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

[NinthMusketeer]

The double turn does add uncertainty--I am uncertain if I will get the double and auto-win with no effort or if I won't and actually have to play the game instead of it just giving me victory.

Edited January 28, 2022 by NinthMusketeer

[yukishiro1]

Let's try to avoid having the discussion degenerate into "ur bad if u don't like the dbl trn!11" vs "no ur bad if u do liek the dbl turn!!11," we have the whole rest of the internet for that. 😁

[Gailon]

Double turn adds variance to the game. While at the end of many games I can often point to huge rolls (a key charge, spell etc), the turn roll is often huge. As many people have pointed out, variance is the point. 
 

but I think it also serves another roll. This sounds more insulting than it is, but the turn roll is a personality filter. If you are so attached to winning your game of AoS that you cannot stand to relinquish so much power to a single roll, then maybe AoS isn’t for you. 
 

and I do not mean that in the ‘can’t handle a dumb rule? Then go home!’ way I know it sounds. I genuinely mean that different types enjoy different games in different ways. 
 

the rules of chess filter me out from playing chess. They have no variance outside player control. It makes for an intensity that means I will never play chess in more than the most casual way. 
 

that’s ok. The rules of chess aren’t ‘wrong’ because of it, and I’m not  a worse person. I just like more variance in my game. 
 

on the other side of the spectrum I haven’t played a game of ‘war’ since I was a child. It is 100% variance with no player choice. 
 

The number one asset that AoS has is the community and player base. And I am amazed at how much of this player base has a ‘I just want to roll some dice with some mates’ attitude about the game. A casual enjoyment to it. more than rules or models, GW relies on this community to help make the game fun. 
 

I think the double turn helps force a casual attitude to the game. You can’t be too emotionally attached  to a hyper competitive strategy because a super impactful moment may swing in a single roll. If that makes you so mad that you don’t want to play, then maybe don’t? 
 

there is nothing I can do to make my Saurus warriors win a tournament. I’m still painting up my 25 Saurus knights list. Because I enjoy playing it. And I will have no problem finding people to play me with equally janky lists. Because of the community of AoS. 
 

it is possible that the double turn just occasionally reminds people we’re here to have a laugh at the whims of fate over some cool models. 
 

I think I could give lots of examples of various experiences that speak to this point. I like the comparisons to mtg standard/modern vs mtg commander. One is competitive and relies on the game designers to carefully craft a competitive meta. The other is a casual format that relies on the community to police itself. 
 

Commander quickly became an insanely popular format for a reason.  
 

The double turn is high variance. Just like a bad draw on the river in poker it’s something that the best players more often than not overcome, but can be part of something that gives the underdog a puncher’s chance. 
 

We have all had disappointing turn rolls. And felt that moment of ‘if I’d got that turn then I’d have won.’  But I’d that ruins the whole experience for you….

and I know I’m ignoring the situation where a double turn leads to a blood bath  but that may be a matchup and power level imbalance that is beyond just the double turn  

 

[yukishiro1]

Not to to completely miss the point of what you wrote, but Saurus Knights can actually work in the right list. It's the regular Saurus that are truly hopeless. 🤓

I think there's something to what you wrote generally, but it's nothing that can't really fit into the general fact of rolling dice. I don't think one dice roll needs to be so massively important to do that; any dice game is always going to be less than totally cutthroat competitive. And there are probably better, more effective ways to cultivate a good sense of community than with the wargaming equivalent of "every once in a while we give someone a wedgie, because if you're the sort of person who can't handle a wedgie, you probably aren't going to be fun to hang out with anyway." 

Edited January 27, 2022 by yukishiro1

[Gailon]

1 hour ago, yukishiro1 said:

Not to to completely miss the point of what you wrote, but Saurus Knights can actually work in the right list. It's the regular Saurus that are truly hopeless. 🤓

I think there's something to what you wrote generally, but it's nothing that can't really fit into the general fact of rolling dice. I don't think one dice roll needs to be so massively important to do that; any dice game is always going to be less than totally cutthroat competitive. And there are probably better, more effective ways to cultivate a good sense of community than with the wargaming equivalent of "every once in a while we give someone a wedgie, because if you're the sort of person who can't handle a wedgie, you probably aren't going to be fun to hang out with anyway." 

