Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/10 22:55:45


Post by: drbored


The double-turn mechanic in AoS is pretty controversial. Some, like MiniWarGaming, have gotten rid of the double-turn mechanic in their batreps, claiming it was ruining more batreps than it was helping.

What's your feeling, and now this late into the game, do you play with random turns, or have you decided to set that rule aside?


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/11 02:44:43


Post by: ccs


Some of the people I play with hate it. Some like it. Some insist on using it because "It's part of the rules!"
Me? I'm fine with it either way.

So I just leave it to my opponent to decide if it's used or not.

If we don't use it, then we simply roll off each round to see who moves the 1st endless spell.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/11 05:43:01


Post by: drbored


ccs wrote:
Some of the people I play with hate it. Some like it. Some insist on using it because "It's part of the rules!"
Me? I'm fine with it either way.

So I just leave it to my opponent to decide if it's used or not.

If we don't use it, then we simply roll off each round to see who moves the 1st endless spell.


I find fewer and fewer people using endless spells. If both people have endless spells then things tend to go normally, but if one person has an endless spell then it becomes a liability.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/11 07:15:24


Post by: ccs


drbored wrote:
ccs wrote:
Some of the people I play with hate it. Some like it. Some insist on using it because "It's part of the rules!"
Me? I'm fine with it either way.

So I just leave it to my opponent to decide if it's used or not.

If we don't use it, then we simply roll off each round to see who moves the 1st endless spell.


I find fewer and fewer people using endless spells. If both people have endless spells then things tend to go normally, but if one person has an endless spell then it becomes a liability.


Not all Endless Spell are Predatory Endless Spells. There's plenty of useful things the opponent can't control. And some armies have Predatories that can't be taken control of.
But even in my Gloomspites the damage & amusement I'm going to cause by throwing any of my Endless Spells into your lines far outweighs you getting to move it about on occasion.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/11 10:03:44


Post by: jaredb


I play with random turns, its as intended in the game.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/12 00:31:30


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 jaredb wrote:
I play with random turns, its as intended in the game.
I think this really underscores how deep the dislike for the rule goes. This is not an optional or recommended rule, it is mandatory and removing it is a house rule. And it is not a small or niche case either. Even when the community dislikes a rule(s) we generally still follow it, if begrudgingly, because we want a common platform in the ruleset. That so many people outright reject a core rule of the game says quite a lot about that rule.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/12 04:44:16


Post by: Amishprn86


Yes, the game needs it otherwise it would not be as good. Its only controversial b.c some players are playing with it in mind and others are not.

Without it the game would be extremely easy to see who the winner is after turn 1 or 2, alpha/beta strike armies would be king. You would need to change objectives, summoning, shooting, magic, etc...

Now I'm not saying it is a great idea for a game, i would rather it be removed (no one should sit around for 2 player turns doing nothing), but i'm saying as of right now we need it and we can not change it without some large changes at the same time.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/12 04:53:55


Post by: tneva82


One isn't just sitting around doing nothing though. Reason being same as why double turn is mostly issue with mega shooting. Remove problem of shooting/magic dominance with factions like ko, seraphon and tzeentch that can just delete armies from distance and double turn is much less of an issue(especially turn 1-2 which you would be more likely to give away).


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/12 07:11:44


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Making those armies not dominate with a double turn would also make them suck without one. We've certainly seen that before.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/12 09:18:35


Post by: Amishprn86


tneva82 wrote:
One isn't just sitting around doing nothing though. Reason being same as why double turn is mostly issue with mega shooting. Remove problem of shooting/magic dominance with factions like ko, seraphon and tzeentch that can just delete armies from distance and double turn is much less of an issue(especially turn 1-2 which you would be more likely to give away).


Yeah you get to roll some armor saves sometimes and remove models. You know what i mean.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/12 09:33:42


Post by: Da Boss


The double turn is the primary reason I didn't bother trying to get into Age of Sigmar. If they removed it I would definitely make an effort to find people to play with, but it genuinely just offends my sensibilities enough that I don't want to deal with it. IGOUGO already gives too much benefit to the winner of the first turn roll off, double turns just amplify that benefit even further. I'm fine with luck determining some things in these games of course, but it shouldn't be on that scale at all in my view. I know people say you can prepare for it, but doesn't it inherently benefit certain build types over others, therefore decreasing the build diversity?

It seems like it's a very divisive choice in the community too, and I really wonder why they made it. Are they trying to make their game like Mario Kart, where it's always a crapshoot as to who wins?


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/12 09:42:22


Post by: InVerno


Problem of double turn is that 99% of the time is high vantage without basically 0 downside, locked behind a dice roll in a heavy shooting/magic meta.

They tryed to fix it by making endless, it didnt work

They should put a dowside in taking a double turn, so you have to value e high risk/high reward situation


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/12 11:08:48


Post by: jaredb



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 jaredb wrote:
I play with random turns, its as intended in the game.
I think this really underscores how deep the dislike for the rule goes. This is not an optional or recommended rule, it is mandatory and removing it is a house rule. And it is not a small or niche case either. Even when the community dislikes a rule(s) we generally still follow it, if begrudgingly, because we want a common platform in the ruleset. That so many people outright reject a core rule of the game says quite a lot about that rule.


I like the rule, I wouldn't want to see it changed. Most aos players i know have no issue with the initiative roll being part of the game.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/12 16:19:12


Post by: Rihgu


I think they could release AoS3.0 with the only real change being adopting the fight phase ordering of 40k (chargers first, then enemy picks first non-charging unit, and then back and forth, rather than pure back and forth starting with the player who's turn it is). This would add an extra layer to think about when deciding to go for the double turn or not, in that if you don't have any additional charges planned your enemy would get to select the first unit to fight and vice versa.

Other than that, I'm mostly satisfied with the random turns as is.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/12 17:04:58


Post by: Brutus_Apex


I don't play AoS because I think it's a very poorly designed game.

The double turn has to be one of the main culprits for me. It swings the advantage so hard in one direction that it makes the game frustrating, unfun and unfair.

It's so badly designed, it boggles the mind how someone would ever think this would be a good rule to implement. It just throws randomness into the game for no benefit, and punishes strategic play.



Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/12 17:07:47


Post by: Da Boss


I can understand the point of view of wanting to make people plan for unexpected problems rather than having a more chess like game. I think there is some merit to that. I just think the double turn is a bit of a problematic way to achieve that because of how strongly it favours shooting armies. If the game had no shooting units, or if shooting resolved simultaneously like melee it might be much less of an issue.

I think LOTR SBG handled that idea much better with the heroic actions allowing sections of the force to activate out of sequence and interrupt enemy actions.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/12 18:23:30


Post by: the_scotsman


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 jaredb wrote:
I play with random turns, its as intended in the game.
I think this really underscores how deep the dislike for the rule goes. This is not an optional or recommended rule, it is mandatory and removing it is a house rule. And it is not a small or niche case either. Even when the community dislikes a rule(s) we generally still follow it, if begrudgingly, because we want a common platform in the ruleset. That so many people outright reject a core rule of the game says quite a lot about that rule.


Honestly I cannot think of a gw game ive played where my opponent and I have not ignored some dumb rule or another.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/12 18:25:22


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 jaredb wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 jaredb wrote:
I play with random turns, its as intended in the game.
I think this really underscores how deep the dislike for the rule goes. This is not an optional or recommended rule, it is mandatory and removing it is a house rule. And it is not a small or niche case either. Even when the community dislikes a rule(s) we generally still follow it, if begrudgingly, because we want a common platform in the ruleset. That so many people outright reject a core rule of the game says quite a lot about that rule.


I like the rule, I wouldn't want to see it changed. Most aos players i know have no issue with the initiative roll being part of the game.
Kinda missing my point. Most AoS players I know have issue with the double being part of the game, but that is one personal perspective not indivdually relevant to the larger concept as a whole.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 jaredb wrote:
I play with random turns, its as intended in the game.
I think this really underscores how deep the dislike for the rule goes. This is not an optional or recommended rule, it is mandatory and removing it is a house rule. And it is not a small or niche case either. Even when the community dislikes a rule(s) we generally still follow it, if begrudgingly, because we want a common platform in the ruleset. That so many people outright reject a core rule of the game says quite a lot about that rule.


Honestly I cannot think of a gw game ive played where my opponent and I have not ignored some dumb rule or another.
Again, this isn't about what one group does. It is about people from across the community in different regions with no coordination all ignoring the same rule in the same way. Like the rule or not, that is a big red flag from a design perspective.

But I should clarify that I don't mean to imply this is the first instance of such in Warhammer.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/12 18:31:03


Post by: SU-152


 Brutus_Apex wrote:
It swings the advantage so hard in one direction that it makes the game frustrating, unfun and unfair.

It's so badly designed, it boggles the mind how someone would ever think this would be a good rule to implement. It just throws randomness into the game for no benefit, and punishes strategic play.



+1, for me it is an aberration.

And for my personal taste, it goes even further taking the IGOYOUGO mechanics to the extreme (IGO_YOUGO+YOUGO_IGO). Instead of getting closer to alternating activations.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/12 18:40:00


Post by: jaredb


I know for sure, players who come from 40k have deep issues with the Initiative roll.

It's certainly a mechanic which can tilt the game if you do not plan for it, but I can only think of a couple of games where the Initiative Roll has lost me the game, and it's due to poor generalship on my part.

It's an important part of the game.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/12 19:07:59


Post by: Da Boss


I'm not coming from 40K, but from WFB/KoW/LOTR/WM&H.

I can't really see how you can plan around taking a load of damage from shooting attacks because your opponent got two turns before you got to respond to be honest. I'm not trying to be glib but apart from being really conservative with your movement (which will also advantage shooting units) I can't see how you can mitigate that advantage.

I'm aware double turn doesn't happen all that often and building to take advantage of it probably leaves you high and dry a lot of the time, but it seems like a random element too far. If I won in a game where I got a double turn I probably wouldn't feel great about it.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/12 20:32:50


Post by: Galas


I played enough game systems to know that how AoS does the double turn is an aberration of a mechanic.

A double turn is not bad per se. You have them in Middle Earth, for example.

Is just HOW AoS does it that makes it horrible.


