Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So my friend and I just realized after our 4rth game that the players roll for initiative EACH battle round. So it would be very common for a player to go 2nd on the 1st battle round and then 1st on the second battle round. Basically giving a player the ability to have 2 turns in a row when the other player has had only 1.

For certain magic heavy or shooty heavy armies this seems kind of broken. I couldn't find any threads on this so maybe its not a big deal? Has anyone felt this rule has had any major impact on the outcome of the game from a balance perspective?

This is why a lot of comps remove that rule.

its never been a big deal in any game I've played. In fact when it came down to the end rounds of the game it made for a major contributor to weather or not one side won or lost. If I'm on the verge of completing my objecting for winning the game that roll determines if I have to hold out through another round of combat. It can make the game very nail-biting. When you both roll the same number 3 times in a row it gets very electric for that next roll.

As for "is it fair?" that's a matter of opinion. You are just as likely to get a back to back turn as your opponent is. It doesn't really unbalance the game in any way

Me and my buds use fixed initiative order; the problem is that single 4+ roll can outweigh the combined importance of every other roll in a turn. We have seen games where instead of playing the players might as well have just flipped a coin, because a double-turn was so game-breaking. It also skews the meta heavily in favor of magic and shooting armies.

Ive found it can hurt and help going back to back.

I go second cast buff spell that lasts till my next hero. Next turn i go first. Buff wears off, i recast and fail. Then proceed to get slaughtered in melee.....its happened almost every game. Lol

Or

High wound unit survives your back to back turn and is then healed

Sigh....

We are going to try it next game and see how it plays out. I play a shooty army, dwarfs, and he will be playing seraphon which will be summoning heavy. I think it can potentially really swing the tide of the game for either of us depending on the situation and point in time of the game.

We were both surprised we never noticed it all this time.

I think it's one of the best parts of the game and changes a lot about how you think about the game. I'm glad SCGT leave it in and think leaving it will be the norm as time goes on and the old ways are forgotten.

It is neither here nor there. I may help or hurt.

What it definitely does do is make the game more exciting and fun. So good (in game design terms) in a game where fun in the priority (e.g. AoS) bad in games where winning and balance is a priority. (e.g KoW).

 DarkBlack wrote:
It is neither here nor there. I may help or hurt.

What it definitely does do is make the game more exciting and fun. So good (in game design terms) in a game where fun in the priority (e.g. AoS) bad in games where winning and balance is a priority. (e.g KoW).

Very good observation. My friend and I play for fun but we are both very competitive at the same time, so it will be interesting to see this mechanic in action.

 DarkBlack wrote:
It is neither here nor there. I may help or hurt.

What it definitely does do is make the game more exciting and fun. So good (in game design terms) in a game where fun in the priority (e.g. AoS) bad in games where winning and balance is a priority. (e.g KoW).

That reads like a very passive-aggressive jab at anyone who disagrees with you being focused on 'winning' instead of 'fun'. I don't have much fun when the initiative roll becomes a 4+ check to see if we keep playing or if someone gets a double-turn and the game is over.

DarkBlack wrote:What it definitely does do is make the game more exciting and fun. So good (in game design terms) in a game where fun in the priority (e.g. AoS) bad in games where winning and balance is a priority. (e.g KoW).

What it also does is pretty convincingly remove the element of Strategy from AOS games. This isn't necessarily a bad thing - I'd argue many GW games don't have a ton of Strategy (higher level planning) anyway and instead dwell in the level of Tactics (reactive "on the ground" decisions as conflict unfolds), with some notable exceptions (BFG & Epic come to mind) - but it can be a little disheartening if that's what you come to the game for. Like DB says, you might be in the wrong place in that case - afterall AOS is solidly in the Randomhammer camp of design

coldgaming wrote:I think it's one of the best parts of the game and changes a lot about how you think about the game. I'm glad SCGT leave it in and think leaving it will be the norm as time goes on and the old ways are forgotten.

I actually kind of hate it, but the fact that SCGT has kept it means I've continued to use it. Honestly it hasn't really broken a game for me yet, one way or the other. Most often the turn order ends up maintained by the dice! Or both sides get double turns at one time or another (though clearly early double turn is better).

Rezyn wrote:So my friend and I just realized after our 4rth game that the players roll for initiative EACH battle round. So it would be very common for a player to go 2nd on the 1st battle round and then 1st on the second battle round. Basically giving a player the ability to have 2 turns in a row when the other player has had only 1.

When I play a new or less experienced AOS player, I explain that Internet Wisdom says you should go second, as it has an infinitely higher change of getting a double turn than going first (0% vs 50%). And then I usually go first and skull cannon the living hell out of whatever was jonesing for that double turn

- Salvage

 Boss Salvage wrote:
And then I usually go first and skull cannon the living hell out of whatever was jonesing for that double turn

- Salvage

Call off the search folks, we've found someone with skull cannons that can hit a barn at 10 paces!

 DarkBlack wrote:
It is neither here nor there. I may help or hurt.