I think that’s definitely fair, but there are just levels to that variance. I think of a game I played Seraphon against Nighthaunt that I lost to a 2-3 double turn AND several 10+ inch wave of terror charges. Thing is, he can almost never win that matchup without the double turn. The then roll is more variance and you don’t have to like more variance. But it does serve to filter out certain types of gamers. Just like any rule. I think there are a ton of analogies. When playing competitive Mario Kart with friends in college who all competed a lot we played without items. Less variance. 
 

I think the more competitive AoS players who want more balance and needs and tighter rules have to some acknowledgment that they are intruding on casual turf. If I take my janky nonsense deck to Friday night magic at my local shop then I will lose badly. But I can take my janky off meta list to play AoS and I fit in. It’s the person who brings the six Vanguard raptors who stands out. 
 

I think there are a lot of reasons for this dynamic. And concede it doesn’t exist everywhere. But I do feel like the double turn is a big flashing neon sign in the middle of the rules that says this isn’t to be taken too seriously. 

[NinthMusketeer]

Witnessed at LVO

[NinthMusketeer]

On 1/26/2022 at 9:09 PM, Gailon said:

Double turn adds variance to the game. While at the end of many games I can often point to huge rolls (a key charge, spell etc), the turn roll is often huge. As many people have pointed out, variance is the point. 
 

but I think it also serves another roll. This sounds more insulting than it is, but the turn roll is a personality filter. If you are so attached to winning your game of AoS that you cannot stand to relinquish so much power to a single roll, then maybe AoS isn’t for you. 
 

and I do not mean that in the ‘can’t handle a dumb rule? Then go home!’ way I know it sounds. I genuinely mean that different types enjoy different games in different ways. 
 

the rules of chess filter me out from playing chess. They have no variance outside player control. It makes for an intensity that means I will never play chess in more than the most casual way. 
 

that’s ok. The rules of chess aren’t ‘wrong’ because of it, and I’m not  a worse person. I just like more variance in my game. 
 

on the other side of the spectrum I haven’t played a game of ‘war’ since I was a child. It is 100% variance with no player choice. 
 

The number one asset that AoS has is the community and player base. And I am amazed at how much of this player base has a ‘I just want to roll some dice with some mates’ attitude about the game. A casual enjoyment to it. more than rules or models, GW relies on this community to help make the game fun. 
 

I think the double turn helps force a casual attitude to the game. You can’t be too emotionally attached  to a hyper competitive strategy because a super impactful moment may swing in a single roll. If that makes you so mad that you don’t want to play, then maybe don’t? 
 

there is nothing I can do to make my Saurus warriors win a tournament. I’m still painting up my 25 Saurus knights list. Because I enjoy playing it. And I will have no problem finding people to play me with equally janky lists. Because of the community of AoS. 
 

it is possible that the double turn just occasionally reminds people we’re here to have a laugh at the whims of fate over some cool models. 
 

I think I could give lots of examples of various experiences that speak to this point. I like the comparisons to mtg standard/modern vs mtg commander. One is competitive and relies on the game designers to carefully craft a competitive meta. The other is a casual format that relies on the community to police itself. 
 

Commander quickly became an insanely popular format for a reason.  
 

The double turn is high variance. Just like a bad draw on the river in poker it’s something that the best players more often than not overcome, but can be part of something that gives the underdog a puncher’s chance. 
 

We have all had disappointing turn rolls. And felt that moment of ‘if I’d got that turn then I’d have won.’  But I’d that ruins the whole experience for you….

and I know I’m ignoring the situation where a double turn leads to a blood bath  but that may be a matchup and power level imbalance that is beyond just the double turn  

 

This is the exact opposite of my issue. All I do is make sure to build my list for lower drops and bam, game variance drops considerably. Because I choose second and if I get a double that's it; game won with trivial effort and no need (or even opportunity) to practice my skills as a player.

My extreme distaste is driven not by the variance the double introduces, but by the variance is takes away. That remains true up to the highest levels of play. The arguments raised here are well reasoned and would be entirely valid, IF the double turn increased variance. But it does the opposite.

 

From a more practical perspective, have you tried introducing random initiative into chess? Did it improve the play experience?

Edited January 31, 2022 by NinthMusketeer

[Kasper]

3 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

From a more practical perspective, have you tried introducing random initiative into chess? Did it improve the play experience?

