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

The Dread Double turn

Recommended Posts

Something that I find so weird about these endless discussions about priority rolls is that it is taken as a given that going first is a massive advantage that requires mitigation somehow.

In a nut shell, I almost always give away first turn to my opponent as there is an advantage in going 2nd and by going 2nd I will get access to the first double so its just a winning more scenario. Due to scenario scoring my opponent will typically move up onto objectives their first turn, cast some buffs and that's about it. Then on my turn they are in range for offense casting, shooting, and charging. The only notable exceptions to this are if they're playing a durable army with the ability to get onto objectives turn 1 in a scenario that they can quickly achieve an insurmountable points lead such as duality of death.  Alpha strike armies are best answered with chaff and careful deployment in my experience though the double turn can be a nice though unnecessary buff when dealing with them.

The idea of going 1st being such a massive, game deciding advantage seems to come from 40k but there are big differences between the games. Namely, in 40k:

Shooting is MUCH higher ranged and more damaging in 40k than in AoS. In 40k 24" is a fairly short range shooting attack while in AoS that would be considered long range. 36" to 72" is the typical range of your more powerful guns in 40k. Armies are typically shooting focused too in 40k compared to AoS's melee focus (obviously there are armies that eschew this in both games but it generally holds up).

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours 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 will give my opponent a double turn at times. Far from as offen as I take the turn myself, but if my opponent is not in a great position to take advantage of the double turn I will do it. If I can survive the double turn I know it will not happen next turn, instead it could be my turn. 

A example could be if my opponent missed charges or or only killed my first rank his turn. I offen do layers, Bloodreavers in front of Bloodwarriors in front of Skullreapers. If my opponent can only hit Bloodreavers, sure give him the turn. If they are already dead or someone can double pile in, it might be worth it to lose both Bloodreavers and Bloodwarriors to get it over with, even more so as Bloodwarriors can give mortals back on 6 save and can fight if they die. In a situation like this they are also likely to have been the units I buff. This is a maybe, depending on how the rest of the table looks, but if a double turn only takes out my less important units I could be in a really good position in my turn with a possible double my way. If my opponent is likely to get into my good stuff, which depends a lot on what army you are up against and how much you can screen, no chance of giving away the turn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Forrix said:

Something that I find so weird about these endless discussions about priority rolls is that it is taken as a given that going first is a massive advantage that requires mitigation somehow.

I can't speak for others, but when I was talking about going second, I meant in later turns. When you take a double turn it involves going first, so by giving more advantages to the second player in a battle round you make double turns more of a cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people are missascribing the imbalance. I think the double turn is not nearly as powerful as the choice  of a double turn. Many times giving it up is just as strong but either way the priority roll is the powerful one, not the double turn itself.

I almost think it would be tactically more interesting if you didn't have the choice as it would force playing for both opportunities. 

At the very least it would feel less bad if the initial priority weren't deterministic based on drops. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Frowny said:

I think people are missascribing the imbalance. I think the double turn is not nearly as powerful as the choice  of a double turn. Many times giving it up is just as strong but either way the priority roll is the powerful one, not the double turn itself.

I almost think it would be tactically more interesting if you didn't have the choice as it would force playing for both opportunities. 

At the very least it would feel less bad if the initial priority weren't deterministic based on drops. 

Not sure about it being tactically more interesting to remove choice.  As it stands you can play tactically to influence your opponent's choice, as well as for either outcome of you going first or second next round.  Removing the choice aspect just means you only play for either outcome of go first or second, not to influence your opponent's choice.

Not sure why it feels bad that drops determine initial priority?   It adds a further tactical component to list writing.   "What is it worth giving up for the slightly higher chance of choosing first turn priority?"  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the double turn because it creates one of my favorite part of gaming, “risk management” and it creates for me a good environment for competition since it will help evaluate a skill I like to measure.

But regardless of my preference, the double turn is extremely important part of the structure of the game and you would need a lot of changes if you removed it.

With a traditional turn sequence you are basically choosing who would go first, every round, for the whole game. It would create a game that is more chesslike. Every turn would be like the setup, where you know exactly who can move and act next.

Getting a double turn is not nearly as powerful as going first every single round… with rules we have now.

If you will go first every round you can do A LOT more math, and you will have momentum that’s extremely valuable, and that would get exploited fast.

That would for example change how scenarios can work, if you can do the math “I will always reach point X first” then the ones we have would basically not work.

The price for all movement would need to change. Having a low move is a lot worse if the opponent is guaranteed to react to every move, and having a high move and rushing ahead involves a lot less risk if you know that you will not getting hit twice while the rest of the army catches up.

Endless spells would need a complete rework. If you go first move restriction spells are A LOT better than if you go second and damage spells are A LOT better if you go second compared to first.