I'll always say the same for people that defend the double turn: "Is the ammount of tactical depth one believes the double turn add, justifies that a player has to spend TWO whole turns doing basically nothing just watching as his army gets torn appart by the enemy?"

This is no MESBG. Fighting is not duels that happen at the same time. This is warhammer, that means spamming shooting or spamming habilities that allow for you to attack first in all combats or all the combats that matter and not allow your opponent any kind of reaction.

I had a couple guys that defended the double turn in my group (30-50 people, give or take). Not in the "I love it!" but in the "Is on the rules and actually gives some tactical depth to the game". The years and years of domination of armies that completely dominate the flow of the combat phase (Ironjawz, Slaanesh) or the spam of pure shooting armies has made even those players loathe the mechanic. At this point is just kept for tradition but the game would only improve by removing it. People that arguee that without the double turn, games would be decided by turn 1 or turn 2, are basically admiting that AoS is a horrible balanced and designed game that needs basically a coin flip to give it some form of longevity. Not a sound argument, in my opinion.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/12 20:33:59


Post by: tneva82


 Amishprn86 wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
One isn't just sitting around doing nothing though. Reason being same as why double turn is mostly issue with mega shooting. Remove problem of shooting/magic dominance with factions like ko, seraphon and tzeentch that can just delete armies from distance and double turn is much less of an issue(especially turn 1-2 which you would be more likely to give away).


Yeah you get to roll some armor saves sometimes and remove models. You know what i mean.


Groovy if you think that's all you do. Easy win vs you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rihgu wrote:
I think they could release AoS3.0 with the only real change being adopting the fight phase ordering of 40k (chargers first, then enemy picks first non-charging unit, and then back and forth, rather than pure back and forth starting with the player who's turn it is). This would add an extra layer to think about when deciding to go for the double turn or not, in that if you don't have any additional charges planned your enemy would get to select the first unit to fight and vice versa.

Other than that, I'm mostly satisfied with the random turns as is.


Eh that would increase power of double turn...a lot.

One way to reduce would be scoring vp's end of battle round.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/12 20:47:25


Post by: Rihgu


Eh that would increase power of double turn...a lot.

I'm curious in what way?


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/12 21:27:10


Post by: Noir Eternal


Rihgu wrote:
Eh that would increase power of double turn...a lot.

I'm curious in what way?


Currently in AOS, units get into CC faster than in 40K, AOS also doesn't have difficult terrain to subtract -2 to movement and AOS generally uses less 3D terrain that would force units to climb to their targets.

Keeping the double turn mechanic in AOS 3 would mean armies can still get two turns of movement in a row, the alternating CC activation affords some protection against this.

If we remove alternating activation in CC but not the double turn, you could have nearly your entire army getting charged over the course of two turns without any option to retaliate.

Even if we removed the double turns and removed the alternating activations, we are still left with armies of very very fast units that can easily multi-charge with 3 or more units and CC in AOS is ridiculously deadly as it is.

I don't like the double turns, but that is mostly due to shooting centered armies that get the double turn specifically on turn 2, allowing two full rounds of shooting with a nearly untouched army. And cover in AOS is a joke as it is now. I also agree with others here that many of the mechanics and even unit stats are designed around the double turn existing. I think to remove it would mean changing a lot more of the game than people realize.

If GW re-vamped the terrain rules, I think that could go a long way to helping against double turn shooting.



Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/13 00:17:06


Post by: Charistoph


It isn't so bad in Battletech, either, but then, for that game, no one has nothing to do during the turn except react. Each turn has everybody interacting, and it is mostly about who is going first in a Phase, and damage from the Phase only taking affect at the end.

Two full turns of power tripping can be bad if you have no ability to react. I don't know how LotR does it, but I think AoS is still too closely allied to the old WHFB system for it to work properly.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/13 02:56:41


Post by: NinthMusketeer


The 'it adds tactics' arguments has two flaws, one of them fatal. The lesser flaw is that the double is a choice; the winner of the initiative roll does not HAVE to go first in the next round. So a player that does excellent preperation to defend against a double can be effortlessly countered by not taking it, turning that preperation into a tactical loss instead. The only way to actually pull off an effective defense against a double is for the opponent to make a critical mistake, otherwise the best one can do is okay. It is reasonable to argue that in itself is tactical, and conceptually it is, but in reality things rarely function as such. Either you move onto an objective or you don't, either you move into shooting range or don't, either you charge or you don't, and so on. The real gameplay decisions involved most commonly amount to choices where taking a moderate approach is worse than going all-in on one side or the other.

Put simply, if one's opponent is going second on round 1 the choices boil down to this:
-Play assuming you win the initiative next round (66% chance) to maintain momentum but be screwed if you lose initiative.
-Play without that assumption but suffer from the tactical setbacks regardless of result.

In an otherwise even matchup, this means the tactically superior choice is actually to play assuming the double does not happen since accommodating it will put you at a disadvantage. For the player going second this is true in the opposite direction; winning initiative will offer such a powerful advantage that there is no need to specifically prepare for it. Which leads into the fatal flaw of the 'adds tactics' argument; random initiative removes at least as much tactical play as it provides. If I am doing matched play and win a round 1/2 or 2/3 double my tactics no longer matter--I just won. All I have to do is avoid playing like a fool (or particularly bad dice, but that can always happen) and victory is mine. Tactics which would have been important are now rendered irrelevant. This flaw doubles up with the ideal strategy often being going 'all in' on the winning initiative to severely drain meaningful choice in a significant number of games.

To see it laid out plainly, simply look at which matches have the most tactical choices being made and being relevant. While there are certainly double turn games which turn out like that, most such matches tend to be where it occurs late in the game or not at all.

What random initiative DOES do is mix up results when one side has the advantage. If the player going second is at a game-losing disadvantage the double turn can offer them a means to turn the tide. They were probably going to lose anyways so the double is a not-unlikely chance to even the odds to turn them entirely. Because the balance of armies & units in matched play is such that significantly uneven battles are common this can be a valuable element even to players who are skilled at the game (but stuck with bad matchups). That is why, in my opinion, random initiative has so many supporters. And let's be honest--when that min-maxed army gets hit with a round 1/2 or 2/3 double and unexpectedly loses to a fluffy list it is satisfying to watch. But when a player who legitimately played the better game suddenly loses because of a single roll off, that is frustrating and leads to players leaving the game.

And that is another skew when looking at the opinions of AoS players; the ones who dislike random initiative most are not playing.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/13 02:57:22


Post by: chaos0xomega


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 jaredb wrote:
I play with random turns, its as intended in the game.
I think this really underscores how deep the dislike for the rule goes. This is not an optional or recommended rule, it is mandatory and removing it is a house rule. And it is not a small or niche case either. Even when the community dislikes a rule(s) we generally still follow it, if begrudgingly, because we want a common platform in the ruleset. That so many people outright reject a core rule of the game says quite a lot about that rule.


I think it says more about the player base than it does about the rule. Too many people, when playing with double turns, want to play as though the double turn and the consequences thereof don't exist. I.E. they play recklessly and set themselves up for pain (and then predictably howl when that pain hits them). If you play more conservatively you can avoid a lot of headache. That being said, I think it would be generally preferable if they removed the double turn from the next edition of the game, I don't think that whatever it adds to gameplay is worth the costs that come with it.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/13 03:33:31


Post by: NinthMusketeer


chaos0xomega wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 jaredb wrote:
I play with random turns, its as intended in the game.
I think this really underscores how deep the dislike for the rule goes. This is not an optional or recommended rule, it is mandatory and removing it is a house rule. And it is not a small or niche case either. Even when the community dislikes a rule(s) we generally still follow it, if begrudgingly, because we want a common platform in the ruleset. That so many people outright reject a core rule of the game says quite a lot about that rule.


I think it says more about the player base than it does about the rule. Too many people, when playing with double turns, want to play as though the double turn and the consequences thereof don't exist. I.E. they play recklessly and set themselves up for pain (and then predictably howl when that pain hits them). If you play more conservatively you can avoid a lot of headache. That being said, I think it would be generally preferable if they removed the double turn from the next edition of the game, I don't think that whatever it adds to gameplay is worth the costs that come with it.
I laid it out in more detail above, but in short it is common for the best tactical choice to play assuming the double will not happen in a given round. Generally speaking player going first in the round who assumes they will win initiative in the next will have an advantage 66% of the time and a significant disadvantage 33% of the time. A player in the same situation who holds back to compensate will be at a small disadvantage 100% of the time. Unless accounting for margin of victory the former leads to better results on average.


One thing I personally have always found consistent in people's opinions on the double turn is that skill has no bearing (or if there is one, it is not significant enough to be notable). I have encountered both highly skilled and highly unskilled players who hate it just as I have encountered both supporting it, and in large numbers all around.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/13 04:02:51


Post by: drbored


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 jaredb wrote:
I play with random turns, its as intended in the game.
I think this really underscores how deep the dislike for the rule goes. This is not an optional or recommended rule, it is mandatory and removing it is a house rule. And it is not a small or niche case either. Even when the community dislikes a rule(s) we generally still follow it, if begrudgingly, because we want a common platform in the ruleset. That so many people outright reject a core rule of the game says quite a lot about that rule.


I think it says more about the player base than it does about the rule. Too many people, when playing with double turns, want to play as though the double turn and the consequences thereof don't exist. I.E. they play recklessly and set themselves up for pain (and then predictably howl when that pain hits them). If you play more conservatively you can avoid a lot of headache. That being said, I think it would be generally preferable if they removed the double turn from the next edition of the game, I don't think that whatever it adds to gameplay is worth the costs that come with it.
I laid it out in more detail above, but in short it is common for the best tactical choice to play assuming the double will not happen in a given round. Generally speaking player going first in the round who assumes they will win initiative in the next will have an advantage 66% of the time and a significant disadvantage 33% of the time. A player in the same situation who holds back to compensate will be at a small disadvantage 100% of the time. Unless accounting for margin of victory the former leads to better results on average.


One thing I personally have always found consistent in people's opinions on the double turn is that skill has no bearing (or if there is one, it is not significant enough to be notable). I have encountered both highly skilled and highly unskilled players who hate it just as I have encountered both supporting it, and in large numbers all around.


This is my impression as well. A lot of AoS boils down to picking the right targets for the right charge, with enough abilities to see you through to the other side, with a few movements based on the objectives of the game and the type of army you're playing against. The Random Turn mechanic comes tertiary when considering when/where to move.

