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

[NinthMusketeer]

I run tournaments where there is no random initiative round 2; the first priority roll is round 3. Big improvement, given that pulling an objective can actually be worth giving up a double for.

But another thing to think about; many communities house rule the double out of the game. If GW removed it, would anyone house rule it back in?

[yukishiro1]

I'm not sure it really mattered, game was really won on the bottom of T1 when his alpha destroyed literally half the soulblight army. It definitely made the game end quicker, but I don't think the soulblight player had much of a chance after T1 even if he had won priority. The dragons oneshot his vengo lord, the fulminators oneshot his gargant, and the crossbowmen killed 45 zombies all in one turn. That's like 900 points down in one turn. And he didn't even charge with the dragons! 

Edited February 1, 2022 by yukishiro1

[Skreech Verminking]

47 minutes ago, NinthMusketeer said:

I run tournaments where there is no random initiative round 2; the first priority roll is round 3. Big improvement, given that pulling an objective can actually be worth giving up a double for.

But another thing to think about; many communities house rule the double out of the game. If GW removed it, would anyone house rule it back in?

There is a good chance that that wouldn’t happen in my local area.

even in the more friendly/ fun kind of games most of my opponent even insist on the double turn being removed or in a more friendly term be house ruled out.

 

[Ganigumo]

17 minutes ago, pnkdth said:

Not exactly a fantastic look for the game either with the finals of a huge event being decided on a single priority roll.

-

Maybe I'm just stupid but I'm not seeing how the DT improved/added nuance to this game (could someone in favour of the DT "as is" explain?). In a standard friendly you could just laugh this off and play again but this decided the outcome of a nearly 200 player tournament. Or are the SCE (w and w/o CoS) units simply THAT oppressive and overpowered?

 

OK so there are a few levels to this, and I'll try my best to explain.

1. Drakes are broken. They are fast hammer-anvils with mortal wound shooting that don't need buffs. This lets them get where they need to and apply the damage to take out your opponent's key pieces easily, while being spammable because you don't need support units to pump up their damage. The only units that work with that design are prohibitively expensive units like archaon.
2. AoS is a predominantly melee-combat focused game designwise, and you get a combat phase even in your opponent's turn, so theoretically you're not defenseless.
   1. The double turn really does push shooting over the edge and the designers clearly haven't figured out a solution for it yet.
3. You can strategize around it. I know it gets repeated a lot but I'll go over a few points.
   1. only the player going second in a round can get a double turn. So that player can be extra aggressive if they're behind (Which they should be, first turn is a big tactical advantage in a game like this, if the game is "really close" without a double it means the player going first is behind). The player going first needs to be open to the possibility of a double, and plan moves to protect key pieces by holding them back, screening, or boxing the opponent in.
   2. Most buffs last until your next hero phase, so defensive buffs have extra value if you're going first.
4. It makes sure the game isn't solveable by removing some "right" answers from the game.
   1. This point is super important to me, and I think is the most important one. Coming from a background in Magic the Gathering, almost all games of that feel solvable, in that, no matter what, 99%+ of the time there is a "right" answer (even if you lose the game). It gets old once you look past luck of the draw and see this, so games either come down to luck (in terms of draws or matchup) or player error. You can throw as much complexity as you want on top of the game to obfuscate this fact, but in order to fix it you need controlled, impactful RNG which can be strategized around.
   2. The double turn adds real depth to decision making, as often what would be the right move in a purely igougo game (putting your unit just outside of charge range or whatever) immediately becomes a question with multiple answers. Putting your unit right out of charge range works if you don't get doubled, but if you do you're caught out, or can't make that charge next turn. Its not a perfect system for this, but its certainly a solid example of controlled impactful RNG.
   3. This kind of RNG is more interesting than pure RNG, like dice rolls where all you can do is pray.
   4. As a bit of a tangent AOS actually still kind of works as a game if you remove dice rolls from damage completely and just go with averages, mostly because of the priority roll creating enough variance to prevent the game from being solveable.
5. GW game balance is generally pretty awful, we have our top armies at like 60% winrates, and poor gitz are at like 30%.
6. The game has a lot of RNG, almost every tournament is decided by luck. If two equally skilled players with equally strong armies face off the determining factor is luck. Most of the time the only difference between 4-1 and 5-0 is just luck, as the chance of at least one of your games going one way or the other based on luck is very high (Luck could be through dice rolls or matchups).