You would also need to change how we decide who goes first… if it worked as today, going down to low drops to get the choice would mean an insane advantage. If it was just random you will basically do one roll that has a BOONKERS impact… so you would just change bad beat stories from “If I would not have lost the priority I would have”… too… actually the same “If I would not have lost the priority roll I would have”….

Can it be done, sure. Is it something that is done in a lot of games, yes it is. Could it be done and keeping the game we have, not really.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting a double turn is not nearly as powerful as going first every single round… with rules we have now.

I can speak with some experience in this area in stating that this statement is 100% inaccurate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of trying to risk manage and analyse double turn mechanism to death, why not just let it go and learn to enjoy the thrill of winning/losing the double turn? 

Like this once my Morathi survived double turn of Nagash Hand of Dust, my opponent literally howled in rage

Truly unforgettable

giphy.gif

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2019 at 11:23 AM, 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 regularly let my opponent have the turn when I have the choice.

There's lots of ways you can mitigate the power of a double turn, for example using several layers of screens. Sometimes at the end of a battle round both players units are embroiled in an ongoing combat. 

By letting your opponent have the double you can leave their units trapped and not able to move on to an objective. Then in your turn counter with your now freed up units. 

Other times they might only be able to kill your second screen, if you've set up correctly then they should be in range of all your good units. Been playing Khorne for 3 years now the amount of times I've lost a few units of reavers and warriors only to have my opponent best unit in range of 3 Slaughter Priests and a rage thirster. By allowing my opponent to have the double now mean I can double back on my terms. 

Edited by #SteveJames
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The double turn is boring. Regardless of whether playing around it is a question of skill or not, one of you is going to stand around for ages, by and large only making saves or taking your models off. I don't like getting it, I don't like my opponent getting it. In all my games, nobody who has had the double turn go against them has won- not only do they lose, but they stand around for ages waiting for it into the bargain.

Move to alternating activation please. I hate the double turn.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I read the thread to figure out how to use the double tun to my advantage, but after three pages (and a Youtube video) at least one thing is certain:

Rules about turn orders shouldn't be controversial in a tabletop game.

Share this post


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

The double turn is boring. Regardless of whether playing around it is a question of skill or not, one of you is going to stand around for ages, by and large only making saves or taking your models off. I don't like getting it, I don't like my opponent getting it. In all my games, nobody who has had the double turn go against them has won- not only do they lose, but they stand around for ages waiting for it into the bargain.

Move to alternating activation please. I hate the double turn.

I don't find the double turn to be boring at all, there is loads to be doing in your opponents turn. 

Choosing which spells to try and stop, choosing which combat to fight first, applying buffs like reroll 1s to save/hit to key units. 

Moving endless spells to block your opponent or kill off a key hero. 

Even piling in has a certain finesse, the position of your models is key. I've had an opponent pass the turn pile in 3". In his turn the Hero was now able to move on to an objective with a run. If he had taken the turn it would have been 2" shy (even with a 6 to run) 

Armies like Khorne and Iron Jaws have interaction that happen in your opponents turn. 

Edited by #SteveJames
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen a lot of posts on this and figured I'd add my two cents. I will say I enjoy the double turn. I have found it makes me think 2 turns ahead and keeps me from over extending resources. That being said I think the first double turn in a game should cost a command point. I appreciate the strength in the double turn and think there should be a small cost involved. It would mean players looking for the double turn would have to bank a cp in order to pull it off and make it a little less of an automatic thing. There could be other mechanics or costs to make it more of a choice more of the time too like relocation orb's 1vs3 points that help make it more of a mixed decision vs how it stands currently where it's 9/10ish better to take the double.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about a mechanic where players bid command points to determine turn order (rather than rolling), with only the winner having to pay the bid for the choice. It could fall back to a roll off afterwards if the bid is a tie... Might be a bit too strong for some armies that swim in cps though like gitz or cities and hard on others like nurgle or sylvaneth. But at least it might force their opponents go spend some more....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is Ossiarchs breaks that entirely as they don't use Command Points in the traditional way and technically don't get them at all. Plus you can't even easily use some kind of metric because the faction is built to need and use their command like abilities as standard ones for their units. 

 

Also as a secondary issue it might encourage more battalion or smaller army use for more free point command points. Ergo underpower yourself, but then go nuts at bidding for the turn. Which to my mind is not the right way to have a mechanic work because its basically rewarding players for taking less models to the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/14/2019 at 7:59 PM, #SteveJames said:

I don't find the double turn to be boring at all, there is loads to be doing in your opponents turn. 

I agree.

On 12/15/2019 at 10:14 AM, Marrlfox said:

I will say I enjoy the double turn. I have found it makes me think 2 turns ahead and keeps me from over extending resources.

Indeed.

