Double Turn begone! AoS should get rid of the double-turn

[Skreech Verminking]

2 hours ago, Gailon said:

This baffles me. This is certainly a common sentiment but it is so far from my experience. the double turn is a risk management component. It adds variability and unpredictability that requires thought. 
 

there are many many times when people don’t take the double. Especially the double from 1 into 2. Because someone can plan against it. One of the costs is also the risk of getting doubled in return. Playing in the top of a round is a different way to play in the bottom.  It adds depth to have different considerations. 
 

I also like that it does add increased variability. I don’t want to play chess. 
 

I really like watching Season of War because I feel like it really shows this in action. Turns given away, and surprises and swinging in games. 

I can only talk from my experience, but I had the same discussion with another guy, who chose. Ot to take the double at the end of the first battle round.

after we finished our session he admitted that the game would have ended if he took it, with a full annihilation on my side.

So that’s probably the closest I got to the so theorized tactical decision of not taking the double turn.

[Gailon]

7 hours ago, Skreech Verminking said:

I can only talk from my experience, but I had the same discussion with another guy, who chose. Ot to take the double at the end of the first battle round.

after we finished our session he admitted that the game would have ended if he took it, with a full annihilation on my side.

So that’s probably the closest I got to the so theorized tactical decision of not taking the double turn.

We can all only speak to our experience. But I have seen predictions like this be wrong many many times.  Many times players thinking ‘this turn roll decides the game’ only to get to the end of the round and say ‘ok, now this roll decides the game.’

my personally theory is that playing ‘margin matters’ games can really open players up to these realizations. The high level competitive players who play teams tournaments see this regularly. It means that how many points you win or lose by matter doesn’t your team. So games are played to the end. Without just being discouraged with the ‘I lost, let’s just pick them all up.’  
 

for me when I started playing margin matters I started to see how close games can be. And the choices I made that had nothing to do with who won the turn roll that could have changed the outcome. 
 

Now I’d say that my turn rolls genuinely fall into three categories that happen in about even amount. I want to win to take the turn, I want to win to give the turn away, and I want to lose because I genuinely can’t tell whether to take it or give it away and I’d rather force my friend to make to the choice. 

[Skreech Verminking]

1 hour ago, Gailon said:

We can all only speak to our experience. But I have seen predictions like this be wrong many many times.  Many times players thinking ‘this turn roll decides the game’ only to get to the end of the round and say ‘ok, now this roll decides the game.’

my personally theory is that playing ‘margin matters’ games can really open players up to these realizations. The high level competitive players who play teams tournaments see this regularly. It means that how many points you win or lose by matter doesn’t your team. So games are played to the end. Without just being discouraged with the ‘I lost, let’s just pick them all up.’  
 

for me when I started playing margin matters I started to see how close games can be. And the choices I made that had nothing to do with who won the turn roll that could have changed the outcome. 
 

Now I’d say that my turn rolls genuinely fall into three categories that happen in about even amount. I want to win to take the turn, I want to win to give the turn away, and I want to lose because I genuinely can’t tell whether to take it or give it away and I’d rather force my friend to make to the choice. 

What predictions?

I never gave up after loosing a double turn  I just haven’t seen anybody not take the double turn.

as for the discussion I had with my opponent.

he thought the same way telling me that there is a strategic reason one shouldn’t take the double turn. Only admitting afterwards that if he took it the game would have ended turn 2 anyways

That may be a prediction but that was the discussion I had with an opponent, not my own prediction

although prediction might be to far fetched considering its what he believed the outcome to have been, if he chose not to show me the supposedly strategic genius behind the “not taking the double turn idea”

considering that we weren’t looking into

The future but rather into the result of a possible outcome,  if we would have chosen to take the other path

Edited March 24 by Skreech Verminking

[Satyrical Sophist]

4 hours ago, Skreech Verminking said:

What predictions?

