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

[Enoby]

1 hour ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I definitely believe that strategy games are better if the strength of alpha strikes is mitigated in some way. In AoS, the double turn serves that function. However, I think there are other designs could do it better, particularly because of what some people in this thread have mentioned

I do think you've raised some good points, and I wonder if simultaneous casualties would help mitigate this to an extent; I think this may have been an apocalypse rule. 

So, from memory, how it worked was that you attack with a unit, tally up the damage it caused (but don't apply it yet), and then attack with the opposing unit (again tallying up the damage but not applying). After everyone has attacked, you apply the damage and take away casualties. I'm not sure how this worked with shooting, but it may be that shooting phases were simultaneous too.

I think this was added to save time, but it is an effective countermeasure against alpha strikes.  It does come with its own issues, in that there's less reward for tactics (because it's bound to be a bloodbath on both sides unless you can pre-emptively debuff an opponent), but it does get rid of the issue where your favourite units are put back in the box without doing anything at all. 

I don't think it's a perfect solution, but it's something I'd want to try in AoS, just to see how it feels. I can see some potential issues developing, especially when it comes to greater tactical input (perhaps the unit that strikes first should get a bonus to give some reason to do it) and certain abilities no longer working (though I think they did have a rule that strike first did cause casualties before the strike back), but I think it'd remove the risk of melee alpha strike altogether. 

[Beliman]

35 minutes ago, Enoby said:

So, from memory, how it worked was that you attack with a unit, tally up the damage it caused (but don't apply it yet), and then attack with the opposing unit (again tallying up the damage but not applying). After everyone has attacked, you apply the damage and take away casualties. I'm not sure how this worked with shooting, but it may be that shooting phases were simultaneous too.

That's really easy to do for the Combat Phase: Remove 13.3.1 Allocate Wounds  from the Attack Sequence (only for the Combat Phase) and write a new sub-phase at the end (after strike last) of the Combat Phase (12.0).

Shooting is a bit tricky because there are armies that doesn't have any shooting and the Ranged Phase doesn't use Alternative Activations like the Combat one. Changing the Shooting Phase to be like the Combat Phase could work, but it will change the meta in to something a lot more shooty, and that's something that I don't want to see (before you ask, I'm a KO player).

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

8 minutes ago, Beliman said:

Shooting is a bit tricky because there are armies that doesn't have any shooting and the Ranged Phase doesn't use Alternative Activations like the Combat one. Changing the Shooting Phase to be like the Combat Phase could work, but it will change the meta in to something a lot more shooty, and that's something that I don't want to see (before you ask, I'm a KO player).

That would depend on how it is implemented: If you allow all shooting units to shoot in both your and your opponent's shooting phase, then yes. If you are only allowed to return fire to opposing units that have already shot, then not necessarily.

[RuneBrush]

1 hour ago, Enoby said:

I'm not sure how this worked with shooting, but it may be that shooting phases were simultaneous too.

I had it in my head that in Apoc pretty much everything was simultaneous and you just resolved damage at the end of the round after both players had finished.  I reckon alternating phases and resolving damage in one block would make a pretty brutal turn one and two 😂

[JackStreicher]

  

9 minutes ago, Cdance93 said:

I'm sorry but thats not a valid argument either in my opinion because the double is for both players, more often than not both will get one and it will benefit both. Sometimes it doesn't happen but its better than sitting there turn 3 with no hope of winning because of fixed turn order.

Nice, so both players have to wait an hour each not doing much? Please reconsider.
I know minus and minus is plus, but this isn't a case where this applies. You are thinking in game terms I am thinking in boredom turns and DTs add lots of boredom since passiveness isn't very enticing.

 

  

3 minutes ago, Clan's Cynic said:

My problem with Double Turn is that it's been the quickest way to turn people off the game. You mention it to potential new players and you can see the interest drain from their face once they're reminded it exists.

It's continued inclusion also feels antithetical to AoS being pushed as more of a casual, relaxed, easier-to-get-into game; people will list those features and then with the next breath insist that Double Turn is awesome because it's this super in-depth tactical mechanic you always need to be worried about and playing against ahead of time and you'll get used to it after playing the game for ages. 

Jup, and in truth it doesn't change anything except adding NPE to the game. But there'll always be the "git gud" argument, which as we all know always holds sway and is nothing but the truth.

Edited March 21 by JackStreicher

[Cdance93]

5 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

  

Nice, so both players have to wait an hour each not doing much? Please reconsider.
I know minus and minus is plus, but this isn't a case where this applies. You are thinking in game terms I am thinking in boredom turns and DTs add lots of boredom since passiveness isn't very enticing.