On 12/14/2019 at 4:21 PM, #SteveJames said:

There's lots of ways you can mitigate the power of a double turn, for example using several layers of screens.

Yep.

I play 40K as well, and I find the alternating turns mechanics to be absolutely dull. Against simple lists (stay there and shoot, get them in your face and maul them...) you can quite literally play the entire game in your head before the first round is over. Awful.

The possibility of a double turn is a huge part of AoS tactics. It forces you to think ahead, it heavily influences your positioning (which, unless you play very specific combinations of factions and list builds, determines whether you win or lose) and it probably represents one the most exciting times during the game.

Despite everything you know about strategy you have decided to overcommit an especially precious unit of yours, bringing it in the face of your opponent's havey hitters notwithstanding the very real possibility of a double turn? Well, you win ties, right? Your opponent rolls a six, and now is up to you - man, that's an exciting roll!

Or, you are the ultimate tactical genius and you have planned for this - you are very ready to cope with your opponent's double turn, knowing that if he gets double turned next it's going to be their end...

I play Death, and when playing Death the last thing you want is getting double turned (as healing is absolutely paramount and it happens chiefly in your hero phase) - but here lies the challenge: to plan ahead, to mitigate, to scheme the perfect workaround. Sometimes I do get double turned and suffer massive losses - but then, I can always tell what my mistake was, and it almost always has to do with a detail I didn't think about in the context of two turns ahead. That is the subtle beauty of it.

The double turn is great, and we should all embrace it. I recently watched a batrep on MiniWarGaming and I was livid when one of the players didn't took the double turn because it's such a broken mechanics and it would end the game prematurely. That's bollocks - the opponent simply didn't plan for it, it was their fault, and as such they should have been righteously annhilated. 

You can tell when that happens, right? You give first turn to your opponent in the first battleround and they move everything up, devouring the entirety of your very cheap screens and living your hard hitters with the prime opportunity to wipe half of your opponent's army in one go. Got a double turn? Game over. Is it because of a broken mechanics? No it's not - it's because the opponent made the silliest move of them all.

Apologies if this sounds a tad bit harsh but really, this is a game of strategy (and dice...) after all, and the double turn is simply a (massive!) part of that strategy. It can't possibly be labelled as boring either - I, for one, constantly find myself in need of more and more time to plan my next turn, and the double turn gives you plenty of room to think (if you can manage to not get distracted by some of your units typically being wiped off the table, that is...).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is and is not boring is not for you to be able to judge for person to person.  The reality is a great many people find the double turn to be boring for just standing there for two turns, like that or not.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

What is and is not boring is not for you to be able to judge for person to person.  The reality is a great many people find the double turn to be boring for just standing there for two turns, like that or not.  

It comes down to what aspects of the game you enjoy. I find positioning, thinking ahead and trying to predict my opponent and strategizing during my opponents turn to be fun. 

For some the most fun is pushing plastic and rolling dice. 

For the latter it will not be an enjoyable experience to watch your opponent move twice and get to pick who to fight with first two turns back to back. If that is the case, play without it. House rule it for your friends or LGS, but to remove an element that requires additional foresight and planning at a competitive level would be frustrating to me. Making sure I buff the right units and knowing those buffs will carry through a double turn, placing screens, forcing awkward pile ins, knowing what I am and am not willing to extend with and use, what spells to dispell and command abilities to activate, who do I fight with first, where should move an endless spell, if I put it in the right place it could even force my opponent to take second even if they win the roll off.

The game actually has a fair amount of player agency even on your opponents turn and if a player is not paying attention to it they are missing a large part of the strategy to the game.

I definitely understand that is not fun for everyone but I do see it as a core mechanic to the game's strategy. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

What is and is not boring is not for you to be able to judge for person to person.

Ok, that’s fair. I’ll rephrase: the double turn is probably not boring at all for those of us who enjoy the tactical nuances of the game. Note that I’m not claiming I’m some flawless strategist (quite the opposite, in fact!) -  I have been and I am sure I will continue to get smashed upon a double turn, but I enjoy the challenge! There are other bits that one might find “boring” along the very same lines, I guess: a Tzeench hero phase, or a Cities of Sigmar shooting phase, for instance, but  similarly to the double turn they are part of the game, even if - again, similarly to the double turn - you have to watch while your army gets decimated.

2 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

The reality is a great many people find the double turn to be boring for just standing there for two turns, like that or not.  

Well, yes, I believe a great many people hate the double turn - not because is boring, though, but because they feel that when that happens it’s game over. And it could be, but...

On 12/14/2019 at 4:39 PM, Kirjava13 said:

In all my games, nobody who has had the double turn go against them has won

I would have to disagree with this one. I have even willingly subjected myself to the opponent’s double turn in quite a few occasions - and in some of them, I ended up on top at the end. I am quite confident in saying that many of us managed to win a game even when having to withstand a double turn. It’s not the end of the world - it might be, but rarely so if you have taken it into account to some extent.