On a side note I think aos 3 gives too much too the player going second now, where in most games going first gives you a higher chance to win, between bonus CP, double turn potential, and the other various bonuses I think the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. 

[Kadeton]

6 hours ago, pnkdth said:

Not exactly a fantastic look for the game either with the finals of a huge event being decided on a single priority roll.

Maybe I'm just stupid but I'm not seeing how the DT improved/added nuance to this game (could someone in favour of the DT "as is" explain?). In a standard friendly you could just laugh this off and play again but this decided the outcome of a nearly 200 player tournament. Or are the SCE (w and w/o CoS) units simply THAT oppressive and overpowered?

The most important thing to understand is that it's not about looking back at a specific instance of a double turn occurring to see how it improved the game. The key way in which the double turn improves the game is in how the potential for it to happen (or not happen!) in future turns affects the players' thought processes and decisions.

In a fixed-initiative system, things are fairly predictable. You'll be able to hit them roughly this hard, they'll hit back roughly that hard, you'll hit them again with what's left, and so on in a dwindling back-and-forth like one of those formalised Russian slapping contests.

In a random-initiative system, both players are forced to take a gamble on what the outcome of the next initiative roll is going to be. As the first player, do you play aggressively, knowing that landing a telling first strike will give you the advantage if the initiative alternates, but risking a devastating counter-attack if it doesn't? Or do you go defensive in anticipation of the double, knowing that you're giving up the opportunity to land that first blow? As the second player, do you over-extend your forces to gain a massive advantage if you get the double, but leaving yourself vulnerable if you don't? Or do you play more conservatively, not wanting to rely on the double turn, but being unable to truly capitalise on it if it does happen?

I can't say what was going through the minds of these two players during this particular game, but the fact that those kinds of decisions weighing potential rewards versus potential risks should be on any player's mind during a game of AoS - that's the point of the double turn.

The CoS/SCE player in this game had a turn that would have crippled their opponent regardless of whether or not they got the double. That's a much more important issue, IMO - mortal wound spam produces damage spikes which can't be accounted for in terms of balance, and it simply shouldn't be possible for any army to destroy nearly half of the opposing force in the space of a single turn, especially from range. When people look at this game they see the double turn and assume that was the deciding factor, when really the game was already lost before the initiative roll even happened.

[NinthMusketeer]

It makes more tactical sense to assume the double doesn't occur.

From the perspective of the player that could be the victim; any preparations for a double are reducing their effectiveness for the more likely occurence that it does not. And if they prepare well enough for the double the opponent can still choose not to take it.

From the perspective of the person who will get the double, it is already an immense advantage and they are better off preparing for the more likely and more difficult circumstance that it does not occur.

The only time it is worth prepping for a double is as a hail mary when the game can't be won any other way.

 

I will also never understand the logic of 'GW games are not balanced, so adding a factor that imbalances it even more is a good thing'.

And as for the mythical 'solved' game, yet to see proof. Show me how those games without a double are entirely predictable. No, not between two lists of gaping power differences; that is a balance issue. Show me how two evenly matched lists have entirely predictable matchups. Show me proof of the double improving the game. Show me proof that more players like it than not. Give me something I can say to the person sitting and watching their army ripped apart based on a single dice roll.

[pnkdth]

18 minutes ago, NinthMusketeer said:

It makes more tactical sense to assume the double doesn't occur.

From the perspective of the player that could be the victim; any preparations for a double are reducing their effectiveness for the more likely occurence that it does not. And if they prepare well enough for the double the opponent can still choose not to take it.

From the perspective of the person who will get the double, it is already an immense advantage and they are better off preparing for the more likely and more difficult circumstance that it does not occur.

The only time it is worth prepping for a double is as a hail mary when the game can't be won any other way.

 

I will also never understand the logic of 'GW games are not balanced, so adding a factor that imbalances it even more is a good thing'.

And as for the mythical 'solved' game, yet to see proof. Show me how those games without a double are entirely predictable. No, not between two lists of gaping power differences; that is a balance issue. Show me how two evenly matched lists have entirely predictable matchups. Show me proof of the double improving the game. Show me proof that more players like it than not. Give me something I can say to the person sitting and watching their army ripped apart based on a single dice roll.