I personally hope that the Random Turn mechanic is removed from the game in the next edition. I'd much rather see other strategic decisions implemented.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/13 12:03:49


Post by: Amishprn86


tneva82 wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
One isn't just sitting around doing nothing though. Reason being same as why double turn is mostly issue with mega shooting. Remove problem of shooting/magic dominance with factions like ko, seraphon and tzeentch that can just delete armies from distance and double turn is much less of an issue(especially turn 1-2 which you would be more likely to give away).


Yeah you get to roll some armor saves sometimes and remove models. You know what i mean.


Groovy if you think that's all you do. Easy win vs you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rihgu wrote:
I think they could release AoS3.0 with the only real change being adopting the fight phase ordering of 40k (chargers first, then enemy picks first non-charging unit, and then back and forth, rather than pure back and forth starting with the player who's turn it is). This would add an extra layer to think about when deciding to go for the double turn or not, in that if you don't have any additional charges planned your enemy would get to select the first unit to fight and vice versa.

Other than that, I'm mostly satisfied with the random turns as is.


Eh that would increase power of double turn...a lot.

One way to reduce would be scoring vp's end of battle round.


Fight against KO, Lum, Seraphon, DoT and let me know how a double turn goes when they sit back and only shoot and use magic with no melee other than trash units to take an objective.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/13 21:42:51


Post by: Arbitrator


The inherent issue with Double Turn is that for every game it helps somebody come back from a potential loss, every other game it just cements that the current lead is going to table the other person. In an IGUG game having to twiddle your thumbs for not just one, but two whole turns is extremely dull.

Double Turn is something they clearly added for the sake of being different, something they can point to as being something AoS has that's unique but that didn't necessarily make it a good idea.

If third edition gets rid of it I'd bet 99% of it's current defenders will still say GW made a genius move by removing it and they always disliked it.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/13 22:45:03


Post by: drbored


 Arbitrator wrote:
The inherent issue with Double Turn is that for every game it helps somebody come back from a potential loss, every other game it just cements that the current lead is going to table the other person. In an IGUG game having to twiddle your thumbs for not just one, but two whole turns is extremely dull.

Double Turn is something they clearly added for the sake of being different, something they can point to as being something AoS has that's unique but that didn't necessarily make it a good idea.

If third edition gets rid of it I'd bet 99% of it's current defenders will still say GW made a genius move by removing it and they always disliked it.


Yeah, having to twiddle your thumbs while your opponent gets to go twice is about as un-fun as it gets, especially if they have a load of spells, command traits, and/or shooting attacks...


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/14 22:35:14


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Eh, the GW supporter confirmation bias is obviously a think but I doubt even half the current double supporters will turn around and express they're happy about the change. I expect a lot more 'I liked it but see why they got rid of it' people which is a pretty reasonable stance.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/14 22:36:21


Post by: auticus


Random / Double Turn is one reason I will never play Age of Sigmar.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/14 22:42:54


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 auticus wrote:
Random / Double Turn is one reason I will never play Age of Sigmar.
The most common reason I hear from people about why they don't play AoS is that they don't like the setting. The second most common reason is this. A lot of players AoS could have, but doesn't. They wouldn't even need to drop random initiative or eratta the core rules--just have the matched play rules in the next GHB remove random initiative from matched play.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/15 17:15:53


Post by: auticus


I feel the number of people that would legit be upset if double turn was removed would be very small.

The majority of people I find play with it not because they like it, but because official rules means official rules and they deal with it.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/15 18:09:32


Post by: Da Boss


Well, it's kind of a selection pressure in a way. People will play what they like, so over time the population of Age of Sigmar players will like Double Turns more than the general population, because all the people that really like it will move into the AoS group and the people who really hate it will move out.

To me, it is an additional barrier to trying to find a group that is actively playing it after the pandemic dies down. I already am not super excited about IGOUGO but double turn is as mentioned above sometimes IGOUGOUGOIGO which is just worse.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/17 07:08:27


Post by: tneva82


 auticus wrote:
I feel the number of people that would legit be upset if double turn was removed would be very small.

The majority of people I find play with it not because they like it, but because official rules means official rules and they deal with it.


Would require significant changes to game though or otherwise winner of game would be easily determined by seeing lists. Generally he who has least drops wins. Much like in 40k after who goes first is determined winner is already easy to predict(even points per side within 10 pts...) and AOS would be even more easy to predict with fixed turn order.

Would become rather boring game. At least now there's rarely foregone conclusion even on turn 4.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/17 10:51:35


Post by: Dai


I don't mind it as a concept and use it but feel a game like AoS isn't really built around such a mechanic.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/17 11:08:09


Post by: Da Boss


I'm also not conceptually against it. If all damage was resolve simultaneously for example then it would be less of a problem. So if shooting was resolved like melee with both sides shooting in a shared phase, and the same with magic, then the "double turn" would only matter for moving, and that would be a lot easier to manage and a lot less unbalanced.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/17 12:14:01


Post by: auticus


tneva82 wrote:
 auticus wrote:
I feel the number of people that would legit be upset if double turn was removed would be very small.

The majority of people I find play with it not because they like it, but because official rules means official rules and they deal with it.


Would require significant changes to game though or otherwise winner of game would be easily determined by seeing lists. Generally he who has least drops wins. Much like in 40k after who goes first is determined winner is already easy to predict(even points per side within 10 pts...) and AOS would be even more easy to predict with fixed turn order.

Would become rather boring game. At least now there's rarely foregone conclusion even on turn 4.


I was playing it without double turn for years and didn't require significant changes. And games were still easily determined by just seeing lists. My last AOS game in 2019 I was deleted in 2 turns by triple keeper of secrets summoning in a free 2000 points by turn 2 (thats with double turn in play since we had to get rid of all house rules by that point). The game itself lends to being a game about lists, double-turn or not.

I'd say 75% of my games were foregone conclusions by turn 2 or 3 both with and without double turn in play, and were heavily based on lists magic-the-gathering style. So I dont agree with that premise at all based on my own experience with the game from 2015-2019.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/17 15:56:26


Post by: NinthMusketeer


In matched play I build my armies to be low drop and secure turn choice. Then I go second and never take the double. Found it to be a satisfying mix of results. I would go as far as to say that the claim "removing the double would make results pre-determined" could only be seriously entertained by someone who has little to no experience outside random initiative. The only games it would make pre-determined are those where there is a large disparity in the power of lists, which goes back to my original argument of the double being a crutch against awful balance by randomly handing out victories every few games.

But it isn't a real victory. It's winning a boxing match where the ref stepped in to kick the opponent in the balls one round in. Double turn wins are quite possibly the least satisfying game result I have found in wargaming my entire life, save perhaps being shot off the board turn 1 in 40k. I have more fun losing without a double than winning with one. The sheer lack of effort involved in securing the win when getting to go twice in the first half of the game is that bad for me.

Besides, the change required amounts to two sentences: "When determining deployment in Matched Play roll off; the winner chooses their deployment zone then deploys their entire army following the rules of the scenario, followed by their opponent. The player that chose their deployment zone takes the first turn in the battle round."

Or alternatively: "In Matched Play, the player that goes first in round 1 will also go first in rounds 2 and 3 (no initiative roll is made). Roll initiative normally in subsequent rounds."


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/17 16:20:38


Post by: ccs


tneva82 wrote:
 auticus wrote:
I feel the number of people that would legit be upset if double turn was removed would be very small.

The majority of people I find play with it not because they like it, but because official rules means official rules and they deal with it.


Would require significant changes to game though or otherwise winner of game would be easily determined by seeing lists.


About 1/2 of all the AoS games I've played have been without double turns. Can't say we've ever found much that needed changing.
The only things that we had to change were determining how to move the 1st predatory Endless Spell & sometimes there's a detail within a battleplan that refers to the 1st player of the round.
All we've done in such instances is roll off at the top of the round - same as you would if the actual double turn was to be used - then move spell/destroy objective/etc as described, then we just resume with the standard IGOUGO.
Works fine.

On determining winning just by seeing lists.... Well, sometimes this is true.
*One guy fields crap & the other doesn't. Ex: When my buddy puts his Nighthaunts on the table. I'm just not impressed. IMO I'd have to TRY and lose to him....
*One guy fields something really strong/OP (or believed to be) & it breaks the other players morale before dice are ever rolled. Games really hard to win when you start assuming you'll lose....
*One guy fields something really strong/OP (or believed to be) & the other guy hasn't yet figured out the key to breaking it yet. Ex: My SoB vs my friends Luminith. The elves haven't yet beaten my giants, but he's getting closer/better....


tneva82 wrote:
Generally he who has least drops wins. Much like in 40k after who goes first is determined winner is already easy to predict(even points per side within 10 pts...) and AOS would be even more easy to predict with fixed turn order.


Not my experience at all in Sigmar.
*My last 2k pt game? No double turn used (my opponent dislikes it). My StD (99% Marauder based & some chariots, no battalion) vs Orks.
The Orks were some battalion, had 6 units & 3(?) drops. Me? I had 15 drops.
The Orks went first.
By the end of the 1st round I'd lost (effectively) 3 units. Each was reduced to 1-3 models who weren't taking BS tests thanks to the General.
By the end of the 2nd? I'd lost those 3 stragglers + 2 chariots - but killed the Ork Boss on Mawchrusha! & a shamen in return.
Turns 3 - 5 was spent mopping up 3 ork combat units, another shamen, & earning victory pts.

*The game before that?
2k pts - Undead (legions of Nagash, no named characters, combined army played by 2 players) vs our Luminith Elf friend. No double turn used.
The Elves placed 1st & went first.
They DID win. But it was a very close fight & had nothing with his list being better, going 1st (though that certainly helped him as he killed some characters right off with that damned elf archery. ), or having fewer drops.
He won due to luck. He had a unit pass just enough saves on our last turn, allowing him to live, kill off the undead unit & retain control of an objective.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/17 21:17:55


Post by: NinthMusketeer


If you can choose turn, the default choice is second. It means an easy win should you snag the double round 2 or 3. Choosing first is only for armies that specifically accommodate that.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/22 12:53:44


Post by: lare2


We play with the double turn. And yes, I hate it and wish it would be jettisoned from matched play.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/24 16:37:28


Post by: InVerno


 Da Boss wrote:
I'm also not conceptually against it. If all damage was resolve simultaneously for example then it would be less of a problem. So if shooting was resolved like melee with both sides shooting in a shared phase, and the same with magic, then the "double turn" would only matter for moving, and that would be a lot easier to manage and a lot less unbalanced.



