find myself losing to any other roll or chance proposition in the game, nearly all of which I could have avoided or mitigated had I decided to play differently most of the time.  There is a reason to play making an assumption on who is going to win the roll off, but playing those odds come with inherent risks that you need to be prepared for the consequences of.  If you positioned as if you are getting first turn next round because you have a slightly higher probability of getting it then your opponent, and that decision turns sour on you, consider that the double turn is not what screwed you, but your decision to ignore it as a possibility did.  That can be a hard pill to swallow, which is why I think its such a divisive game mechanic.  There are so many dice rolls in the game, with many opportunities to blaim luck for a loss, but few are easier to pinpoint blame towards then a single dice roll.

As far as how you plan for it?  Screens, movement, counter charges.  screen the units/objectives you can't afford to lose, force ranges on your turn that force your opponent into poor probability plays ( ie expose themselves gambling for a double turn charge or don't and the double turn is less meaningful), and lastly set up the counter charge.  "Ok, you can take my queen on the double turn if you want, but if you do I'm going to take yours as well on my turn."  Lastly always understand what you can and cannot afford to lose.  The answer is not always obvious.  I can afford to lose my 9 eel block more then my 130pt unit of foot sloggers sometimes even if it seems they are essential to killing my opponents big meanie if it means allowing my fragile foot unit to get another objective that would put the game out of reach, or make it very difficult for my opponent to come back. 

Too too often I find people playing the game to kill and not on objectives, and this bleeds into opinions on double turn.  I have seen (and personally been guilty of) plenty of situations where someone basically gives up after receiving a beating on a double turn when the game is not even close to being over just because their best unit or 2 bit the dust.  This is not WHFB, combat does not decide games, kill points do not decide games,  you can win with essentially nothing left on the table while your opponent is almost unscathed.  I think AoS is a game that requires a deceptive amount of skill.  Its a game I know I was guilty for quite some time thinking was little more then a pushfest contingent on the priority roll.  It is just not, something I repeatedly forget in moments of weakness and subsequently get crushed.  I think double turn makes low skill beer hammer harder to enjoy, I think it makes tactical play far more rewarding.

Edited by tripchimeras
  • Like 8
  • Thanks 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm one of the "you only lose to it if you don't plan for it crowd".

 

In terms of saying 'how' to plan:

- all my army lists have screening units in, which i don't see many doing that often. 10 man Giant Rat units are my favourite for my Moulder army. Using them to block charges as I move up, moving out the way if I "win" a roll off so my other units can get through. Then they're there to block deepstrikes or flank charges if they're still alive.

 

- I also don't move into position to make charges until about turn 3. I don't need to be within 12" of my opponent at the end of my first turn. So i usually move up and remain their move plus 9" away from them first turn. If i win the roll off i choose to go second and let them get closer, if they win they have to choose to commit or wait me out another turn.

 

Obviously these things are effected by objective placement and how its scored, but that's a good thing! It means you have to think several turns ahead for how you can score, which should lead to more games going the full 5 turns rather than being wiped out at the end of turn 3 because both sides committed early and hoped the roll off went in their favour.

 

Hopefully that's useful and not just waffle!

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Overread said:

We've had this chat before and your conclusion is basically the issue. 

There are some who say you can "plan" for the double turn however they never really show how you can plan for it. They might suggest that you build a list that allows you to make a very fast first turn attack on the enemy so that you're already in close combat (since combat always alternates the person who's turn it is has less effect on already active combats - of course if it is their turn they can start more). However that is hardly a unique strategy and its not one open to all armies. 

Another option is to turtle and basically hold back in the early turns so that if your opponent gets a double turn they can't as easily maximise as they've got to "waste" a turn getting in range. However in a game of only 6 turns (at most) and where many victories are won based on objectives which are often at least in the mid-table; then holding back just does not work. 

 

 

The core issues of the double turn are:

1) It's boring. One person has to spend a whole two turns of the game where all they can do is resolve combats and remove their models. They can't start new combats; they can't move around or react to the enemy. They can't even deny the enemy their movement and such. Sure they might get to control one or two endless predatory spells if they are lucky; but they can't do much else. 

2) It's boring. If you get the double turn it makes victory for you a LOT easier. You get two turns impunity to act upon your plan. For a close combat army you get to pick the fights; for a magic or ranged heavy army you get to deal out damage without risk of reprisal. However in turn it makes the victory feel very hollow after a while. Sure hte first time it happens it might be cool and heck you might get a double turn after the enemy really hammered you so it "feels" nice. But in the end it makes victory a hollow affair.