I never gave up after loosing a double turn  I just haven’t seen anybody not take the double turn.

as for the discussion I had with my opponent.

he thought the same way telling me that there is a strategic reason one shouldn’t take the double turn. Only admitting afterwards that if he took it the game would have ended turn 2 anyways

That may be a prediction but that was the discussion I had with an opponent, not my own prediction

although prediction might be to far fetched considering its what he believed the outcome to have been, if he chose not to show me the supposedly strategic genius behind the “not taking the double turn idea”

considering that we weren’t looking into

The future but rather into the result of a possible outcome,  if we would have chosen to take the other path

I have had the option to take the double turn and not taken it fairly regularly. Why would you do this? There are a couple of fairly regular reasons.

You look at the board state and your opponent cannot capitalise on the double turn easily. This one can happen early on a fair bit, and feels more common when you are up against a slow army, or a fast army. The slow army can’t reach you reliably, the fast army already has and is as engaged as they are likely to be anyway. It can also be that YOU cannot properly benefit from the double right now, you’d need to move closer, but couldn’t guarantee making the charge etc. passing it to the opponent means that you get to go immediately after them, rather than risking taking an ineffective turn, giving them an effective turn and potentially getting doubled back and hit hard.

The enemy is fully buffed up, potentially with once per game buffs, potentially just hard to cast spells and the like. Taking the double would mean engaging the enemy with their “until the next hero phase” buffs intact. You’d rather they had to recast ****** frost and give you another chance to dispel it. Alternatively, YOU are all fully buffed up and are perfectly happy to have enough turn like that.

Some of the battle plans really care about who goes second, letting them choose where the geomantic pulse starts. You shouldn’t rely on it, but its a benefit. 
 

These scenarios do not always apply, but they are very real reasons to give up the double. Sometimes there is going to be an obvious choice, and you can crush them with a double. It feels like it happens less if you are  playing defensively, and aware of the double potential. Conversely, if you are playing very aggressively and hoping desperately not to be doubled then I think the double is more likely to be a crushing one.

One exception to this is that I very rarely want to give up the double vs a ranged army, since they can almost always capitalise on it, and often are vulnerable to it in turn.
 

If they can add more stuff to incentivise not taking the double? Sounds interesting to me. All games have issues establishing who goes first, it’s a recurring problem through so many types of games. I think the double is an interesting way of doing it. Stable turn orders can lead to their own problems. I don’t have a citation on this, but apparently one of the reasons world eaters got adjusted despite a 50% win rate was that they won 65%+ of their games where they went first and won less than 35% of the time they went second. 
 

A final rambling point is that I am often surprised by how close games can be. Ice sworn that I was going to lose games and gone on to win, and been surprised by the enemies comeback in turn. Deciding you have lost (due to double, bad luck Etc) very much is self fulfilling.

 

Edited March 24 by Satyrical Sophist
****** Frost autocorrected to something that needed to be censored! Sorry!

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

20 hours ago, Gailon said:

my personally theory is that playing ‘margin matters’ games can really open players up to these realizations. The high level competitive players who play teams tournaments see this regularly. It means that how many points you win or lose by matter doesn’t your team. So games are played to the end. Without just being discouraged with the ‘I lost, let’s just pick them all up.’  

 

17 hours ago, Satyrical Sophist said:

A final rambling point is that I am often surprised by how close games can be. Ice sworn that I was going to lose games and gone on to win, and been surprised by the enemies comeback in turn. Deciding you have lost (due to double, bad luck Etc) very much is self fulfilling.

This is something I have also recently been feeling pretty strongly. I have had a lot of games that looked pretty one-sided at the end of battle round 2, but turned out to be quite close after all 5 rounds.

I have also not had a game that was decided by a double turn in at least half a year. The possibility of a double turn is very impactful, for sure. It changes the dynamic on wanting to go first or second, how you deploy, how deeply you commit your units etc. In that way, even if both players take the double turn whenever they are able, it is still strategically interesting, because it influences everything from list building to tactical gameplay. But I find that a double turn happening rarely decides games by itself.