 

  

Jup, and in truth it doesn't change anything except adding NPE to the game. But there'll always be the "git gud" argument, which as we all know always holds sway and is nothing but the truth.

"You'll have to see my second point where I explain why I dont beleive that you're "just sitting there". If you're bored during a double turn you're not doing it right tbh. But of course this is personal opinion"

Just to carry over from the rumor thread! nothing added.

I think it can feel NPE sometimes but it can also feel awesome - its part of what I think makes AOS AOS, otherwise its a fantasy clone of 40k in many ways

[JackStreicher]

49 minutes ago, Cdance93 said:

I think it can feel NPE sometimes but it can also feel awesome - its part of what I think makes AOS AOS, otherwise its a fantasy clone of 40k in many ways

that part is subjective. To me it is just annoying and nonsense. To me it makes AoS an inferior game.

In simple logical terms: The person getting a double turn always has some kind of advantage for being able to move twice. Let's assume the other person doesn't get a double turn, or is even double turned twice:
So how the game better if one person gets an unfair advantage?

While one person might have fun with the double turn another person doesn't - the trade off isn't worth it. Games should keep both players engaged for the whole time.

[Sarouan]

53 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

 Games should keep both players engaged for the whole time.

That's why they said they're introducing more interacting toys for both players in each of their turns in 4th.

Like it or not, Double Turn is one of AoS' exclusive features. There's no other game system that has it. Makes sense they want to keep it while trying to make it more fun.

[JackStreicher]

Just now, Sarouan said:

Like it or not, Double Turn is one of AoS' exclusive features.

It is but that doesn’t make it good, required, sensible or good design.

[Sarouan]

Just now, JackStreicher said:

It is but that doesn’t make it good, required, sensible or good design.

Subjective matter here. A game is a game, rules are just a tool and any feature is good as long as people have fun with it. You may think it's not good / required / sensible, but that just means maybe the game isn't made for you. Plenty of people play with it, deal with it and may even enjoy it.

As for how it will work in 4th...only when we'll have the full rules will we know. I feel like it's a bit too soon to state it will be bad with the few information we have on it right now.

[Satyrical Sophist]

1 hour ago, JackStreicher said:

that part is subjective. To me it is just annoying and nonsense. To me it makes AoS an inferior game.

In simple logical terms: The person getting a double turn always has some kind of advantage for being able to move twice. Let's assume the other person doesn't get a double turn, or is even double turned twice:
So how the game better if one person gets an unfair advantage?

While one person might have fun with the double turn another person doesn't - the trade off isn't worth it. Games should keep both players engaged for the whole time.

Getting double turned twice has relatively few ways to happen. Most possible double turns would be each player getting two double turns. It’s possible for one player to get two double turns and another only one, but I don’t think it’s possible for one player to get 2 double turns and another to get no double turns. I’ve also typed double so many times it no longer looks like a word.

The big problem with removing the double turn for me is that I don’t think the game functions without it. Without the double turn it’s much easier to work out threat ranges.

That hammer unit that can’t run and charge? If your unit is more than M+12 away you know that they cannot get into combat with you before you get another chance to move and shoot yourself. The screen you have in front of you will definitely give you enough time to reposition or move another screening unit into its place before the enemy can do anything about it.
Picture something like seraphon throwing skink screens, or KO knowing that they can safely drop a bus load of shooting down having carefully measured that you will not be able to reach them, and they get a turn to move afterwards, no matter what.

Any of the death armies would be guaranteed to have a hero phase to heal up loses before being hit again.

Now, I know 40K doesn’t have the double turn, but what it does have is a lot more shooting, which means a lot more ranged interaction to counter some of this stuff.

 

[NauticalSoup]

1 hour ago, Sarouan said:

Like it or not, Double Turn is one of AoS' exclusive features. 

I think I would replace the term "exclusive feature" with "sacred cow".

It's an albatross around the game's neck. All the downsides of IGOUGO and a few extras thrown in for good measure.

[Sarouan]

51 minutes ago, NauticalSoup said:

I think I would replace the term "exclusive feature" with "sacred cow".

It's an albatross around the game's neck. All the downsides of IGOUGO and a few extras thrown in for good measure.

It's not "sacred cow". It's the same thing than Warcry using dice to determine the ressources each turn for using special abilities, instead of a fixed number like command points. It's not really necessary, but the whole game system is built around it and that's what makes Warcry unique in comparison to other skirmish games. It lead to specific tactics / uses you can't see in other games because this feature doesn't exist in them. That's part of the game, and part of the fun...if your mind is open to it.