3) It's terribly swingy. When you start to read battle reports you start to realise that in a significant number, whoever gets a double turn first tends to win the game. It's not an abnormality, its an almost fact that getting a double turn first - generally means you can maximise your chance of winning the game. 

 

Honestly its a mechanic I wish was moved to open play. For competitive games its just far too powerful. It would be fine if the game was unit "I go you go" (ergo you move and shoot a unit then your opponent does etc....). However for a game where your whole army activates at once its just broken. Whole army activation has often had the issue taht a really good turn can swing the game; giving a player two attempts at that is just broken. 

 

It's honestly something that I still can't work out why GW hasn't moved it to open play or removed it entirely. I can only assume that its one of those "Oh its unique" features. Furthermore it tends to favour small unit count armies that take the second turn and armies like Slaanesh which can force the opponent to fight last in combat rounds (which means even when they get assaulted they can still deal out damage first). 

Well... basically everything you stated is wrong.

Ok ok, it's not "wrong" per se' since we are all talking opinions here (just kidding a bit) but certainly I disagree with everything you have stated in the above post.  Here is my alternate take...

I've played GW games since 40k Rogue Trader, and in all those years, there has been a common denominator - their games tend to slog, and are very predictable.  By that, I mean most competent players can predict the outcome of, let's say a game of 40k (we'll pick on this one, since it uses a traditional turn sequence) by turn two at the latest - and frequently after deployment (or even army list creation).  I can do this pretty easily, and I admit I am not exactly 40k's version of Sun Tsu here.  Most competent players have this ability, if they are being honest with themselves.  Their games are just designed to be this way 

The usual dynamic is that two players will start a game.  Player A starts to lose.  He then loses a bit more, and then continues to lose until finally...he loses.  Not much chance of stopping it.  The game state of 40k is very resistant to change.  It's not impossible, of course (dice exist, after all), but the rigid, linear nature of the game play is WILDLY resistant to losing players altering their fate.

Other games solve this problem in different ways.  Warmachine, for example, solves this issue with it's "caster kill" mechanic.  So that no matter how far behind a player gets, he's still in the game, since he always has the option of assassinating the enemy commander, and winning the game.  For Age of Sigmar, GW solved the problem with the Double Turn mechanic.  This gives losing players at least a shot at coming from behind and pulling out a win.

At the end of the day, if a winni g AoS player gets the double turn, he just wins that much faster and maybe both folks can get another game in.  If a losing player gets a double turn, it gives him a chance to pull things around and make a decent game of things.  It's an elegant mechanic, and works well for AoS.

Random turns are the single greatest rule that GW has added to this game, and quite frankly, they'd be fools to change it.

  • Like 17
  • Thanks 4
  • Haha 1
  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mikethefish said:

Well... basically everything you stated is wrong.

Ok ok, it's not "wrong" per se' since we are all talking opinions here (just kidding a bit) but certainly I disagree with everything you have stated in the above post.  Here is my alternate take...

I've played GW games since 40k Rogue Trader, and in all those years, there has been a common denominator - their games tend to slog, and are very predictable.  By that, I mean most competent players can predict the outcome of, let's say a game of 40k (we'll pick on this one, since it uses a traditional turn sequence) by turn two at the latest - and frequently after deployment (or even army list creation).  I can do this pretty easily, and I admit I am not exactly 40k's version of Sun Tsu here.  Most competent players have this ability, if they are being honest with themselves.  Their games are just designed to be this way 

The usual dynamic is that two players will start a game.  Player A starts to lose.  He then loses a bit more, and then continues to lose until finally...he loses.  Not much chance of stopping it.  The game state of 40k is very resistant to change.  It's not impossible, of course (dice exist, after all), but the rigid, linear nature of the game play is WILDLY resistant to losing players altering their fate.

Other games solve this problem in different ways.  Warmachine, for example, solves this issue with it's "caster kill" mechanic.  So that no matter how far behind a player gets, he's still in the game, since he always has the option of assassinating the enemy commander, and winning the game.  For Age of Sigmar, GW solved the problem with the Double Turn mechanic.  This gives losing players at least a shot at coming from behind and pulling out a win.

At the end of the day, if a winni g AoS player gets the double turn, he just wins that much faster and maybe both folks can get another game in.  If a losing player gets a double turn, it gives him a chance to pull things around and make a decent game of things.  It's an elegant mechanic, and works well for AoS.