This wont fix the problem tho

Heavy melee list like khorne that have close to 0 shooting will still have a huge disavantage

a friend of mine plays khorne a lot vs KO, lumineth and the likes

if he lose initiative turn 1 generally it means he'll get tabled


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/24 17:13:31


Post by: Charistoph


 InVerno wrote:
This wont fix the problem tho

Heavy melee list like khorne that have close to 0 shooting will still have a huge disavantage

a friend of mine plays khorne a lot vs KO, lumineth and the likes

if he lose initiative turn 1 generally it means he'll get tabled

I'm sorry, but that has little to do with the turn setup, but how the two armies are configured. Ranged units will always have first strike potential against melee armies, unless they can appear in melee range readily enough.

In a way, the Battletech method mentioned would actually work better for the Khornates going second because they can then plan their movement against the fire lanes the KO would set up (provided terrain allows for lanes to be generated).


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/24 18:36:26


Post by: NinthMusketeer


If forests/overgrown terrain properly blocked line of sight it would make things better. Because flying units ignore it KO bypass the main counter-play to shooting.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/24 19:13:09


Post by: Thadin


KO really are a perfect gakstorm right now.

Thankfully, only one person "plays" KO in my area, as in they rarely ever showed up for anything even before COVID, but if more showed up, or more extreme shooting armies showed up, I'd just toss on some more forests with rules that actually matter.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/24 21:37:46


Post by: NinthMusketeer


There's a realmscape feature in the realm of fire (full realmscape rules, not the matched ones) which can help with that.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/25 19:58:09


Post by: Jaxler


I really hate the double turn. I find that more often than not, if I am behind, I cannot play the game with it in mind, but instead I'm forcing to think to myself "if they get the turn I guess I just lose". Certain armies or match ups make it so having the double turn go to one person ends the game. The amount of times I got free wins by healing my legions of nagash units twice was awful, and felt good for nobody. Me getting a win I didn't deserve because the double turn felt bad. Me losing because of it felt bad. I read "it can let you turn around lost ganes" as "you get a win you didn't deserve", and for every lost game it turns around into a fair one, I've seen two close matches ruined because of it. Playing a weaker army vs newer ones is hard enough without double turns going to the enemy.

My entire playgroup unanimously agreed to drop it. We've been happy ever since. I suggest everyone drop the rule.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/29 21:05:19


Post by: Eldarsif


I have developed a begrudging ambivalence towards Random Turns. I play with them as they are a part of the rule, and have set my expectations to expect the worst playing with it, but I would not be unhappy if it were removed.

To be fair there are a lot of players in my FLGS who stay away from AoS purely because of the random turns and if it were removed I could easily imagine seeing the playerbase swell.

The game has also changed a lot from when it was first introduced so the double turn is becoming an ever increasing liability.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/29 22:07:36


Post by: NinthMusketeer


At a certain point it becomes a pure business decision. Remove double, gain customers. It isn't like double-supporters have anywhere else to go.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/29 22:09:56


Post by: Eldarsif


AoS 3.0 is probably around the corner so I guess we'll see what happens.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/30 10:52:41


Post by: lare2


 Eldarsif wrote:
AoS 3.0 is probably around the corner so I guess we'll see what happens.




Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/30 11:32:50


Post by: auticus


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
At a certain point it becomes a pure business decision. Remove double, gain customers. It isn't like double-supporters have anywhere else to go.


I suspect that the vast majority of double-turn supporters would shrug their shoulders and not care if double turn was removed as well. While they exist, I dont read a ton of people or know a ton of people that love the rule, they support it simply because "them's the rules and we have to play the official rules".


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/03/30 16:34:26


Post by: Charistoph


 auticus wrote:
I suspect that the vast majority of double-turn supporters would shrug their shoulders and not care if double turn was removed as well. While they exist, I dont read a ton of people or know a ton of people that love the rule, they support it simply because "them's the rules and we have to play the official rules".

We even see that here. I don't see any responses extolling the virtues of the concept, just the fact that the rule exists.

On the other hand, it's not like communities don't house rule a lot to fit the mood of their group, even if it is just to fit a certain tournament paradigm that they have borrowed.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/04/03 03:21:22


Post by: Rihgu


Ninthmusketeer has basically convinced me that double turn isn't good, and I'm going to convince my friends to house rule alternating turns. I'll likely still play random turns with strangers (because it's the rules!) until GW says otherwise, though.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/04/05 17:20:35


Post by: NinthMusketeer


A technique I use with strangers is creating a low-drop army list, choosing to go second, then just never taking the double. Because tbh I would rather just lose.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/04/05 17:59:09


Post by: CommanderWalrus


Honestly in most AoS games I've played, who wins and who loses feels like a big coin flip. While the same could be said for 40k(my preferred game) it's not nearly as bad here. I'm not so sure if that's solely because of the double turn thing or if it's a more general issue of 40k taking measures to reduce randomness while AoS hasn't yet, I definitely think random turns is at least 50% of the issue. It's frankly quite a bizarre mechanic...why would you put something as important as who gets to take the next turn first on a die roll?


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/04/06 04:50:54


Post by: ccs


 CommanderWalrus wrote:
Honestly in most AoS games I've played, who wins and who loses feels like a big coin flip. While the same could be said for 40k(my preferred game) it's not nearly as bad here. I'm not so sure if that's solely because of the double turn thing or if it's a more general issue of 40k taking measures to reduce randomness while AoS hasn't yet, I definitely think random turns is at least 50% of the issue. It's frankly quite a bizarre mechanic...why would you put something as important as who gets to take the next turn first on a die roll?


40k reducing randomness? Are you serious? If so you & I aren't playing the same edition (8e/9e).....

On "why the double turn"? Well, I can see what they were going for, an abstracted ebb & flow to the battle (and somewhere in the book it probably says as much). But it's poorly implemented.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/04/06 10:47:08


Post by: Eldarsif


At this point the double turn is the most limiting factor in the entire game. Originally the back and forth of melee was implemented to reduce the severity of double turn. Now, however, we see the developers wanting to test different unit capabilities - many of which are non-reactive - and they can't do it without making Double turns overwhelming.

The only other way to keep double turn is to go to alternating activations.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/04/06 15:28:56


Post by: Charistoph


 Eldarsif wrote:
The only other way to keep double turn is to go to alternating activations.

Warcry seems to be working well with it. However when you can have a huge difference between unit numbers like, say, Ogors vs Skaven, it can make for a huge disparity and throw off the effectiveness of AA.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/04/06 15:36:33


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Alternating activations would require a rework in a number of AoS mechanics. It would have to be a massive overhaul of the rules, likely an unwise plan given the core rules are rather well liked for the most part. Alternating by phase, on the other hand, is so compatible it can be house-ruled in and someone can go from not knowing it to playing it with full understanding in less than five minutes.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/04/06 15:54:55


Post by: LunarSol


To a degree, the double turn is a decent fix for first turn advantage. You can't get it unless you're going second. Practically, it doesn't work because the first player doesn't often have a first strike advantage and often ends up having to play defensively for the charge. Second player ends up both getting the first strike and the potential for an immediate follow up, which is when the mechanic really creates non-game experiences.

I think there's ways to make it work. For example, second player could attempt to seize by spending a command point and rolling under the turn number or something like that. Largely though, I think its purpose has largely been made redundant by scenario design.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/04/06 17:11:14


Post by: Charistoph


NinthMusketeer wrote:Alternating activations would require a rework in a number of AoS mechanics. It would have to be a massive overhaul of the rules, likely an unwise plan given the core rules are rather well liked for the most part. Alternating by phase, on the other hand, is so compatible it can be house-ruled in and someone can go from not knowing it to playing it with full understanding in less than five minutes.

I have found it works well in Battletech, though they alternate actions within the Phase and damage does not get allocated till the end of the Phase.

LunarSol wrote:To a degree, the double turn is a decent fix for first turn advantage. You can't get it unless you're going second. Practically, it doesn't work because the first player doesn't often have a first strike advantage and often ends up having to play defensively for the charge. Second player ends up both getting the first strike and the potential for an immediate follow up, which is when the mechanic really creates non-game experiences.

I think there's ways to make it work. For example, second player could attempt to seize by spending a command point and rolling under the turn number or something like that. Largely though, I think its purpose has largely been made redundant by scenario design.

I wonder if Warcry's Initiative system could be utilized in this manner. For those who don't know, you roll 6D6 and count up the singles and multiples (pairs, triples, and quads). The number of singles you roll determines your Initiative. This can make your Initiative from 0 to 6. The multiples can then be spent that turn on Abilities that can improve your model's interactions. You are granted a Wild Die that can be used to add more singles, improve a multiple (pair to a triple, triple to a quad), or be saved to be used next turn.

The multiple dice could be used for what is now Command Point abilities, allowing for such to be a renewable (if rather random) resource instead during the fight.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/04/28 20:25:10


Post by: popisdead


drbored wrote:
The double-turn mechanic in AoS is pretty controversial. Some, like MiniWarGaming, have gotten rid of the double-turn mechanic in their batreps, claiming it was ruining more batreps than it was helping.

What's your feeling, and now this late into the game, do you play with random turns, or have you decided to set that rule aside?



The group of fluff gamers notorious for mis-playing rules got rid of one on purpose? Would be a good excuse.

They make beautiful tables and bat reps and it's for entertainment. I love them but a lot of people watch WWE so it's all good.

Arguing against roll-off turns is like saying "this game has parts that are too hard for me to think down the road, 40k has OP armies and I can blow my opponent off in alpha strike so I want that here."

Once you extend into knowing it's a deliberate mechanic in the game and how it works you become a better general. TBH the only place I hear about it being an issue is online. Never in a game or games store or tournament.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/04/28 21:06:34


Post by: Rihgu


Arguing against roll-off turns is like saying "this game has parts that are too hard for me to think down the road, 40k has OP armies and I can blow my opponent off in alpha strike so I want that here."