Indeed, you may not find "fun" in that mechanism in itself as personnal taste, and that's fine. Games have rules, you don't need to like them - but you need to agree to use them when you play the same game with someone else. That's how games work : social contract by following the same game rules together, they're not "good" or "bad" in themselves. They're just rules.

Some love IGOUGO, other despise them. Not all games are meant for everyone. It's always a personnal taste, and there is no perfect game system to please them all. But there are popular games played by a lot of people...and more often than not, the rules themselves don't really matter in that popularity. After all, a game can have the stupidest, most arbitrary rules ever and still loved dearily by its players, simply because they enjoy the time playing it with others.

[Bosskelot]

The whole of AOS is hardly built around the double turn, sorry.

You could remove it and the game would still function perfectly fine.

[Cdance93]

7 minutes ago, Bosskelot said:

The whole of AOS is hardly built around the double turn, sorry.

You could remove it and the game would still function perfectly fine.

Sure it could function fine but it wouldn't be as good of a game. AoS 1 functioned - but it was terrible!

[Satyrical Sophist]

35 minutes ago, Bosskelot said:

The whole of AOS is hardly built around the double turn, sorry.

You could remove it and the game would still function perfectly fine.

A few comments up I list a few things I think would go terribly wrong without the double turn.  I’m curious as to your thoughts on them.

[Bosskelot]

17 hours ago, Satyrical Sophist said:

A few comments up I list a few things I think would go terribly wrong without the double turn.  I’m curious as to your thoughts on them.

It's amazing how 40k can have armies that are purely melee with little to no actual shooting who can manage to solve these hurdles perfectly fine, and also has armies that can heal and rez and also function perfectly fine too.

[Beliman]

23 hours ago, Sarouan said:

There's no other game system that has it

Not true. Most of the games that I play have a double-turn system (Malifaux, Conquest, ASOIAF, etc...). The main problem is most of them use a core-system compatible enough that people doesn't feel bad when it happens (e.g: Alternative Activations).

Edited March 22 by Beliman

[Sarouan]

  

21 hours ago, Bosskelot said:

The whole of AOS is hardly built around the double turn, sorry.

You could remove it and the game would still function perfectly fine.

And you could remove initiative dice from Warcry and it would still function perfectly fine. But it would still need adjustments gamewise, be it in the core rules, battletomes or simply scenarios. Simply put : it wouldn't be the same game anymore because like it or not, it's part of the core rules.

Change the rules, change the social contract. And that's where the trouble begins when players don't agree on the rules to use. That's why it's always difficult to make other people accept your "fan made "rules that you think are so awesome and improve the game so much...they're not you, they don't necessarily see it the same way than you.

1 hour ago, Beliman said:

Not true. Most of the games that I play have a double-turn system (Malifaux, Conquest, ASOIAF, etc...). The main problem is most of them use a core-system compatible enough that people doesn't feel bad when it happens (e.g: Alternative Activations).

Like you said : they don't have the same mechanisms. Alternative Activation isn't IGOUGO, and I hardly call that "Double Turn" when said turn talks about simply activation of the same unit twice between 2 turns. It's merely "Double Activation".

Words are important, don't try to compare apples with oranges.

 

The true question about Double Turn isn't "is it good or not ?" but rather "do I want to play with that rule ?". Because the rule can be played and can be enjoyed, if you are open to it. But if, from the start before even playing, you don't want to use it (because of many things, one of such being game ideology or another way to describe it : how you see what a "good game" should be), then your mind is closed and you can only have a negative opinion of it. And you miss all the opportunites to play with it, including all the strategies and tactics you can use with said mechanism in play.

That's why I understand GW wanting to give more toys to play with it in 4th. From a certain point of view, some may say it's useless because they simply don't want to play with it. But these people don't understand that it's part of AoS, it's part of the game, and wanting to remove it simply means it's a whole other game they want to play. It's fine, but know what you really want and don't try to force AoS fans enjoying Double Turn to think they're wrong in enjoying Double Turn.

Edited March 22 by Sarouan

[Beliman]

I partly agree with @Sarouan but...

1 hour ago, Sarouan said:

Like you said : they don't have the same mechanisms. Alternative Activation isn't IGOUGO, and I hardly call that "Double Turn" when said turn talks about simply activation of the same unit twice between 2 turns. It's merely "Double Activation".

Words are important, don't try to compare apples with oranges.