Random turns are the single greatest rule that GW has added to this game, and quite frankly, they'd be fools to change it.

Agreed with this 100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@mikethefish your argument only makes sense if the double turn was triggered for the underdog in situations where one player has secured a significant upper hand and the underdog then gets a double turn to resolve that. You present it as a means to introduce an element of random that "might" mean that an underdog can win in a game. 

However nothing in the mechanic gives it any favourable bias toward either player which is based on game state. The only element is that it can only happen after the first time - ergo when you roll for the start of the second turn. Otherwise its totally a random dice roll. So just as the underdog might get the double turn to help them overcome the odds; the player winning the match already gets it and simply cements their winning beyond any hope of the other player recovering. Or the game isn't even in an unbalanced state and both players are battling it out fairly equally and then one gets the double to tip the scales. 

As you say it lets a winning player win faster, ergo it lets a losing player lose harder. Or introduces a state of play where one player (the one who gets it) becomes the winning player. Your'e pretty much admitting that the doubleturn makes these huge swings in the game.

 

To me that's a bad mechanic. Why bother playing the game at all or even putting armies on the table if the doubleturn is that powerful? If it happens in the game it decides the win/loss situation. At that point its basically one element paying the game for you rather than anything you or your opponent has put into their lists; into the board or into the game play. 

 

Also all the defence of it alone still doesn't get around the fact that it forces one player to do nothing for two whole turns of the game. If you're already deciding who has won or lost after it then one person has not only spent two whole turns of their game that evening doing nothing but roll saves and remove their models; but they've also then got the very likely case that they've lost the game. Sure it might mean they can pack up sooner, but to me its not much fun to finish a game after the second turn, especially if you've not actually had a chance to play anything outside of deployment. 

 

Again my view is its a bad mechanic; its too much random and too powerful a mechanic for a matched play game. Move it into open play so that its not "removed" just shifted to a different format and let matched play focus on a more even footing for both players. I admit and agree that whole army "I go you go" mechanics have their own issues. Doubleturn doesn't solve them and if anything it compounds those problems. 

  • Like 5
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Overread said:

Move it into open play so that its not "removed" just shifted to a different format and let matched play focus on a more even footing for both players.

See I think this is where I think the "get rid of it" camp misses something here.  If anything it should be the opposite.  Open play should remove it and it belongs in Matched Play.  Because Double Turn is a huge barrier to entry for a casual player.  The game swings and is almost completely dependent on the whims of the double turn.  But in competitive play its impact is very different.  I think in a competitive environment it makes the game MORE strategic.  It puts more emphasis on thinking several turns ahead, and requires more vision over the battle field and precise understandings of the core game mechanics to deal with. 

AoS at its core is a very simple game.  There are a few core mechanics that generate nearly all of the tactical ripples that make this game work competitively.  Double turn is one of them.  You strip it away and you have a game significantly less varied with far fewer strategic considerations.  That was fine in WHFB because of complicated mechanics such as line of site, flanks, charge denials, make way etc etc it had tons of tactical ripples to occupy your time even in a game where turn order was a known quantity.  Some of those tactical ripples (like make way shenanigans) were justifiably criticized but they required forethought and strategic planning none the less.   Double turns and objectives are what AoS has to replace these mechanics.  Combined I think they more then make up for it, but when I play a game of AoS, a significant portion of my game time is spent trying to foresee and prepare for the uncertainty of the next turn; without that uncertainty the game becomes a whole lot more simple.  Particularly with the extreme movement within the game, I think many underestimate just how key the mechanic is to the game as comprised.  It is not so simple as just removing it, the game wouldn't function right.  They would need a complete re-write and new edition.  The power swing would be tremendous as well.

  • Like 10
  • LOVE IT! 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not a big fan of it, though I do see the benefits; the best argument being, imo, that you can't predict a game - especially when it comes to movement and how close you dare to get. But a lot of the time, in practise, it leads to a bad play experience where a  player may feel cheated (e.g. double turn mortal wound shooting), or perhaps even worse - it becomes boring to sit through two turns of taking models off the table. I think I'd prefer it if it was "you go I go" on turn 1 going onto 2 (so no first double turn), and then priority from there on; you don't get a massive first double turn swing then that can crush any chance of retaliation, but you can't plan ahead for the entire game.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of interest what exactly about double turn makes you think more about the following turns? 