[Gailon]

4 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

 

This is something I have also recently been feeling pretty strongly. I have had a lot of games that looked pretty one-sided at the end of battle round 2, but turned out to be quite close after all 5 rounds.

I have also not had a game that was decided by a double turn in at least half a year. The possibility of a double turn is very impactful, for sure. It changes the dynamic on wanting to go first or second, how you deploy, how deeply you commit your units etc. In that way, even if both players take the double turn whenever they are able, it is still strategically interesting, because it influences everything from list building to tactical gameplay. But I find that a double turn happening rarely decides games by itself.

Playing more often I find that the round 5 priority is the one that most often decides games. Not because of a double turn that kills your opponent but because of some cheeky scoring one player or the other can do by sneaking onto an objective or getting a specific tactic. 

[Gailon]

On 3/24/2024 at 9:46 AM, Skreech Verminking said:

What predictions?

I never gave up after loosing a double turn  I just haven’t seen anybody not take the double turn.

as for the discussion I had with my opponent.

he thought the same way telling me that there is a strategic reason one shouldn’t take the double turn. Only admitting afterwards that if he took it the game would have ended turn 2 anyways

That may be a prediction but that was the discussion I had with an opponent, not my own prediction

although prediction might be to far fetched considering its what he believed the outcome to have been, if he chose not to show me the supposedly strategic genius behind the “not taking the double turn idea”

considering that we weren’t looking into

The future but rather into the result of a possible outcome,  if we would have chosen to take the other path

The prediction I meant is the prediction that he would have wiped the table with you by taking the turn. It can definitely happen, but I just meant even really experienced people can be wrong when making predictions like this. 

[RyantheFett]

5 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

 

This is something I have also recently been feeling pretty strongly. I have had a lot of games that looked pretty one-sided at the end of battle round 2, but turned out to be quite close after all 5 rounds.

I have also not had a game that was decided by a double turn in at least half a year. The possibility of a double turn is very impactful, for sure. It changes the dynamic on wanting to go first or second, how you deploy, how deeply you commit your units etc. In that way, even if both players take the double turn whenever they are able, it is still strategically interesting, because it influences everything from list building to tactical gameplay. But I find that a double turn happening rarely decides games by itself.

I think it also depends on the army and players. I play LRL and not getting spells off then getting hit by a double turn can pretty much table me top of turn 2. My friends and I also play pretty aggressive and we usually bet everything on getting a double turn lol.

I do wonder how bad GW will punish the double turn? Will it be just a slap on the wrist? Or is this GW way of killing it without having to remove it from the game lol???

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

3 minutes ago, RyantheFett said:

I think it also depends on the army and players. I play LRL and not getting spells off then getting hit by a double turn can pretty much table me top of turn 2. My friends and I also play pretty aggressive and we usually bet everything on getting a double turn lol.

I do wonder how bad GW will punish the double turn? Will it be just a slap on the wrist? Or is this GW way of killing it without having to remove it from the game lol???

Apparently, you don't get to score a battle tactic if you take the double. Which is pretty significant, at least at high levels of play. That double better be worth 2 VP.

[Sarouan]

On 3/22/2024 at 6:43 PM, Beliman said:

Btw, Imho, the main question that all players should answer is, how fun it is to have/or be double-turn/ed? 

It depends of the game, actually. Things never happen in a vacuum, and Double Turn is just one element happening that can have an influence on the fun - positively or negatively.

For example, if I'm already losing and my opponent gets a Double Turn and smash my army of puny goblins real hard, I still may have fun if my mind is already at peace with the loss and I'm having a good laugh at just comically bad they're being crushed (like the villain minions of a cartoon - which, to be honest, they kinda are ). The answer can be different if the game is tense and you feel like you're losing "because of it" (though in reality, we players do like to blame hazard when we lose and not always looking at what we could have done differently tactically / strategically speaking). And it's even more when, from the other side of the len, someone is coming back to the game thanks to it.

It's indeed somewhat of an element of unknown, yet you can prepare for it because it's in the rules : once you know it can happen both ways (and if you play often, it will eventually ), you learn to deal with it.