I think that's is what I'm struggling with as well. I understand the DT adds more decisions and position to the mix, yet at the same time I also see those decisions as being different rather than adding more. Since a strict IGYG also adds its own positioning and decision-making to the mix.

In addition, it is quite clear that the DT adds way too much of advantage and I think the amount of power/preparation the player who gets DT:ed can actually make is pretty undefined since the same can done without the double turn. As for 'solvable" also think the meta reflect that the current iteration of 3.0 and the DT has been solved given how much attention in list-making and decisions revolve around giving up the first turn to guarantee a chance of the double. It does not seem to be as much of an unknown nor add uncertainty as it is claimed to do.

I doubt it will go away but there definitely need to be something to limit its impact or make the choice of giving up the first turn less rewarding.

[Kasper]

On 2/1/2022 at 1:57 AM, NinthMusketeer said:

Final match for LVO, ended top of turn 2 from a double. The winner went on to emphasize how important it was to secure second turn, because of the double. He spoke more about that than he did the actual units he took.

I watched this and imo it had nothing to do with the double turn.

There was a lot of bad plays but it was also a display of how incredibly powerful dragons/fulminators are. Imo they missed the ballpark on 3 SCE units and they all pack a little bit too much punch. So much damage is frontloaded. Half the SBGL army was gone turn 1.

Im pretty sure the game would have been over regardless of there being a priority roll or not. Sure the game would have been prolonged a little but it was an EXTREMELY uphill battle for the SBGL player at this point being 1.000 pts down (805 pts in 2 monster heroes and a bunch of zombies from shooting). 

The battleplan favours armies that can get up into the opponent's grill and remove stuff to burn objectives. I dont see the SBGL player doing this after having lost so much turn 1. 

So yeah, the Living Cities player getting a double turn sealed the deal for sure, but the game was already lost before the Living Cities player had his first turn. 

Edited February 2, 2022 by Kasper

[vinnyt]

On 2/1/2022 at 2:04 PM, pnkdth said:

are the SCE (w and w/o CoS) units simply THAT oppressive and overpowered

yes, especially when they get to go twice without any meaningful interaction from your opponent.

 

The other big problem with the double turn, especially with turn 1 into 2, is that you get to either double down on the tempo in turn 3 by going first, or get the added bonus of burning an objective by going second if your opponent gets the "catch-up double"

 

[Enoby]

13 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

And as for the mythical 'solved' game, yet to see proof. Show me how those games without a double are entirely predictable.

I'm not sure if this would fall under 'gaping power difference', and it was 40K, but at the beginning of 8th edition I had a game of Chaos Knights vs Orks. Neither had a codex at this point. 

The knights have very long ranged guns, and the orks at the time had very bad shooting without the codex rules to help. There were some turns that I knew the orks couldn't get me, so I knew I'd be safe for even more shooting as I moved further away. I went first and destroyed their transport, leaving them slow, and they spent their turn playing catch up. I spent second turn shooting more and moving away (being much faster than orks), and they spent second turn playing catch up. I think it was either 3rd or 4th turn they caught up, and by that point they were too injured to do all that much.

This situation is unlikely in AoS as there aren't many units with very good shooting and most armies are very fast. So I'm not using that particular situation to argue for double turns, but the experience itself of knowing I was safe for two or three turns did warm me up to the double turn more. 

While the vast majority of armies in AoS now can't be outpaced by a retreating opponent, there are a few (e.g. Nurgle) that can. In these cases you can create very safe turns for yourself with a single screen where your opponent knows their turn is going to be mostly wasted, and there's no risk of them moving immediately after destroying the screen. Of course you can double screen in preparation for a double turn, but that's a lot more resources, especially for some armies. 

I wouldn't call them solved games, but I would call them solved turns. Some would argue that these are fine and show greater tactical acumen, others would say it gives too much advantage to the first turn player to command the flow of battle. 

The question is whether the lack of 'solved turns' is worth the double turn. 

[Kadeton]

12 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

It makes more tactical sense to assume the double doesn't occur.

The only time it is worth prepping for a double is as a hail mary when the game can't be won any other way.

It seems pretty obvious that if you approach the game with the kind of mindset that leads to statements like these, you're not going to enjoy the double turn mechanic. Or AoS in general, I would have thought.

12 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

And as for the mythical 'solved' game, yet to see proof. Show me how those games without a double are entirely predictable.