The double turn doesn't actually allow your opponent to do anything different than the might otherwise do; it just allows them to do it without you actually getting to move anything on the table to prevent them (except perhaps a predatory endless spell). The doubleturn isn't actually adding too nor taking the uncertainty of your opponents plan. If anything it actually makes it simpler because whatever they just achieved in the previous turn they are likely to repeat and maximise with a second go. Any combats they are in they will aim to win; any objectives they are near too they will secure. 

Furthermore what can you feasibly do in your turn that is unique to the double? Above one has spoken of "shielding units with weaker units" however you don't need the doubleturn for that. Screening is something you should do if your army allows it, as a good point of general tactics. It's a standard move that people have used in games for decades and without needing a doubleturn. Again teh double turn isn't actually making the tactic any more valuable nor important. 

 

 

 

Also don't confuse casual and competitive with open and matched play. Matched and Open play are simply two approaches to the games rules and structure - BOTH can be either casual or competitive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best thing about the double turn is that you don't know how the game will go.. Its 1 of the main reasons I play more AoS than 40k. In 40k you (almost) always know basicly how the game will go sometime before the end of turn 1. Can happen that you get it wrong, but mostly thing will go as predicted unless the dice don't roll average at all.

I been playing a ton of games with 15+ drops so opponent can give me turn 1 and try for double turn. Was fun and that double turn they get at some point rarely decided games. But then I play Khorne, so I can both have several screen units and hard hitting counters. Depending on what army you play it might not have the tools. And a couple of the top armies hit so hard you need luck with your good planning to survive a double turn.

Edited by Silchas_Ruin
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem isn't the double turn but rather the power of choosing who takes first turn and the option of going 2nd. Then you can play for the possibility of the double turn without worrying about having it against you. Also, I find going 2nd often allows you to effectively actually attack something instead of just matching forward and waiting to get punched. 

I wish they made going first a roll off instead of going to the lowest drops or even making it random all together. Maybe a wins ties for lowest drops instead of the autochoice

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Overread said:

Out of interest what exactly about double turn makes you think more about the following turns? 

The double turn doesn't actually allow your opponent to do anything different than the might otherwise do; it just allows them to do it without you actually getting to move anything on the table to prevent them (except perhaps a predatory endless spell). The doubleturn isn't actually adding too nor taking the uncertainty of your opponents plan. If anything it actually makes it simpler because whatever they just achieved in the previous turn they are likely to repeat and maximise with a second go. Any combats they are in they will aim to win; any objectives they are near too they will secure. 

Furthermore what can you feasibly do in your turn that is unique to the double? Above one has spoken of "shielding units with weaker units" however you don't need the doubleturn for that. Screening is something you should do if your army allows it, as a good point of general tactics. It's a standard move that people have used in games for decades and without needing a doubleturn. Again teh double turn isn't actually making the tactic any more valuable nor important. 

 

 

 

Also don't confuse casual and competitive with open and matched play. Matched and Open play are simply two approaches to the games rules and structure - BOTH can be either casual or competitive. 

 

If my opponent is about to go twice I am going to leave space if possible to put any hazardous (for me) charges in doubt on t1, while forcing them into screan on t2.  It's not what they would naturally do that changes, it's how much of what they want to do that they can achieve and how much of it do I try to prevent without playing too passively for my own purposes.  It's much harder to balance randomly.

Surely I can screen, but do I leave an easy counter charge for myself open assuming I will go next, or do I leave the distance I need to protect my counter charger.  Do I charge his chaffe assuming I can then go again to get behind them, or do I hold back to avoid risking the counter charge from them instead.  Do I turtle around objectives I have to protect them for enemy on the next turn, or do I I try to strike at the next objective up with an important unit without a screen and hope for a double to better secure my position (or push up even further).  With an uncertain turn order all of these things are debatable, and my ability to best balance risk mitigation with appropriate pressure is going to go a long way towards determining the result.  If I knew turn order these difficult decisions would be significantly less difficult.  I don't need to balance my reward with conjecturing up to 2 turns of opponent action (or my own), I only need to plan for 1 before I can maneuver again.  It's far more strait forward strategically, and in a pretty basic rules system that takes a lot away imo.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

haven't played a whole heap. while i do play AOS I much prefer Warcry but here's my two cents.

 

I personally  don't like it for a few reasons.

1) its boring. your either standing around a table waiting for your opponent to finish their turn or your racing around, your brain doing a mile a minute trying to figure out how to end this quickly.