This is the most repeated "defense" of double turns that I think I've seen and it... doesn't make any sense. Can you explain how removing the double turn is going to make Kharadron overlords or Lumineth Realm Lords *more* able to blow their opponent away in alpha strike?
Can you explain how the double turn mechanic currently prevents them from doing so?
I hear the phrase but never any explanation deeper than it, as if somebody said it once and everybody else repeats it because it sounds right to them.

Once you extend into knowing it's a deliberate mechanic in the game and how it works you become a better general.

I am a better general for knowing that ignoring the possibility of the double turn is the best way to play, I guess. What an incredibly good and deliberate mechanic!


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/04/28 23:56:36


Post by: auticus


popisdead wrote:


Once you extend into knowing it's a deliberate mechanic in the game and how it works you become a better general. TBH the only place I hear about it being an issue is online. Never in a game or games store or tournament.


I'd say likely because many of the people that dont like it, dont' play the game so you wont encounter them at your games store or tournaments. I know a whole swarm of people in real life that hate the double turn and is why they wont touch AOS. You also wont find them down at the game store playing AOS or participating in AOS tournaments.

Once you extend into knowing it's a deliberate mechanic in the game and how it works you become a better general.


I dont think so. It makes you a better gamer sure because you know how to take advantage of game mechanics. General? No. Hardly. Most of the people I have ever known that are good at AOS would absolutely crap their pants if they had to command any real troops on a battlefield, because a real battlefield you can't min/max optimize your forces and push to have the scenario be in your favor all the time. You have to be able to mitigate risk, work with the battlefield, and a number of other factors that exist as it pertains to military tactics and strategies that a simple game like AOS do not test at all.

The game could also have a mechanic where I get to kick you in the balls if you roll a certain number on X dice. And then when you complain about it I can tell you to just suck it up and know how it works so you can become a better general. That doesn't make that a fun mechanic to put into the game though. Same as the fun rules that AOS had on release like if you have a beard, or if you kneel you lose, etc. When people complained about it we could just tell them thats just how it works, suck it up and get better. Also doesn't make it a fun mechanic to put into a game though.

Same as a mechanic where you stand there for two full turns doing nothing but removing models for 45-60 minutes. I call that a waste of an afternoon - no matter which side of the table I am on be it removing my models or making you remove your models.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/04/29 03:53:14


Post by: ccs


 auticus wrote:
popisdead wrote:


Once you extend into knowing it's a deliberate mechanic in the game and how it works you become a better general. TBH the only place I hear about it being an issue is online. Never in a game or games store or tournament.


I'd say likely because many of the people that dont like it, dont' play the game so you wont encounter them at your games store or tournaments. I know a whole swarm of people in real life that hate the double turn and is why they wont touch AOS. You also wont find them down at the game store playing AOS or participating in AOS tournaments.


But if it didn't exist, would these people play Sigmar?
Because if that answer is a yes? Then I really don't understand their stance on this since we HAVE Open & Narrative play as options and, as you put it, there's a swarm of these people.
That sounds like a community who simply has to decide to play "open" & choose wich rules they want to apply to their games.

Outside of the tourney scene there's nothing stopping people getting together & choosing to use 99.999% of Matched Play rules in Open/Narrative play.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/04/29 07:04:52


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Either you are well aware that there very much is something stopping people, or you are veeeery inexperienced with how the world works.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/04/29 08:25:27


Post by: ccs


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Either you are well aware that there very much is something stopping people, or you are veeeery inexperienced with how the world works.


Ah, reading comprehension. A lost art....

Look, I understand perfectly that it's stopping some people.
But outside the tourney setting or someone being the one odd duck out of the group? I don't understand the why of it given that the books contain instructions/suggestions on how to play that allow you to alter wich rules you use. Especially when you encounter groups of such people who have minis, who have the books, & who claim to otherwise be ok with the game & all agree they don't like the rule. Yet aren't playing claiming it's because of the double turn - something they could choose to use or not.



Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/04/29 08:47:45


Post by: Bosskelot


Because it splits up the player base.

In my local area there are two camps of AOS players; those who use the double-turn and those who do not.

What this has led to is a fracturing of the community and less opportunities for people to find games and different opponents. Despite an initial upswell in interest with 2.0's release, AOS has not grown at all around here in the subsequent 3 years because of the double turn and because of how it splits up the playerbase. KoW tournaments here get more players than AOS ones do ffs. The amount of new players I've seen just bounce off of the game or potential players not touch it because of the mechanic is honestly staggering. Meanwhile, 40k, X-Wing, AT, Bolt Action, LOTR and KoW keep attracting new players.

If you're a new player and you haven't been completely turned off the game by the double turn, but continue to decide to keep trying it with the people who houserule it out, you're restricting yourself to an even smaller community (of an already small community) and getting even less opportunities to play. What further entrenches this problem is that for these 2 sides their decision is absolute; they won't decide to have the old one-off game with/without the double turn. It isn't like coming up with some narrative scenario and rules for a fun one-off game every now and then to take a break from matched play. It's not even something innocuous and inoffensive that the entire community decides to houserule either (like being able to discard impossible Maelstrom of War cards in 8th).

In general tabletop games thrive off of having a large, varied community. That's not to say people can't find enjoyment otherwise; I've certainly seen people play all manner of games and only really ever play the same 1 or 2 people every time with the same 1 or 2 factions. There's nothing wrong with that but it is not how the majority of people actually enjoy tabletop wargaming and it also doesn't lead to those communities growing or bringing new people in.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/04/29 13:16:36


Post by: Wayniac


ccs wrote:
Because if that answer is a yes? Then I really don't understand their stance on this since we HAVE Open & Narrative play as options and, as you put it, there's a swarm of these people.
That sounds like a community who simply has to decide to play "open" & choose wich rules they want to apply to their games.

Outside of the tourney scene there's nothing stopping people getting together & choosing to use 99.999% of Matched Play rules in Open/Narrative play.


How many people do you know who will use Open/Narrative play, even with using almost all the Matched Play stuff? The stigma is that these styles are ridiculously imbalanced and "unfair" because it's not Matched Play, which is specifically stated to be balanced, ergo the other modes are not and obviously if something is not balanced you can't have a fun game (the irony of course being Matched is just as imbalanced if not worse since you can hide behind "the rules let me" rather than admit you're an donkey-cave). . I have rarely if ever met anyone who will do anything other than Matched Play and even if they did are reluctant to houserule anything because that means it's no longer the "real" rules. My area is not as bad as say auticus' where people will throw tantrums and try to sabotage anything using houserules as "playing wrong" but there's a stigma against houserules and I've seen that mindset since 1996.

I have found people dislike houseruling because, as said above, it reduces the player pool. If you get too acclimated to houserules in your area and go somewhere else, you are "playing wrong". If someone new to the area comes in from an area that didn't have houserules you now have a conflict when that person asks to play by the rules as written and you wan to play with your group's houserules.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/04/29 15:17:18


Post by: Charistoph


 Bosskelot wrote:
Because it splits up the player base.
....
If you're a new player and you haven't been completely turned off the game by the double turn, but continue to decide to keep trying it with the people who houserule it out, you're restricting yourself to an even smaller community (of an already small community) and getting even less opportunities to play. What further entrenches this problem is that for these 2 sides their decision is absolute; they won't decide to have the old one-off game with/without the double turn. It isn't like coming up with some narrative scenario and rules for a fun one-off game every now and then to take a break from matched play. It's not even something innocuous and inoffensive that the entire community decides to houserule either (like being able to discard impossible Maelstrom of War cards in 8th).

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It depends on how entrenched they are. It can be as divisive as the tournament scene, when you boil down to it. Nor is every community the same on how stuck each side will be.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/04/29 17:54:53


Post by: NinthMusketeer


ccs wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Either you are well aware that there very much is something stopping people, or you are veeeery inexperienced with how the world works.


Ah, reading comprehension. A lost art....

Look, I understand perfectly that it's stopping some people.
But outside the tourney setting or someone being the one odd duck out of the group? I don't understand the why of it given that the books contain instructions/suggestions on how to play that allow you to alter wich rules you use. Especially when you encounter groups of such people who have minis, who have the books, & who claim to otherwise be ok with the game & all agree they don't like the rule. Yet aren't playing claiming it's because of the double turn - something they could choose to use or not.

You not understanding does not change that it exists, is ubiquitous, and beyond the power of any individual to change. You not understanding does not change that you clearly understand the larger context and have been making a deliberately obtuse, disingenuous argument from the start.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/04/29 18:33:22


Post by: Unit1126PLL


I think the double turn was intended to reduce the power of alpha-strike shooting lists by assuming those lists would go first - melee units could "double turn" up the board to touch them after only one shooting phase.

OFC it turns out that shooting lists will just go second, forcing the melee units to take only 1 movement phase and then shoot at them twice. I play by the rules so I use it in my games, but I don't think it's a "good rule". LOTR's system is 1e200 percent better.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/04/29 20:21:29


Post by: lare2


I've never once heard GW say rolling for initiative had anything to do with alpha strikes. They pushed and continuously push the idea that it's supposed to represent the unpredictable ebb and flow of battle. Essentially, rolling for initiative is one of the last ridiculous narrative remnants from when AoS launched. There was a crazy amount of rubbish in the game then and for some reason GW seems to think that initiative is a really cool USP, when, in actuality, it should be jettisoned from the game like the rancid turd it is.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/04/29 21:33:34


Post by: popisdead


auticus wrote:
popisdead wrote:


Once you extend into knowing it's a deliberate mechanic in the game and how it works you become a better general. TBH the only place I hear about it being an issue is online. Never in a game or games store or tournament.


I'd say likely because many of the people that dont like it, dont' play the game so you wont encounter them at your games store or tournaments. I know a whole swarm of people in real life that hate the double turn and is why they wont touch AOS. You also wont find them down at the game store playing AOS or participating in AOS tournaments.

Once you extend into knowing it's a deliberate mechanic in the game and how it works you become a better general.


I dont think so. It makes you a better gamer sure because you know how to take advantage of game mechanics. General? No. Hardly. Most of the people I have ever known that are good at AOS would absolutely crap their pants if they had to command any real troops on a battlefield, because a real battlefield you can't min/max optimize your forces and push to have the scenario be in your favor all the time. You have to be able to mitigate risk, work with the battlefield, and a number of other factors that exist as it pertains to military tactics and strategies that a simple game like AOS do not test at all.