Are you trying to assert that AoS without the additional random element of initiative would have a less predictable outcome? If so, please "prove" that, because at face value it sounds ridiculous. There has been no assertion of "entirely predictable", merely less predictable, and yes, in my opinion that's a good thing.

12 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

Show me proof of the double improving the game. Show me proof that more players like it than not.

I'd love to know how you think this could be proven without the power of omniscience and access to at least one alternate universe. Perhaps, as a demonstration, you could prove the inverse? Show unequivocally that the double does not improve the game, and that fewer players like it than not?

12 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

Give me something I can say to the person sitting and watching their army ripped apart based on a single dice roll.

The same thing you say to a person watching their army get ripped apart based on a whole bunch of dice rolls? Mine is "Oof, bad luck, mate. Can I get you a beer?"

[Wordy9th]

The main power of the double is massively in the turn 1-2 sector.

This is because you're essentially doubling the output of near 100% of your army.

The 'comeback double' is nowhere close to being as strong, because you're doubling the output of what is likely to be a much depleted army.

And yet you get MORE incentive not to take the double later in the game.

The turn 1-2 double really needs addressing in someway, like a turn 3 mechanic at the very least.

[pnkdth]

2 hours ago, Kadeton said:

Are you trying to assert that AoS without the additional random element of initiative would have a less predictable outcome? If so, please "prove" that, because at face value it sounds ridiculous. There has been no assertion of "entirely predictable", merely less predictable, and yes, in my opinion that's a good thing.

From a competitive standpoint, the way priority works now has lead to a 'solved' game in the way that players all know the importance of setting yourself up for the double. Basically, people are meta-gaming in list building because they know how much a DT affects the course of a game. There are other issues with the game (power creep, shooting meta, etc) and since the DT is exaggerating those issues I think we can observe it is a very clear mechanical/competitive advantage. Otherwise, competitive players would not devote so much attention to it.

In addition, to your final statement about dice rolls, I think one dice roll affecting the order of the game and, by extension, a lot of other rolls has the potential to ruin (ending it in a feelbad or curb-stomp) a game than statistical anomalies (rolling badly, whiffing, etc) when rolling lots of dice. I mean, if players could not manage this kind of randomness then tournaments would be little more than random number generators.

In short, once you peel back the layers it doesn't seem there's much depth to be had. It seems to exacerbate the worst issues in an IGYG system (actually granting you a double alpha strike early in the game) while giving minimal tools to respond to getting double turned. I think the latter is the key issue and @Wordy9th sums it up with precision in the post above.

The direction of the game certainly does not help either, i.e. tons of shooting and ranged threats + unleash hell. The game sorely needs more impactful terrain + character protection since the game is more and more starting to resemble a 40k game.

[BadDice0809]

On 2/1/2022 at 6:07 AM, Orkmann said:

I like the roll off mechanism of the game, but I found the drop count based initiative for round1 is not working in AoS, so I'd rather just roll off for round 1 too. This is sometime we actually do in friendly games (or the player with stronger list deliberatily goes for higher drops). I believe a lot of the negative experience is coming from games playing against a stronger army which is also lower drops, so can just safely give the turn away and the game can be over if they get the double. 

 

On 2/1/2022 at 11:05 AM, yukishiro1 said:

Yeah, if they are 100% set on keeping fixed turn priority on turn 1 (which is a terrible mechanic, but they do seem committed to it), they need to change the "player who goes second T3 burns an objective" to "the player who gets doubled for the first time in the game burns an objective" instead. Still might not be enough to deter taking the T1/T2 double, but at least it'd be something. 

The other obvious option is disabling the possibility of a double turn until the T2/T3 interval. At least that way everyone gets two turns before the double starts. 

This isn't talked about enough. The drop Mechanic for first turn priority 100% needs to go. They dropped it from 40k. It's not even in the core rulebook- they tacked it into the GHB. From what I recall of some 40k playtesters discussion, I'm not sure how much input playtesters get in feedback on the core rules (Tabletop Tactics discussion). That makes me feel this was feedback from the playtest group that threw that garbage back in. 

Next GHB needs to throw it right back out. As was mentioned, powerful armies that can get to/shoot/cast what and where they need to on turn one, who also control priority, is far too much. 