2) it does basically determine who wins the game. if i wanted to play a game solely based on chance i would whip out candy-land but that's just not why im investing my time and money into this game.

and yes, im sure you could plan for it if you really think about how you build your army, but here's my thing. if im thinking like that then im not playing against my opponent anymore, im strategizing against the game mechanics. I just feel like it defeats the point of having two people playing together and borderline ought right ignoring each other.

 

just SFD'ing here. hope i didn't offend anyone. have a good day. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's frustrating to see this debate play out again and again in the same way. There is so much talk about scrapping the double turn or keeping the double turn as if those are the only two options. 

It was great to see gw come up with endless spells as a mitigating factor. I wonder how many people who complain about double turns actually use them. 

An idea I had about keeping the spirit of the double turn while mitigating some of the issues was about changing the shooting and hero phase. 

How about this? A unit can shoot or use magic once per battle round, but you can choose whether to use it in your turn or the opponent's turn. I would make both phases alternating activation like the combat phase. You could use underworlds style tokens to show if a unit has been activated. 

Now I'm no game designer so if those options are too powerful a minus to cast or hit when used in your opponent's turn might be an option. 

Another option is a new generic command ability which lets you move a single unit at any point in the opponent's movement phase. 

What do people think?

  • Like 3
  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Chikout said:

 

It was great to see gw come up with endless spells as a mitigating factor. I wonder how many people who complain about double turns actually use them. 

 

Honestly I don't take some of the endless spells I want to take precisely because they can backfire horribly. It's great that I could control the purple sun for one turn, but unless I umbral spell-portal it into the other side of the opponent's field and then dispell the portals I have a chance for it to run back over my precious eels and wiping them out. Why would I do this? I am only guaranteed one turn of control, and after that it actively hinders me. 

 

Anyways, I am on the fence on the double turn. I am slowly figuring out how to 'plan' for the double turn with IDK. I set up my shield eels, pop the cover save spell or park them next to the turtle to get my eels to a 3+ save ignoring rend. I put them ahead of my army or shove them down my enemy's throat, and allow them to to die horribly before my spear eels charge in. It's not the greatest plan, but doing this in case of the double turn is just something I learned how to do. 

But, I really do feel that the system as it stands now is just not that good. it's too swingy, and can just push a game downhill quickly and ruin any potential plans because I didn't foresee a gap in my lines two turns ahead. Even when I get the double turn, it can feel fairly hollow just having my guys trounce the enemy while they do nothing to stop me. It's a weird feeling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, gronnelg said:

Is the double turn - a signel dice roll - to much of a factor in deciding who wins?

Nope. Not even close. It's a great mechanic upon which the scenarios, points, rules ... everything ... is built. It makes things exciting and allows for certain rules to be possible. It prevents many, many games from being over at deployment.

It also creates some nice decisions and has fun elements like predatory spell movement, for instance.

In the last game I played, my opponent and I realized that without the possibility of a double turn, it would be impossible to beat Kroak. That's just one example of how a rule in AoS (double turn) is making possible to play with legendary heroes without them being auto-win models. 

AoS is in such a great state right now, and the double turn - and all the possibilities it opens up, is a big part of why.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those arguing that it "resolves the game being over at deployment" I still want to know how you come to this conclusion.

@Sleboda you say that in your last game there was no way for one side to beat the others unit with Kroak. That the double turn helped the opposing side to gain the upper hand and win the game against Kroak. 
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. 

See there's my problem. For all those who talk about how it helps even the game and stops people predicting the outcome based on unit lists, the doubleturn still has no bias built into it. Far from being the cornerstone of the game it operates almost independent of the rest of the entire game. There's no part of it that links into the rest of the game, that binds into it, reads it, reacts or responds to it. The only linkback is the choice of who goes first and who goes second. Even then its only deciding when the first initiative dice roll is made and by whom. 

 

People saying it resolves things or helps I think it would be good to step back from the game and ask yourself what if the roll went the other way. If the other party got the doubleturn. Because for every time that it helps the underdog win its going to help the winner win more; or the game unbalance itself to shift a balanced pair into an unfair advantage. Through no choice of the players; through no agency or tactical choices (again I argue that all the tactical choice people say helps plan for it are nothing but regular battle tactics - screening and holding back - the latter of which is invalid for many situations and the former only works with select armies and not any elite armies - or at least only works in a limited fashion). 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
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...