The game could also have a mechanic where I get to kick you in the balls if you roll a certain number on X dice. And then when you complain about it I can tell you to just suck it up and know how it works so you can become a better general. That doesn't make that a fun mechanic to put into the game though. Same as the fun rules that AOS had on release like if you have a beard, or if you kneel you lose, etc. When people complained about it we could just tell them thats just how it works, suck it up and get better. Also doesn't make it a fun mechanic to put into a game though.

Same as a mechanic where you stand there for two full turns doing nothing but removing models for 45-60 minutes. I call that a waste of an afternoon - no matter which side of the table I am on be it removing my models or making you remove your models.


So if someone doesn't play the game they don't count. It is like not voting, the political parties win. If they don't understand the balance built upon the priority roll within the game and don't play, again, okay? Great I guess? People like to express negativity online.

I've never stood around for 45 - 60 minutes and just removed models. that implies your turns are taking an hour each and it's a 5 round game. I don't recall playing a 5 hour game since Storm of Magic. Also you are aware of activation? And that you get to roll dice when your opponent does? Feel free to find things that are a better use of your afternoon. No one is demanding you stand around and only remove models.

I don't think many people who play fantasy games as hobbies are too concerned with having to field troops in the real world. Those people with experience tend to play Flames of War and Team Yankee and are quite good at it. A game built upon real world instances.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/04/29 21:57:56


Post by: JNAProductions


popisdead wrote:
auticus wrote:
popisdead wrote:


Once you extend into knowing it's a deliberate mechanic in the game and how it works you become a better general. TBH the only place I hear about it being an issue is online. Never in a game or games store or tournament.


I'd say likely because many of the people that dont like it, dont' play the game so you wont encounter them at your games store or tournaments. I know a whole swarm of people in real life that hate the double turn and is why they wont touch AOS. You also wont find them down at the game store playing AOS or participating in AOS tournaments.

Once you extend into knowing it's a deliberate mechanic in the game and how it works you become a better general.


I dont think so. It makes you a better gamer sure because you know how to take advantage of game mechanics. General? No. Hardly. Most of the people I have ever known that are good at AOS would absolutely crap their pants if they had to command any real troops on a battlefield, because a real battlefield you can't min/max optimize your forces and push to have the scenario be in your favor all the time. You have to be able to mitigate risk, work with the battlefield, and a number of other factors that exist as it pertains to military tactics and strategies that a simple game like AOS do not test at all.

The game could also have a mechanic where I get to kick you in the balls if you roll a certain number on X dice. And then when you complain about it I can tell you to just suck it up and know how it works so you can become a better general. That doesn't make that a fun mechanic to put into the game though. Same as the fun rules that AOS had on release like if you have a beard, or if you kneel you lose, etc. When people complained about it we could just tell them thats just how it works, suck it up and get better. Also doesn't make it a fun mechanic to put into a game though.

Same as a mechanic where you stand there for two full turns doing nothing but removing models for 45-60 minutes. I call that a waste of an afternoon - no matter which side of the table I am on be it removing my models or making you remove your models.


So if someone doesn't play the game they don't count. It is like not voting, the political parties win. If they don't understand the balance built upon the priority roll within the game and don't play, again, okay? Great I guess? People like to express negativity online.

I've never stood around for 45 - 60 minutes and just removed models. that implies your turns are taking an hour each and it's a 5 round game. I don't recall playing a 5 hour game since Storm of Magic. Also you are aware of activation? And that you get to roll dice when your opponent does? Feel free to find things that are a better use of your afternoon. No one is demanding you stand around and only remove models.

I don't think many people who play fantasy games as hobbies are too concerned with having to field troops in the real world. Those people with experience tend to play Flames of War and Team Yankee and are quite good at it. A game built upon real world instances.
Before the combat phase, dice-rolling is almost entirely reactionary.

I don't consider "Rolling Saves" to be playing the game. Not in a meaningful way.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/04/29 23:03:00


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Are there a notable number of players (read: sales) avoiding AoS due to random initiative? Yes, it seems so.

Would players who like random initiative leave AoS if it were removed, and have somewhere to go if they did? No on both counts.

I think GW has gotten to a point where they understand that reality, and it becomes a basic business decision. They may just remove it from matched though, or keep it but nerf it again (note that they made random initiative significantly less random in 2nd edition).


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/04/29 23:06:46


Post by: ccs


Wayniac wrote:
ccs wrote:
Because if that answer is a yes? Then I really don't understand their stance on this since we HAVE Open & Narrative play as options and, as you put it, there's a swarm of these people.
That sounds like a community who simply has to decide to play "open" & choose wich rules they want to apply to their games.

Outside of the tourney scene there's nothing stopping people getting together & choosing to use 99.999% of Matched Play rules in Open/Narrative play.


How many people do you know who will use Open/Narrative play, even with using almost all the Matched Play stuff?


Plenty. Virtually everyone. There is a range of opinions on the use of the double turn rule.
With a few hardcore cases on either end. Most of us though are veterans of multiple editions/systems/RPGs, years & years of gaming xp, & flexible. We're not playing in a tourney, there's nothing on the line, it's just a game at the local shop on Sunday afternoon etc. So if we alter something? The universe won't care. The GW Arbites won't show up.

What happens with the double turn is this:
Two anti-2x turn players? = No double turn
Two pro-2x turn players? = Double Turn
Anti + Pro? Well, since most of us a flexible, an agreement will be reached & someone will yield. If not roll off. High roll decides.
The polar opposites? They just don't play each other. They've made the decision to limit their pool of opponents by x.
ME? I don't care either way. I let my opponent decide. Or my teammates & foes if it's a muti-player game.


Wayniac wrote:
The stigma is that these styles are ridiculously imbalanced and "unfair" because it's not Matched Play, which is specifically stated to be balanced, ergo the other modes are not and obviously if something is not balanced you can't have a fun game (the irony of course being Matched is just as imbalanced if not worse since you can hide behind "the rules let me" rather than admit you're an donkey-cave). . I have rarely if ever met anyone who will do anything other than Matched Play and even if they did are reluctant to houserule anything because that means it's no longer the "real" rules. My area is not as bad as say auticus' where people will throw tantrums and try to sabotage anything using houserules as "playing wrong" but there's a stigma against houserules and I've seen that mindset since 1996.

I have found people dislike houseruling because, as said above, it reduces the player pool. If you get too acclimated to houserules in your area and go somewhere else, you are "playing wrong". If someone new to the area comes in from an area that didn't have houserules you now have a conflict when that person asks to play by the rules as written and you wan to play with your group's houserules.


Wich still doesn't answer the question of why like minded players in an area wouldn't get together & play the game their way concerning the double turn.
They aren't playing now because the standard game includes the double turn.
If they went elsewhere? They still wouldn't be playing for the same reason.

And if you do go play elsewhere? There's no conflict needed. That saying about "When in Rome...." applies.
Once you're accepted into the new group, then maybe you can affect some change.



Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/04/30 01:32:41


Post by: Rihgu


popisdead wrote:
If they don't understand the balance built upon the priority roll within the game and don't play, again, okay? Great I guess?

If the game is balanced upon the priority roll then why do so many people so successfully houserule it out to great success and fun? Shouldn't their games be broken?


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/04/30 02:38:17


Post by: mokoshkana


IGOUGO is the problem, not the double turn. Alternating activations would fix a lot. Star Wars legion does this incredibly well.

As for the double turn, I play with it. It makes the game interesting, if nothing else.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/04/30 04:14:49


Post by: Charistoph


 mokoshkana wrote:
IGOUGO is the problem, not the double turn. Alternating activations would fix a lot. Star Wars legion does this incredibly well.

Actually it is the combination of the two that are the problem. IGUGO can work, as evidenced with 8 Editions of Fantasy Battles.

Double Turn with alternating activations also can work, as evidenced by Warcry. Part of the problem with it at AoS's level is the disparity in some armies between the number of units they can field, like say, Sons of Behemat and Skaven.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/04/30 04:44:02


Post by: NinthMusketeer


It's true; Sons will deploy 6-9 very important models, while Skaven only get to deploy 1!*

*Expendable models not included.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/02 18:34:36


Post by: Cronch


I don't know if double turn is adding to the game tactically (i suspect not), but it's definitely a feel-bad rule. As in, even if it doesn't do much, you feel bad for having to sit through 2 turns of enemy whamming on you back to back.
If a game has elements that make you feel bad playing the game at random (because you can't plan for it, it either happens or not based on D6 roll), then there's a decent chance you will want to play that game less- bad memories stick in mind much longer and vividly than good ones.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/03 00:58:26


Post by: mokoshkana


Cronch wrote:
I don't know if double turn is adding to the game tactically (i suspect not), but it's definitely a feel-bad rule. As in, even if it doesn't do much, you feel bad for having to sit through 2 turns of enemy whamming on you back to back.
If a game has elements that make you feel bad playing the game at random (because you can't plan for it, it either happens or not based on D6 roll), then there's a decent chance you will want to play that game less- bad memories stick in mind much longer and vividly than good ones.
If you don't want randomness, then perhaps a game built on it isn't for you.