[Kadeton]

1 hour ago, pnkdth said:

From a competitive standpoint, the way priority works now has lead to a 'solved' game in the way that players all know the importance of setting yourself up for the double. Basically, people are meta-gaming in list building because they know how much a DT affects the course of a game. There are other issues with the game (power creep, shooting meta, etc) and since the DT is exaggerating those issues I think we can observe it is a very clear mechanical/competitive advantage. Otherwise, competitive players would not devote so much attention to it.

I'm not really sure about the point you're trying to make here. Obviously competitive players build their lists to play the game, and the game includes potential double turns, so their lists take that into account... meta-gaming in list building is basically what competitive play is about, no? Yeah, the top lists would look different if initiative rolls weren't a thing - because those lists would be designed for a different game.

1 hour ago, pnkdth said:

In addition, to your final statement about dice rolls, I think one dice roll affecting the order of the game and, by extension, a lot of other rolls has the potential to ruin (ending it in a feelbad or curb-stomp) a game than statistical anomalies (rolling badly, whiffing, etc) when rolling lots of dice. I mean, if players could not manage this kind of randomness then tournaments would be little more than random number generators.

From the way people talk about it, the double turn should be having this "random number generator" effect already, given it's apparently the main thing that determines the outcome of games. And yet, the top players at tournaments are still placing consistently, so clearly they're managing the randomness of double turns just fine.

There are usually multiple moments in every game where a single or small handful of dice feel like they're carrying the weight of the outcome. Every time Archaon swings the Slayer of Kings, for instance, or even just whether or not a crucial spell is successfully cast. Making that ward save so your General lives on 1 wound instead of being dead. Rolling snake eyes on a 3" charge. These things can all pivot the game immediately - initiative rolls are just the most consistently occurring of these moments, because you know there will be one every turn.

1 hour ago, pnkdth said:

In short, once you peel back the layers it doesn't seem there's much depth to be had. It seems to exacerbate the worst issues in an IGYG system (actually granting you a double alpha strike early in the game) while giving minimal tools to respond to getting double turned. I think the latter is the key issue and @Wordy9th sums it up with precision in the post above.

Hmm, I'm not sure it's supposed to be about adding depth. Really, it's about reducing certainty, and providing additional points throughout the game where the players wager on the outcome. It's another big gamble in the series of gambles that make up a game of AoS.

AoS is not chess, a pure contest of knowledge and tactical skill where the better player wins, as much as competitive players like to think of it as such. It's closer in nature to Yahtzee, and that's not an accident, or the result of bad design. That's exactly what GW wants it to be, because Yahtzee is a way more accessible game than chess.

1 hour ago, pnkdth said:

The direction of the game certainly does not help either, i.e. tons of shooting and ranged threats + unleash hell. The game sorely needs more impactful terrain + character protection since the game is more and more starting to resemble a 40k game.

I have to admit, the main reason I like the double turn is because of the comparison to 40K. I love both settings, but the actual gameplay of 40K bores me to tears. It took me a fair while to work out why I was so much more engaged in my games of AoS, and a lot more of it than I expected came down to the fact that the "future path" of the game was so unclear.

But yes, I agree that tons of shooting with limited protection for characters and minimal interaction have been on the rise, and have generally not been good for the AoS experience. Does the double turn make that worse? Eh, maybe, but it sucks either way so I'd rather see those elements pared back than throw out one of the main things that makes the game interesting.

[pnkdth]

5 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

I'm not really sure about the point you're trying to make here. Obviously competitive players build their lists to play the game, and the game includes potential double turns, so their lists take that into account... meta-gaming in list building is basically what competitive play is about, no? Yeah, the top lists would look different if initiative rolls weren't a thing - because those lists would be designed for a different game.

From the way people talk about it, the double turn should be having this "random number generator" effect already, given it's apparently the main thing that determines the outcome of games. And yet, the top players at tournaments are still placing consistently, so clearly they're managing the randomness of double turns just fine.

There are usually multiple moments in every game where a single or small handful of dice feel like they're carrying the weight of the outcome. Every time Archaon swings the Slayer of Kings, for instance, or even just whether or not a crucial spell is successfully cast. Making that ward save so your General lives on 1 wound instead of being dead. Rolling snake eyes on a 3" charge. These things can all pivot the game immediately - initiative rolls are just the most consistently occurring of these moments, because you know there will be one every turn.

Hmm, I'm not sure it's supposed to be about adding depth. Really, it's about reducing certainty, and providing additional points throughout the game where the players wager on the outcome. It's another big gamble in the series of gambles that make up a game of AoS.