You dont have burning an objective, stackable buffs until your next hero phase etc. in chess though. Its a weird comparison.

[Kadeton]

7 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

From a more practical perspective, have you tried introducing random initiative into chess? Did it improve the play experience?

Would any of AoS' gambling mechanics improve chess? I try to capture your Queen with my Bishop, but I roll badly and he doesn't do enough damage, then she kills him instead. Winning and losing at the whim of fate is utterly alien to chess, but it's the core foundation of AoS.

Adding random initiative may not improve the experience, but do you know what it would do to chess? It would make the outcome far less predictable from any given position. Just like it does in AoS.

[yukishiro1]

Chess isn't asymmetric (except for who goes first, which produces the biggest problem with the game competitively). I think there is something to the idea that a lot of the RNG in wargames is designed to compensate for the fact that the two forces typically aren't balanced and therefore to introduce some reason why the stronger side doesn't just win. 

Now that doesn't mean this particular kind of extreme RNG is good game design, mind you. But just because it wouldn't improve chess doesn't mean it's a bad idea to have in a wargame. 

[NinthMusketeer]

Alright let's expand it out; has anyone tried house ruling random initiative into another igougo game? Did it improve the experience? Is there any demand for a similar mechanic, anywhere else?

Because I see a mechanic that is not only keeping players out of the game but one that is deeply unpopular even among the existing community that puts up with it. Supporters commonly claim AoS is better for having the double, I say prove it.

[NinthMusketeer]

7 hours ago, Kasper said:

You dont have burning an objective, stackable buffs until your next hero phase etc. in chess though. Its a weird comparison.

So the argument is those factors change random initiative from a bad addition to a good one?

[Kadeton]

4 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

Alright let's expand it out; has anyone tried house ruling random initiative into another igougo game? Did it improve the experience? Is there any demand for a similar mechanic, anywhere else?

Because I see a mechanic that is not only keeping players out of the game but one that is deeply unpopular even among the existing community that puts up with it. Supporters commonly claim AoS is better for having the double, I say prove it.

That's a more interesting question. Unfortunately I can't help you there - every other wargame I play already uses non-fixed initiative, because their turns are structured around alternating activations.

Removing IGOUGO would be much better for the game than removing random initiative.

[Kasper]

4 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

Supporters commonly claim AoS is better for having the double, I say prove it.

But I am doing that, because I do play with the priority mechanic. I like it. Thats why I play with it. Maybe you should play 10ish games without it and get a feeling for how the game is, knowingly you can never get double turned? I have, and thats why I play with it now.

 

4 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

So the argument is those factors change random initiative from a bad addition to a good one?

My point is the comparison is weird because there are multiple mechanics in AoS that support the priority mechanic and can cause you to give the turn away. The correct play is often to not take the double turn. 

[NinthMusketeer]

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 have played tons of games with and without the double. Every close game I have had would have been ruined if someone had gotten a double. Comparatively I can count on one hand the number of times I've gotten a 1-2 double and lost. All four times it was because I made a critical error against an opponent savvy enough to exploit it. I show up to PLAY a game, not have an involuntary cheat code slapped on for automatic victory.

 

Though one of the worst parts is the look on players faces as they are left helpless and more or less out of the game while the opponent rips them apart. That sort of resigned depression.

Edited February 1, 2022 by NinthMusketeer

[Skreech Verminking]

The only time a double turn seems to be healthy, is when the skaven player somehow manages to get one.

After all we can’t forget that those warplightning cannons cpuld kill-kill themself in the next turn😂.

as for the rest of the existing armies, they don’t have enough randomly determined damage dealing rules, that could backfire.

 

Edited February 1, 2022 by Skreech Verminking

[Wordy9th]

9 hours ago, 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 have played tons of games with and without the double. Every close game I have had would have been ruined if someone had gotten a double. Comparatively I can count on one hand the number of times I've gotten a 1-2 double and lost. All four times it was because I made a critical error against an opponent savvy enough to exploit it. I show up to PLAY a game, not have an involuntary cheat code slapped on for automatic victory.

 

Though one of the worst parts is the look on players faces as they are left helpless and more or less out of the game while the opponent rips them apart. That sort of resigned depression.

Sitting and watching your second place army get double turned by dragon breath is pretty lame for sure. 