Also, for people not wanting to play, the poll shows that the double turn is far more popular than the anecdotes on here would make it seem.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/03 03:32:22


Post by: NinthMusketeer


The question is 'do you PLAY with the double turn' not 'do you LIKE the double turn' but I will give you points for a decent effort.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 mokoshkana wrote:
Cronch wrote:
I don't know if double turn is adding to the game tactically (i suspect not), but it's definitely a feel-bad rule. As in, even if it doesn't do much, you feel bad for having to sit through 2 turns of enemy whamming on you back to back.
If a game has elements that make you feel bad playing the game at random (because you can't plan for it, it either happens or not based on D6 roll), then there's a decent chance you will want to play that game less- bad memories stick in mind much longer and vividly than good ones.
If you don't want randomness, then perhaps a game built on it isn't for you.
And I don't want a discussion based on logical fallacy, but here we are.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/03 04:31:08


Post by: mokoshkana


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The question is 'do you PLAY with the double turn' not 'do you LIKE the double turn' but I will give you points for a decent effort.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 mokoshkana wrote:
Cronch wrote:
I don't know if double turn is adding to the game tactically (i suspect not), but it's definitely a feel-bad rule. As in, even if it doesn't do much, you feel bad for having to sit through 2 turns of enemy whamming on you back to back.
If a game has elements that make you feel bad playing the game at random (because you can't plan for it, it either happens or not based on D6 roll), then there's a decent chance you will want to play that game less- bad memories stick in mind much longer and vividly than good ones.
If you don't want randomness, then perhaps a game built on it isn't for you.
And I don't want a discussion based on logical fallacy, but here we are.
It is not a logical fallacy. One cannot complain about the randomness of the double turn without having to accept that much of the rest of the game is random. Sure things like positioning and target priority are incredibly important, but skill and armies being equal, randomness determines the winner.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/03 06:57:48


Post by: NinthMusketeer


The counter-argument is already contained in the original post you quoted, so I don't know what to say.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/03 14:14:41


Post by: JNAProductions


I like chocolate, therefore I must take every single chance I have to eat as much chocolate as possible.
I dislike needles, therefore I will never under any circumstance so much as touch a needle, no matter what.

Both those seem silly, right? It's possible to like or dislike something without taking it to a massive extreme. Such as randomness in a game-one can tolerate or even enjoy randomness in attacks, without wanting randomness in turn structure in an IGOUGO game.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/03 16:22:27


Post by: mokoshkana


 JNAProductions wrote:
I like chocolate, therefore I must take every single chance I have to eat as much chocolate as possible.
I dislike needles, therefore I will never under any circumstance so much as touch a needle, no matter what.

Both those seem silly, right? It's possible to like or dislike something without taking it to a massive extreme. Such as randomness in a game-one can tolerate or even enjoy randomness in attacks, without wanting randomness in turn structure in an IGOUGO game.
Fair point, well said.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/03 20:35:16


Post by: auticus


Indeed. Dismissing someone saying they dont like random turns as being silly because other random elements exist in the game is a non-starter IMO.

I also like american football which has violence. However a real-life blood bowl version of american football where players are kicking each other in the crotch and carrying knives and explosives would also be violence, just a more extreme version of it.

I enjoy random things in the games. I dislike random turn order the way it is presented in AOS because in AOS I dont' like standing there for two turns in a row doing nothing but removing models and making saves.

That is not a very strategic or tactical game to me. Its just expensive farkle.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/03 21:48:40


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Hey at least it's better than knowing the outcome just from looking at the lists... I think...


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/04 01:29:59


Post by: auticus


No i think its equally as bad. Both make playing the game pointless.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/04 06:19:08


Post by: Apple fox


I think random turns is probably worse for ruining games.
People making bad choices in lists or deliberately skewing a list for fun or to try something different in well designed game can lead to a lot of great moments.
With random turns, it seems the best you can really hope for is it doesn’t effect the game negatively.
A player pulling a win off from random turn with no really thought or tactics is probably a fairly hollow win for a lot of people. And I really don’t see it’s benefits since half the games are probably ruined by it over being of benefit to the experiance.

It’s also a real pain trying to get people to play, not really being into the setting is one thing. But I think every conversation I have had about getting players into the game has end up with the random turn coming up. It’s a huge negative from people. :(


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/04 09:14:24


Post by: Cronch


 mokoshkana wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The question is 'do you PLAY with the double turn' not 'do you LIKE the double turn' but I will give you points for a decent effort.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 mokoshkana wrote:
Cronch wrote:
I don't know if double turn is adding to the game tactically (i suspect not), but it's definitely a feel-bad rule. As in, even if it doesn't do much, you feel bad for having to sit through 2 turns of enemy whamming on you back to back.
If a game has elements that make you feel bad playing the game at random (because you can't plan for it, it either happens or not based on D6 roll), then there's a decent chance you will want to play that game less- bad memories stick in mind much longer and vividly than good ones.
If you don't want randomness, then perhaps a game built on it isn't for you.
And I don't want a discussion based on logical fallacy, but here we are.
It is not a logical fallacy. One cannot complain about the randomness of the double turn without having to accept that much of the rest of the game is random. Sure things like positioning and target priority are incredibly important, but skill and armies being equal, randomness determines the winner.

You just keep missing the point, don't you? I didn't complain about randomness, I complained about randomness that *feels* unfair because unlike most other rolls in the game, there is no recourse to this one, and it means sitting and doing nothing for 10-20 minutes. "Roll d6, on 1 you auto-lose" is a random roll. "Roll d6, on 1 your model loses 1 wound" is also a random roll, and according to you, both have equal impact.

As for "being popular", I voted "YES" to playing with double turns cause that's what's in the rules, but it's NOT popular. Playing with something is not a proof of popularity of it.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/04 15:40:52


Post by: mokoshkana


Cronch wrote:
Spoiler:
 mokoshkana wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The question is 'do you PLAY with the double turn' not 'do you LIKE the double turn' but I will give you points for a decent effort.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 mokoshkana wrote:
Cronch wrote:
I don't know if double turn is adding to the game tactically (i suspect not), but it's definitely a feel-bad rule. As in, even if it doesn't do much, you feel bad for having to sit through 2 turns of enemy whamming on you back to back.
If a game has elements that make you feel bad playing the game at random (because you can't plan for it, it either happens or not based on D6 roll), then there's a decent chance you will want to play that game less- bad memories stick in mind much longer and vividly than good ones.
If you don't want randomness, then perhaps a game built on it isn't for you.
And I don't want a discussion based on logical fallacy, but here we are.
It is not a logical fallacy. One cannot complain about the randomness of the double turn without having to accept that much of the rest of the game is random. Sure things like positioning and target priority are incredibly important, but skill and armies being equal, randomness determines the winner.

You just keep missing the point, don't you? I didn't complain about randomness, I complained about randomness that *feels* unfair because unlike most other rolls in the game, there is no recourse to this one, and it means sitting and doing nothing for 10-20 minutes. "Roll d6, on 1 you auto-lose" is a random roll. "Roll d6, on 1 your model loses 1 wound" is also a random roll, and according to you, both have equal impact.

As for "being popular", I voted "YES" to playing with double turns cause that's what's in the rules, but it's NOT popular. Playing with something is not a proof of popularity of it.
I guess you missed where I conceded the point above, eh? There is no recourse to much of the unfairness of GW games.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/06 13:44:10


Post by: joewarhost


Logged in to see how my old hangout is doing and then saw this and wanted to weigh in.

The double-turn is very controversial and a lot of people I know don't like it - or at least refuse to play in a competitive context because of it. I can understand that - it's a very swingy feature that could give a advantageous player what they need to crush an opponent before round 3, or give a poor player the edge they need get the upper hand. Getting screwed by randomness is very frustrating, especially in competitive contexts. MTG players just have to deal with getting mana screwed or their opponents top-decking, and unfortunately there's nothing they can do about it.

Personally, I like the double-turn rule. It forces me to open my mind to other possibilities and think about my actions. Putting a critical hero out in the open to effortlessly wipe out a threatening unit would make a lot more sense in you-go-i-go, but with random turn orders that kind of overcomittment will cost you the game. So there is this deep element of risk and sacrifice you have to consider as you are playing. I enjoy it, I think it's nuanced. But I also play a lot of poker, and in poker, most of the hands you get are bad.

If it's any consolation, the leak/rumors for AoS3 seem to indicate that while the random turn order will still be around, that there will be further bonuses to the person who didn't win the roll-off, to help mitigate how oppressive the double-turn is. Additionally, if these leaks are true there will be more command abilities available as reactions to your opponents' decisions during their turn, similar to 40K. So perhaps next time it will feel closer to what's intended instead of just unfair.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/06 16:45:55


Post by: auticus


It needs to be more than one player removing models and making saves two turns in a row.

So these reaction rules they are adding need to be impactful and meaningful.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/06 20:22:34


Post by: NinthMusketeer


It's better to play assuming the double doesn't happen, as that gets better net results. If you really do prepare well for the double guess what--your opponent can just not give it to you and now you've screwed yourself anyways.

Doubly true for the person going second; play assuming the double doesn't happen because if it does you have such a massive advantage you don't need any preperation to win.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/06 21:16:41


Post by: Cronch


I really am not convinced it's actual "leak" of any sort, it sounds too close to WHFB charge reactions.And of course they do nothing against the worst offenders, ranged factions double-turning.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/07 03:52:59


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Didn't that leak say AoS 3rd would be revealed last Monday?


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/07 10:02:43


Post by: Gir Spirit Bane


I dont mind the double turn, I wouldn't be sad to see it leave but as I play the game casually with mates (no local tournies for a long time it looks like) the double turn keeps things fun.

Sometimes we play without the double turn, especially if we're doing siege battles but all it needs is some element of interactivity so you're not stood there like a lemon twice in a row. endless spells were a start, but not enough.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/08 09:40:28


Post by: ccs


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Didn't that leak say AoS 3rd would be revealed last Monday?


Yeah, Monday seems to have come & gone....


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/09 12:34:59


Post by: Amishprn86


3.0 shown and Double turn is here to stay, you get bonus CP if you don't take the double turn, and General Battalions everyone can take in core rules.

Some rumors are showing shooting took a small nerf, you can no longer stack abilities more than once (Like +/- to hits, +/- to wounds, +/- to saves, +atks, etc...)

Depending on what else changes, its hard to say how this will impact the want to get the double turn.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/09 13:41:07


Post by: ERJAK


drbored wrote:
The double-turn mechanic in AoS is pretty controversial. Some, like MiniWarGaming, have gotten rid of the double-turn mechanic in their batreps, claiming it was ruining more batreps than it was helping.

What's your feeling, and now this late into the game, do you play with random turns, or have you decided to set that rule aside?


Whatever your feelings about the double turn, miniwargaming's AoS batreps were not ruined by it. Miniwargaming's AoS battles were ruined by miniwargaming.

I understand not wanting to build super competitive lists and not keeping super tight to the 'meta', but for feths sake they couldn't even keep 'these guys are good against small guys and these guys are good against big guys' straight most of the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It's better to play assuming the double doesn't happen, as that gets better net results. If you really do prepare well for the double guess what--your opponent can just not give it to you and now you've screwed yourself anyways.