AoS is not chess, a pure contest of knowledge and tactical skill where the better player wins, as much as competitive players like to think of it as such. It's closer in nature to Yahtzee, and that's not an accident, or the result of bad design. That's exactly what GW wants it to be, because Yahtzee is a way more accessible game than chess.

I have to admit, the main reason I like the double turn is because of the comparison to 40K. I love both settings, but the actual gameplay of 40K bores me to tears. It took me a fair while to work out why I was so much more engaged in my games of AoS, and a lot more of it than I expected came down to the fact that the "future path" of the game was so unclear.

But yes, I agree that tons of shooting with limited protection for characters and minimal interaction have been on the rise, and have generally not been good for the AoS experience. Does the double turn make that worse? Eh, maybe, but it sucks either way so I'd rather see those elements pared back than throw out one of the main things that makes the game interesting.

My point is, to competitive players going for the early double is a HUGE priority. The main objective isn't about overcoming it through clever play but to do everything you can to max out your chances of getting it or use such a powerful list you're able to pass any DPS-check and/or punch back hard enough to win regardless. The best players are probably more aware of this than most + having A LOT more time (and games) to refine both their knowledge of the game and list than the rest of us.

The DT isn't the only contributing factor to a game but to iterate, it is quite clear it has a big impact on the game given how the best players design their lists and play the game.

In a nutshell, power creep + shooty/ranged meta + early DT + useless terrain is giving me flashbacks of 40k at its worst, i.e. big alpha strikes and the feeling powerless to play your way out of it if you chose "the wrong" army. Having chunks of your army being pulled off the board feels like ******, having it happen twice-over without the chance to change the outcome is even worse. This isn't specifically a DT issue, however, a DT acts as a force multiplier to the aforementioned issues.

I do not think it'll be removed but I really wish the DT would not come into play till T3. That way both players will have much more agency, specifically, this would mean the player going second will have to endure a punch in return before priority rolls become a thing. I also think this would allow both players to set up a game plan they can feel satisfied with.

Won't fix other outstanding issues but it would be something.

 

 

[NauticalSoup]

Having the first priority roll come in turn 3 is an interesting idea I hadn't heard before. It keeps the uncertainty factor while controlling for the worst aspect of the double, the alpha strike. Might give it a try. We've got some new players coming in and I know they already are skeptical about the double turn mechanic and I sympathize completely because while it doesn't particularly offend me, I just think it's bad game design that adds nothing but chagrin to the Sigmar experience.

[Orkmann]

1 hour ago, NauticalSoup said:

Having the first priority roll come in turn 3 is an interesting idea I hadn't heard before. It keeps the uncertainty factor while controlling for the worst aspect of the double, the alpha strike. Might give it a try. We've got some new players coming in and I know they already are skeptical about the double turn mechanic and I sympathize completely because while it doesn't particularly offend me, I just think it's bad game design that adds nothing but chagrin to the Sigmar experience.

I think that would do quite the opposite: encouraging players to go all in top of t1. The roll off mechanism is actually mitigating the impact of alpha strike, esp alpha shooting, in the game, because the attacker is always risking getting doubled - even if the other side suffers heavy losses, he might crawl back into game with a double. With fixed turn order that risk is significantly lower.

[NauticalSoup]

56 minutes ago, Orkmann said:

I think that would do quite the opposite: encouraging players to go all in top of t1. The roll off mechanism is actually mitigating the impact of alpha strike, esp alpha shooting, in the game, because the attacker is always risking getting doubled - even if the other side suffers heavy losses, he might crawl back into game with a double. With fixed turn order that risk is significantly lower.

It's not mitigating it at all, it's making it much much much worse- in favour of the player going second. You're literally just increasing alpha strike potential of player 2 to greater than 1 had in the first place and saying 'there now it's mitigated'. Mitigated by risk of an EVEN BIGGER alpha strike lol

I've watched many, many games end at the top of turn 2 after a double-alpha out of the gate. 

[Orkmann]

1 hour ago, NauticalSoup said:

I've watched many, many games end at the top of turn 2 after a double-alpha out of the gate. 

That is a feel bad scenario indeed, but I dont think you appreciate how alpha strike armies operate. If the turn order is fixed, those will just take the turn, kill half your army and/or remove key pieces in the top of turn 1 and now your suddenly playing a 1200p army vs 2000. What are the odds that you can recover from that, without the chance of doubling your opponent? Very thin, I'd say.