I do enjoy the double turn and you see its magic in many matchups, overall I would keep it. Huge caveat though and rant warning; there's a few factors which make it REALLY bad for enjoyable experiences. Like the example above, factors like double tapping your mortal wound output shooting removes so many interactive elements of the game (Save stacking, posistioning etc) that it's almost toxic. Also being able to have spam lists of so many of these guys plays a part.

There are inherent parts of the game which make things problematic and the double turn compounds it. Take longstrikes for example. A recent game I had had mannfredd and a Vlozd turn 1 shot off the board, which is bad enough but to be fair they're expensive so sure have great output. My real bugbear is how when charging these guys they get to shoot again, and even worse, somehow can shoot while in melee with those great big balistas with zero malus. 

With a double that's 3 turns of shooting before the other player even gets to do damage to them. That shouldn't be a possibility. 

You can see the benefit of the double turns in so many games with non-janky lists, its just when the other less well designed aspects of the game come to the fore that it becomes a real NPE.

 

[Orkmann]

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. 

[yukishiro1]

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. 

Edited February 1, 2022 by yukishiro1

[Marcvs]

42 minutes ago, 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. 

I like the ide of linking the objective removal (or really any other positive effect) to being doubled. The other option, without other complementary changes, would provide a big incentive to playing low drops alpha strike armies

[zilberfrid]

17 hours ago, Kadeton said:

That's a more interesting question. Unfortunately I can't help you there - every other wargame I play already uses non-fixed initiative, because their turns are structured around alternating activations.

Removing IGOUGO would be much better for the game than removing random initiative.

I think this might change things quite a lot, it would also prevent not being able to play for two turns.

[Lord Krungharr]

Just so people know, I've been beaten by a Saurus Knight army 3 times!  My Blades of Khorne, Beasts of Chaos, and Ogor Gutbusters could not pull the wins.  I've sold all of them now (have Fyreslayers and Dispossessed Cities, and Bonesplitterz now, should fare much much better   )

[yukishiro1]

2 hours ago, Marcvs said:

The other option, without other complementary changes, would provide a big incentive to playing low drops alpha strike armies

For sure. But you can't tackle one without tackling the other. The reason we have such strong alpha strike in AOS is because of the double. It's a chicken and the egg sort of thing.

And to be clear, I don't think they should keep fixed turn priority T1. It's a terrible mechanic and should 100% go away and be replaced with a straight-up roll-off after deployment instead. There should be risks to deploying all your stuff going all-in on going first or second, and right now there just aren't as long as you're lower drop. Alpha potential would naturally be tuned down if you have to deploy in a way that works for going both first and second. And it would also mean everybody gets to play with more enhancements, which means more interesting and varied lists. 

Battle Regiment could then become something that allows the units in it to deploy after all non-Battle Reg units deploy. Still has value, but it's no longer the obvious choice, and it becomes viable to mix it in with just a couple units if you have a few key pieces you want the chance to drop after you see where your opponent drops their stuff. 

Edited February 1, 2022 by yukishiro1

[Ganigumo]

18 hours ago, 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 have played tons of games with and without the double. Every close game I have had would have been ruined if someone had gotten a double. Comparatively I can count on one hand the number of times I've gotten a 1-2 double and lost. All four times it was because I made a critical error against an opponent savvy enough to exploit it. I show up to PLAY a game, not have an involuntary cheat code slapped on for automatic victory.

 

Though one of the worst parts is the look on players faces as they are left helpless and more or less out of the game while the opponent rips them apart. That sort of resigned depression.

IMO Aos 3 went way too hard in giving the player going second free stuff. Just the potential double turn was probably enough, but now the player going second:

1. Controls the flow of the turns, only the player going second can get a double turn
2. gets extra Command points
3. has powerful reactive command abilities
4. can remove objectives on many battleplans on the most crucial turn

They definitely shifted the balance towards second turn being more powerful, especially since most alpha strike armies have fallen out of favor.

[pnkdth]

19 hours ago, 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 have played tons of games with and without the double. Every close game I have had would have been ruined if someone had gotten a double. Comparatively I can count on one hand the number of times I've gotten a 1-2 double and lost. All four times it was because I made a critical error against an opponent savvy enough to exploit it. I show up to PLAY a game, not have an involuntary cheat code slapped on for automatic victory.

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?

 

Edited February 1, 2022 by pnkdth