What it definitely does do is make the game more exciting and fun. So good (in game design terms) in a game where fun in the priority (e.g. AoS) bad in games where winning and balance is a priority. (e.g KoW).

If you find complete randomness fun, sure then it's amazing.

Also, fun and competitiveness are not mutually exclusive. Just sayin'

We like it. After many games of AoS it's something I'm glad they did. Also good to see SCGT keep it in with their ethos on house rules.

I kinda hated it at first, but have found it something you can definitely play with an eye towards. I've played games where I purposely gave the other player the double turn because I didn't think they could capitalize on it, and it would put me in the driver seat/power position for following turns. Sometimes great, sometimes backfired badly!

I would definitely recommend trying games with the every turn priority roll if you haven't already done so. There's definitely some game-space to be explored there.

I like it! There was some SCGT coverage talking about what it means at high level play - once you've scored that double turn, you have to play the second of those turns, and every following turn, in anticipation of your opponent being able to then score a double turn. It can make for some tough decisions and gambles.

The problem me and my friends have had is that the first double turn is devastating enough that the opponent getting one after that has little chance of tipping the balance. But then we value a much tighter balance than many.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The problem me and my friends have had is that the first double turn is devastating enough that the opponent getting one after that has little chance of tipping the balance. But then we value a much tighter balance than many.

And that's the way the cookie crumbles.

And the other player having the double turn is not even a guarantee since, you know, dice.

Only times I've found double-turn a game breaker have been situations where units 'deep struck' to claim victory at the last minute without warning.
All we did was add "so, what's in your case?" to the pre-game chat list, so you at least know what might happen.

I also didn't like it at first but then came to really enjoy it after actually playing it a bunch of times.

It really changes your tactics against armies like Bretonnians. In the past you could anticipate when their charges are going to be made and move accordingly. Now midfield is a riskier proposition, which for me makes those dang knights much more dangerous, and fun to play.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The problem me and my friends have had is that the first double turn is devastating enough that the opponent getting one after that has little chance of tipping the balance. But then we value a much tighter balance than many.

But technically, if you give up the first turn, then you prevent an opponents double turn next.

If your opponent gives up his first turn to try to get a double turn next, then you have the advantage of the first turn.

It all balances out, just not the way we were used to.


Edit - Are you referring to predictability rather than balance?

He was referring to the first time someone has a double turn, not necessarily one that happens in the first battle round of the game.

Not exactly, because the player who goes first is unlikely to get any melee attacks, or even all of their ranged attacks in most shooting weapons have relatively short ranges. So the first player moves forward, allowing the second player to get more attacks off. All well and good if the first player goes first again because then he can charge or whatnot, but if the second player wins initiative then he gets another round of shooting and has a strong potential for picking his charges as well. The counter to this is for the first player to bring more shooting so he doesn't need to move forward as much, which in turn is best countered by even more shooting, etc. The double-turn thus creates a meta that favors shooting because if the initiative alternates then the match is still fair, but if the biggest shooter gets a double turn its a significant advantage while the same thing is not nearly as advantageous for the melee player.

What I've tended to find in my games is that player A tends to take a pasting early doors, then player B gets smacked, then game only really gets decided late phase.
Can't really offer an explanation why, but I've been enjoying it...

I've found the double turns ironic both ways, this has happened in a few of my games

Turn 1
Player A (elves move up)
Player B (nurgle move up)

Turn 2
Player B (nurgles move and charge and fail to do serious damage)
Player A (elves full turn attacking)

Turn 3
Player A (elves have full round again and decimate nurgle)
Player B (nurgle try and survive)

And I've had it work the other way too, what I thought would be guaranteed victory having back to back turns turned into massive losses in the combat phases.

Shrug, I feel like if your not mix maxing the game the turn structure can be exciting. I can see where it could end up totally broken too, ymmv

Got our first game in post-realization of this and low and behold no one got double turns. LOL

I was against rolling for initiative at first but after playing it and listening to some other peoples thoughts on it I find it enjoyable now. It makes you really think your own moves out more as you have to gamble on the opponent or you getting those back to back turns. The first turn if they get it it really sucks but mid game it is a blast thinking of going aggressive or defensive, and with my rats being so easy to kill this always puts me on edge, love that rush!

I think roll-for-initiative would be better if it was only in the second half of the game.

I have no real problem with it, but I do wish they had gone with something similar to the LotR route; when rolling for priority, if the dice come up tied the player without priority last turn got it this turn. This would probably unbalance the game seeing as AoS does not have integrated turns like LotR does, so I would probably go the opposite. In the case of a tie, the player who went first last round does so again this round. Double turns would still be a risk, but not nearly as much as now.

That all said, I've only played a half dozen games, and I've been steamrolled every one, so I may not be the best qualified...

The alternating initiative is imo one of the best aspects of the game--for strategy, immersion and fun. Like a battle, you never know what's going to happen if the enemy is faster than you. So much more tactical depth than 8th imo, now having played so many games of AoS.