[yukishiro1]

2 hours ago, NauticalSoup said:

It's not mitigating it at all, it's making it much much much worse- in favour of the player going second. You're literally just increasing alpha strike potential of player 2 to greater than 1 had in the first place and saying 'there now it's mitigated'. Mitigated by risk of an EVEN BIGGER alpha strike lol

I've watched many, many games end at the top of turn 2 after a double-alpha out of the gate. 

Yes and no. There is actually a problem here. With the double, player 1 strikes with their whole army, then player 2 strikes with 3/4s of their army twice. At the halfway point of T2, player 1 has had 1 army's worth of alpha, and player 2 has had 1.5 armies worth of alpha.

With no double, player 1 strikes with their whole army, player 2 strikes with 3/4s of their army, then player 1 strikes with 4/5s of their army. At the halfway point of T2, player 1 has struck with 1.8x their army, while player 2 has struck with only .75. This is substantially more uneven than the situation the double turn produces.

Where the double turn is really problematic is when you have an army that can't go in hard at the top of T1, because then giving away the turn has no real cost. Player 2 gets to alpha twice with their whole army. But just removing it rewards armies that can alpha hard at the top of T1.

It's a chicken and the egg sort of situation and just removing the double turn on its own or limiting it until T3 would arguably make the issue even worse without other changes. 

The biggest structural issue with AOS right now is not the double turn per se, it's the inability within the ruleset to hold back and mitigate your losses, because terrain does nothing substantial to mitigate damage, there is no cap on scoring so you have to try to score max points every round, and the best lists have power projection across the whole board in a single turn. If you could hold back and reduce the damage incoming to you substantially, the T1/T2 double turn would cease to be an issue as the player going first could just play it safe and make the player going second unable to do damage for at least the first half of the double. 

 

tl;dr The double turn works out ok if the player who goes first can go in hard with a strong T1 alpha strike (or accomplish something else significant, like boxing player 2 into their deployment zone with an alpha bunker list). Where it gets toxic is when the player taking first turn can't really do much going first. 

Edited February 3, 2022 by yukishiro1

[NauticalSoup]

11 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

based

I agree. The double turn mostly seems to obfuscate existing problems with the dumpster fire that is Sigmar balance.

19 minutes ago, Orkmann said:

That is a feel bad scenario indeed, but I dont think you appreciate how alpha strike armies operate. 

I play 3 alpha strike armies. How do you think I see so many games ending with an alpha? Turn orders don't fix this problem and it's not a good reason for either alternating or double (although IS an argument for true alternating activations).

Edited February 3, 2022 by NauticalSoup
punctuation

[JackStreicher]

On 2/2/2022 at 9:36 PM, Kasper said:

Half the SBGL army was gone turn 1.

Yeah, it’s also an SBGL problem though, they can’t handle high damage due to a lack of solid defenses/mw protection. They also don’t hit back that hard when you think about it  (so little rend, way too many tarpits, only two hammers in the book: VLoZD and Paper-Armour Guard)

[JackStreicher]

12 hours ago, Kadeton said:

Perhaps, as a demonstration, you could prove the inverse?

One example of a game with IGYG that did not invent double turns to fix their problems with the system: Chess, or any game apart from AoS really. It might be worth to think about that.

In a IGYG game you can actually plan ahead without the whole game being predictable. The ability to reliably plan ahead makes the tactical decisions meaningful. Making even this pivotal aspect random makes the whole game a gamble, nothing more (the outcome isn’t necessarily a gamble though).

Edited February 3, 2022 by JackStreicher

[yukishiro1]

I'm not sure there's really enough tactical depth in AOS to be entertaining without the RNG. Doesn't mean the RNG has to come as a double turn necessarily, but unless they substantially increase the depth of the game, I can see it becoming pretty easy to "talk out" games due to the limited number of variables if RNG doesn't play a large role. 

Which goes back to there not being enough ways to play the game. Because battle tactics are very easy to score and primary isn't capped, there are only two ways to play the game currently - go for max points every turn, or win by tabling your opponent early. Aside from very specific lists (the Phoenicium list that did well at LVO is a good example), there isn't really any way to play defensively in AOS currently, and that drastically reduces the tactical complexity. 

Edited February 3, 2022 by yukishiro1