58 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

House rules are not a thing we allow in my store, or in any of the stores near me.

The one thing I’d say is that the turns in AoS are not a detail - enforcing a house rule that would prevent the double turn would feel like playing a different game altogether to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right which is why I say we don't use house rules here, so the idea of just house rule double turn away is not viable for me or the group I play with.  

I will also just say that in regards to double turn causing game over that I think in my experience that has been true probably 4 in 5 games pretty regularly over the past couple years.  Its not 100% but it happens often enough that most people give up when it happens and I would like to see it revisited or even be something like warcry or even the lord of the rings game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really resent the implication that people who dislike the double turn are just not very good at playing the game.  

Share this post


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

What is and is not boring is not for you to be able to judge for person to person.  The reality is a great many people find the double turn to be boring for just standing there for two turns, like that or not.  

From what I gather from your post your scene is very competitive. But if the same players find the double turn "boring" they have not sufficiently invested their time into understanding some of the core mechanics of the game. 

I also don't believe that any thinks rolling dice is entertaining, or plague monks would have been universally loved. So the only logical conclusion I can come to is that they think there are no decisions to be made in your opponent's turn from a competitive perspective. Which is flatly incorrect. Everything from wound allocation to unbinding takes place in your opponent's turn and frankly this is where a great many players lose their games. Not because of the double turn. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whispers wound allocation and such are not all unique to your opponents turn, with th way close combat happens they can happen during a players turn as well. Furthermore all of those choices are reactionary choices. The player making them is purely reacting to situations that their opponent has created for them. This is fine in the normal swing of the game when it alternates between players; but when one player gets a double turn they get to push their plan and agenda twice in a row. 

They can choose if they start a new close combat engagement or not; if they cast a spell or not etc... Remember even things like Endless spells don't even out all that well because most times anyone casting a predatory spell will try to make sure its somewhere where if the opponent controls it for a turn all they can do is nullify it rather than attack with it (of course sometimes you get luck). So again its more reaction based gaming.

 

This can lead to a great sense of feeling like they've lost control over the game; because they can't retreat or advance a unit; twist it to a new direction; charge into an open flank or anything during their opponent getting two turns. Yes the whole "do nothing for a turn" is a bit hyperbole in terms of the fact there are things to do and think about; but the vast majority are reactionary. 

 

 

It's even worse if you're against a magic or ranged heavy army because they will quite happily sit back from close combat; dealing out damage where the opponent has no means to make a retaliation until their own turn. If the doubleturn were in 40K it would be exceptionally broken because of how powerful shooting is. AoS has more ofa weight toward close combat which because it alternates who attacks who first (excluding special rules) feels slightly less broken in AoS. 

Share this post


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

Whispers wound allocation and such are not all unique to your opponents turn, with th way close combat happens they can happen during a players turn as well. Furthermore all of those choices are reactionary choices. The player making them is purely reacting to situations that their opponent has created for them. This is fine in the normal swing of the game when it alternates between players; but when one player gets a double turn they get to push their plan and agenda twice in a row. 

They can choose if they start a new close combat engagement or not; if they cast a spell or not etc... Remember even things like Endless spells don't even out all that well because most times anyone casting a predatory spell will try to make sure its somewhere where if the opponent controls it for a turn all they can do is nullify it rather than attack with it (of course sometimes you get luck). So again its more reaction based gaming.

 

This can lead to a great sense of feeling like they've lost control over the game; because they can't retreat or advance a unit; twist it to a new direction; charge into an open flank or anything during their opponent getting two turns. Yes the whole "do nothing for a turn" is a bit hyperbole in terms of the fact there are things to do and think about; but the vast majority are reactionary. 

 

 

It's even worse if you're against a magic or ranged heavy army because they will quite happily sit back from close combat; dealing out damage where the opponent has no means to make a retaliation until their own turn. If the doubleturn were in 40K it would be exceptionally broken because of how powerful shooting is. AoS has more ofa weight toward close combat which because it alternates who attacks who first (excluding special rules) feels slightly less broken in AoS. 

But that is just it isn't it, it's just a feeling. Feeling like you have lost control is not the factual result of a double turn. It's the result of never actually being in control. In your turn it is up to you to limit the things your opponent can do in their turn. 

But also, you create points of failure in their ability to impact the game. In your turn almost all activities you can get up to can fail. But your buffs once up last until your hero phase generally, and a great many CMD abilities can be used in either players turn.

As DoK I would frequently set my opponent up for the double turn because I had been forced to sacrifice a hag and wanted the buff for another turn. Most of the time I would say my games are double turn neutral though.  Which is obviously anecdotal.

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...