That's why I said the real question is if you want to play with it, rather than trying to see if it's good, bad or fun in itself : because it's just a rule, and rules in themselves don't have any of that. It's what happens in the whole game that does, and a game never relies on only one rule alone. It's always happening thanks to a combination of rules but, most important, of what players live and do during it while following the rules. Players' mindset is also a key component.

 

So far in 4th, even with the video we just have small hints that are basically not enough. But if the new rules do indeed allow to do much more during the opponent's turn (like charging, apparently) and they give more importance to the choice of going first or second in a turn with victory conditions / scoring in a battleplan - then having a Double Turn may not have the same impact than in current 3rd. Wait and see, and once it's out let's try it with an open mind. We may be surprised by the result.

[pnkdth]

8 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

We may be surprised by the result.

That's what I'm banking on. 10th 40k (and mission cards) and the managed changes had me kind lukewarm but I've really warmed up it. Mission decks, from my POV, is 40k's way of creating uncertainty and tackle mathhammer and also making it more difficult to solve the game.

 

[Skreech Verminking]

12 hours ago, pnkdth said:

That's what I'm banking on. 10th 40k (and mission cards) and the managed changes had me kind lukewarm but I've really warmed up it. Mission decks, from my POV, is 40k's way of creating uncertainty and tackle mathhammer and also making it more difficult to solve the game.

 

Yeah it can be quit funny.

last game me and my opponent got to score 2 of those cards.

we really just chose the wrong omes at the beginning of the game😂

[Beliman]

On 3/25/2024 at 9:40 PM, Sarouan said:

It's indeed somewhat of an element of unknown, yet you can prepare for it because it's in the rules : once you know it can happen both ways (and if you play often, it will eventually ), you learn to deal with it.

Even if I don't have a lot of problems with priority rolls, I still think that it doesn't bring enough. Yes, sometimes it will be awesome and fun, maybe even make a comeback, but there is a possibility to finish the game, and that's enough for me to know how necessary is for the game.

Remember that AoS already has a lot of interactions, synergies, 3 forms to acquire Victory Points, and a bunch of layers of rules. And we still have a lot of rolls to decide things, I mean, all our units battle their own wars with RNG gods each time they cast, pray, figh or charge. 

Maybe I'm alone, but I thinkt that I don't need more variables tied to one roll that is so powerfull that sometimes can even finish the game by itself.

Btw, the double-turn is a 4th edition feature, so let's wait and see how GW is trying to make it less and less impactful.

[Sarouan]

2 hours ago, Beliman said:

Maybe I'm alone, but I thinkt that I don't need more variables tied to one roll that is so powerfull that sometimes can even finish the game by itself..

AoS is at core a game with variable tied to many rolls, you know. Using dice to determine events / successes in game rather than others means is a design choice GW always followed. Once you understand and accept that, it's already a big  step helping to relativise the highs and lows during a game : "damn, I saved nothing even though statistics said I should at least save one wound !" "welp, got 6 1's for my hit rolls, what can I say ?" "c'mon you got a Double Turn !!". Dice is the perfect objective arbiter in GW's eyes, and thus it's more simple to submit to its rule before moving on with the game (and blame it rather than your own skills ). And the thing is, it's deliberate for avoiding people to control all the possible variables and thus making the game predictable (and boring).

What is true is that 3rd had a bloat of special rules to keep in mind...but it has nothing to do with Double Turn in itself, it's how they handled their seasons and kept adding more rules to "keep things fresh or whatever" while it wasn't really that needed for the game. Core game at the launch of 3rd wasn't really a problem, but if you started AoS now with all the season books bs, it was definitely a hassle to keep up.

With 4th, they said they would "simplify" things, so at least we'll get rid of these season books...for as long as it will last (of course GW will keep adding more rules in the future, you gotta feed the competitive scene after all - yes, it's the competitive scene that's asking for that, not the casual players who really don't care and could play core rules forever while being perfectly happy about it).

Edited March 27 by Sarouan