To me, that's the impact of a double turn in an IGOUGO vs AA game. It's exactly the same mechanis (rolling to see who starts each battleround, doesn't matter if that makes a double-turn or not), but the diference is how impactful and synergetic is to the main core mechanics of the game.

In an IGOUGO game, it has a higher impact than in an AA game. That's exactly my point, this mechanic is not exclusive to AoS, but it feels more impactful and punishing.

GW seems to aknowledge that there are some problems with this mechanic, that's why we saw some rules to reduce the effectiveness of a double-turn like command points, and Matt Rose talked in the last preview about giving more reaction commands and interactivities in your opponents turn. That's exactly what I want to see if the double-turn must stay in AoS, enough tools to minimize it's impact (not like an AA, but you get the point).

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

[Skreech Verminking]

On 3/21/2024 at 4:34 PM, Sarouan said:

That's why they said they're introducing more interacting toys for both players in each of their turns in 4th.

Like it or not, Double Turn is one of AoS' exclusive features. There's no other game system that has it. Makes sense they want to keep it while trying to make it more fun.

Actually there is.

that game is called a somg of ice and fire.

although there is a huge difference to the way aos plays.

Instead of the player having an entire turn.

The player who goes first can choose a unit that will make an action, then the opponent gets to choose a unit with which he can make an action and etc.

as soon as all unit had their turn a roll off will determine who goes first next

[Skreech Verminking]

I’ve played a lot of games in aos.

i’ve heard of so many people that it has a tactical meaning behind it, yet every game I so far had (and believe me I’ve played against tournament players, i take part at events or have at least so this is definitely not a part of the fame I’m lacking in) I haven’t yet once seen that so called tactical thinking people claim it has. If you get the double turn you just take it.

sure an army that is currently having a disadvantage could maybe keep up with the currently more powerful army if it gets that double turn, yet from the few hundred of games I have seen, this came up once.

if an army that is already a lot stronger then you gets the double turn. You can just stop playing. Even tournament players struggle against an army that is stronger than theirs if it gets a double turn.

Personally I’m not a fan of the double turn as it currently stands.

There’s no real flaw-back for taking the double turn Or a reason to ignore it.

and as long as that’s the case I don’t believe the double turn is a great part of the game.

does this mean the double turn should go?

well as ling as it give the player taking the double turn no disadvantage I think its something that should be just ignored.

But considering what gw wrote, I’ll wait till I have seen the new glorious or devilish plan-sheme gw has for the double turn in 4.0.

 

[Bosskelot]

The other issue with adding more and more reactive moves to units to account for a double turn is that it also adds onto the total amount of activations being made which in turn adds onto how long the game takes to play.

In an AA game your reaction to your opponent moving their stuff first is just that; it's you activating your units as a reaction to what they did. In 40k and AOS with their reactive rules you are doing a reactive move ON TOP OF your regular movement, or a reactive shooting attack on top of your regular shooting. This might be fine if such moves weren't so easily accessible and in some cases very spammable. But restricting them too much also goes against GW's ideal to have the other player on the receiving end of a double get more moves so they're not just sitting their for 40 minutes with their finger up their ass.

[Gailon]

On 3/22/2024 at 10:35 AM, Skreech Verminking said:

I’ve played a lot of games in aos.

i’ve heard of so many people that it has a tactical meaning behind it, yet every game I so far had (and believe me I’ve played against tournament players, i take part at events or have at least so this is definitely not a part of the fame I’m lacking in) I haven’t yet once seen that so called tactical thinking people claim it has. If you get the double turn you just take it.

sure an army that is currently having a disadvantage could maybe keep up with the currently more powerful army if it gets that double turn, yet from the few hundred of games I have seen, this came up once.

if an army that is already a lot stronger then you gets the double turn. You can just stop playing. Even tournament players struggle against an army that is stronger than theirs if it gets a double turn.

Personally I’m not a fan of the double turn as it currently stands.

There’s no real flaw-back for taking the double turn Or a reason to ignore it.

and as long as that’s the case I don’t believe the double turn is a great part of the game.

does this mean the double turn should go?

well as ling as it give the player taking the double turn no disadvantage I think its something that should be just ignored.

But considering what gw wrote, I’ll wait till I have seen the new glorious or devilish plan-sheme gw has for the double turn in 4.0.

 

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. 

[Tonhel]

I only play in a small group, a casual friendly group. And ofcourse we want to win, but having fun is the most important part of the evening. When it's time for a priority roll. We all hope to win the priority roll so we can go first / have the double turn.

There is nothing tactical about it. It's always an advantage to have the double turn. It's a big shame that it is still there. Certainly when they are going the index route.