Doubly true for the person going second; play assuming the double doesn't happen because if it does you have such a massive advantage you don't need any preperation to win.


Or go hail mary and put yourself in a guaranteed position to win on the double. The double turn isn't generally particularly devastating for most experienced players unless they CHOOSE to make it devastating (at the risk of not getting it).


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/09 14:48:43


Post by: Skimask Mohawk


 Amishprn86 wrote:
3.0 shown and Double turn is here to stay, you get bonus CP if you don't take the double turn, and General Battalions everyone can take in core rules.


Actually the guy said you get bonus cp for going second. So if one turn 1 you roll the roll off and choose to go second, you get bonus CP and set yourself up for a double turn. In subsequent rounds it does incentivize not taking the double, but how much depends on how critical CP are throughout a turn and needs to offset that initial advantage of bonus CP into a double.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/09 16:06:56


Post by: SquealMcSqueal


The rules presented in this publication give you a framework to make the tales of the Age of Sigmar your own.

It is important to note that all of the rules presented in this book are optional; they can be used, or not, in any combination...


I've always lived by these snippets that have been in 'almost' every GW rulebook since Warhammer Fantasy Battles.

If your opponent desperately dislikes a certain system within the game at hand and it's easy to circumvent... then I'll do it so we both enjoy our gaming. Very few people, in my opinion, enjoy losing a game, be it a fun matchup or a super serious tournament style game literally before or as the game begins on turn one.

Most of us play many different games, but all with some commonality such as a Strategy phase, Movement Phase, Combat phase etc etc. Is it really that much of a stretch to swap one set of mechanics for another?

I don't like the double turn or the random turn that much, but can and will play it... sometimes with genuinely funny results, sometimes pulling defeat from the jaws of victory... more often that not, though, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory

We (friends / family / anyone up for a change) usually adopt the Turn system from Bolt Action by Warlord Games. In a nutshell, at the start of the first turn one player grabs a token from (a pre sorted) blind bag and whomevers token is drawn gets to activate a unit or character, leaving the token out of the bag. Once done the next player draws a token... and repeat until all units have had an activation. One noteable caveat to this is that when activating a character, that character can actually order an additional unit (or two if you activate your Warlord) as well to activate... it opens up a truckload of tactical dilemmas to either overcome or turn to your advantage.

We do it like this as none of us really like standing around doing not a lot, as our opponent moves their entire army, shoots you, lightning bolts you etc with no chance to really react or participate apart from some saving rolls and removing your model from the table. Even worse after that random double turn. The way we usually play, we are constantly engaged and rather more immersed in the tactics as so many things occour that you did not either prepare for or thought would happen. It brings a fun layer of 'Fog of War' to the game.

Not saying it's correct for everybody to use, nor saying it's a more elegant / tactical / cool / better way of playing... as I said at the start, it's just that by exercising those quoted snippets, it seems to bring me and my buds the most amount of fun.

Clearly in a Tournament setting you use what you're told to use to ensure a common playing field. Not necessarily a fair one, but one that everyone can use.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/10 17:15:17


Post by: Thadin




Quick question, with that system, do you still use the phase system? Hero phase, move phase, etc?


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/10 21:20:51


Post by: NinthMusketeer


AoS alternate-by-phase works really well.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/11 01:46:43


Post by: Void__Dragon


I have never once heard a compelling argument in favor of double turns. Never. I've played with it because "dem's the rules" but it's a bad rule and no one in this thread or in my experience has ever intelligently defended it.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/11 02:05:04


Post by: catbarf


Normally I really like randomness in activation as a wargame mechanic. It adds unpredictability and Clausewitzian friction, and ideally can be mitigated with proper planning, just like any other random element of the game.

However, the IGOUGO structure makes it swingy to a degree that I think is too far, and the double turn is the symptom. That single die roll is the most critical one in the game and there's only so much you can do about it- as an Ogor player, I find that acting conservatively to mitigate the risk of a double turn is a good way to lose.

I'd really prefer:
-Per-unit randomized activation a la Bolt Action- draw a color-coded chits or die from a cup, whoever's color it is gets to activate a unit. You get to pick who's going to activate next, but you don't know whether it'll be you or your opponent who gets the next activation. It's a simple mechanic that also provides a mechanism for leaders to actually lead, by letting them activate friendlies near them when they activate.
-Per-formation randomized activation. As above, but with units organized into groups (Battalions?), so that a group activates at once. This shifts the focus away from leaders and more towards army structure, but it's also quicker and simpler to resolve, and a little closer to traditional IGOUGO.
-Round-based active/reactive system a la Lord of the Rings. One player goes first and the other goes second within a phase. So I move, you move, I shoot, you shoot, and so on. This provides a sense of one side having the initiative while the other is still able to react.

Any of those provides more opportunity for interaction and on-the-fly counterplay than a system where it is fairly common occurrence for every single model in your opponent's army to go twice while your models stand there twiddling their thumbs. Of course all three require a significant rework of the game, so I'm just wishlisting here.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/11 13:04:47


Post by: godswildcard


One thing that I don't understand about the double turn is when people say it's unlikely to happen or that it rarely happens. I'm wondering if I'm missing something in the rules somewhere.

The rules are:
"At the start of each battle round, the
players must roll off, and the winner
decides who takes the first turn. If the
roll-off is a tie, then the player who
went first in the last battle round can
choose who goes first in this one, but
if it is the first battle round, the player
that finished setting up their army
first chooses who has the first turn."

So it looks like there is a decent possibility that the double-turn goes off at least once every game since it's just a roll-off with ties being decided by the person who went last in the previous turn, which seems like it would increase the odds of the double turn.

Is there a rule that I'm missing somewhere or am I just not thinking through the odds properly?


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/11 13:22:05


Post by: Rihgu


It's unlikely to happen because it's basically a 50/50 with a tiebreaker leaning towards NOT having a double turn. So about 66% chance of not happening.

Also, if you're set up defensively and your opponent notices and wins the double turn, they can decide not to take it and force you to either continue turtling or move out aggressively.

So in practice, the double turn only really happens when it would decide the game.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/11 13:29:34


Post by: lare2


Bit disappointed to see they're keeping rolling for initiative and basically stuck a plaster on it. Suppose we don't have all the rules yet...


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/11 13:35:58


Post by: Rihgu


Yea, the more mechanics they incorporate around the double turn/random initiative the harder it is to houserule out. To the point where it may be best to just stick with 2.0 with double turns houseruled out if their additions don't make it any more interesting.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/11 18:14:57


Post by: NinthMusketeer


They basically had two paths forward; eliminate it or counterbalance it with penalties/bonuses. They went with the latter. We don't know what those bonuses are so cannot yet make the call. For all we know they will overcompensate and taking the double will prove to be a disadvantage because it gives the other player too many bonuses.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/11 18:48:52


Post by: auticus


I remember the eternal spells were supposed to "balance it out" too. And they didn't even dent it.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/11 19:13:03


Post by: Eldarain


There was potential there. Until I realized you only got to move one first. Then they started making some that can't hurt the faction that brought it. Then they made some the enemy couldn't even move.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/11 19:15:40


Post by: Thadin


I don't even agree with the endless spells hurting yourself idea. Or being used by the enemy. I'd rather them cost more points and be entirely under the purchasing player's control. You pay for it, it's part of your list. Give them all the OBR Treatment while you're at it, -1 to casting rolls for a wizard maintaining the endless spell.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/11 19:45:26


Post by: Eldarain


That is true and would be a fine change especially as you said these are points that could be used on more reliable choices.

I'm merely stating their complete failure as a lever to pull in an effort to balance the incentives of choosing to take a double turn.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/11 19:56:56


Post by: nels1031


 Thadin wrote:
I'd rather them cost more points and be entirely under the purchasing player's control. You pay for it, it's part of your list.


I thought that would be a trend we'd see after Seraphon had their bound spells.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/11 19:57:20


Post by: catbarf


Rihgu wrote:
It's unlikely to happen because it's basically a 50/50 with a tiebreaker leaning towards NOT having a double turn. So about 66% chance of not happening.


58% chance of it not happening, 42% of it happening on a single roll.

The chance of at least one opportunity for a double turn to occur in rounds 2 or 3 is 66%. Two out of three games will feature that opportunity before or during round 3.

The chance of that never happening at all over the course of five battle rounds is just 11%. The overwhelming majority of games will feature a player having the opportunity to force a double turn.

It's not rare or unlikely at all, it's a common occurrence.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/11 20:30:19


Post by: auticus


It happened in almost every game I played where I had no choice but to use it due to players being against houseruling anything.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/11 20:31:58


Post by: Thadin


 nels1031 wrote:
 Thadin wrote:
I'd rather them cost more points and be entirely under the purchasing player's control. You pay for it, it's part of your list.


I thought that would be a trend we'd see after Seraphon had their bound spells.


I wish it had been a trend. Especially when, at least in the games I play, I rarely see Endless spells on both sides.

Call it biased, but I take endless spells the most in my lists in my local play area, up to 2 or 3 and often having the game-wide ones, and it's frustrating that I lose control of what I pay for. Even the faction-spells that cant backfire on my army, the enemy can just move them away and make them useless for the rest of the game

And, I agree Eldarain. It doesn't do enough to stop double-turn dominance when taken at the right time.

 auticus wrote:
It happened in almost every game I played where I had no choice but to use it due to players being against houseruling anything.


The only games I've had where there wasn't a double-turn was when I made a conscious, purposeful choice to NOT take a doubleturn, and force the static turn order. And the choice was made after looking at the board state and deciding that I was in too strong of a position, and taking the double-turn would undoubtedly ruin the game. My stance is just that, it ruins more games than it saves.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/11 21:08:28


Post by: auticus


My stance is just that, it ruins more games than it saves.


I am in total agreement.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/11 23:12:38


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 auticus wrote:
I remember the eternal spells were supposed to "balance it out" too. And they didn't even dent it.
Endless spells pretty much went the way everyone said it would; the ones that could be used 'safely' were used, the ones that had a reasonable chance of backfiring were not, and they had no impact on initiative overall.

What did have an impact was making ties go to the player who went first the previous round, as opposed to a re-roll. In first edition it was 50/50 odds for player 1 or 2 to win initiative, second edition changed that to 58/42 which may not have been enough but was still quite noticeable.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/13 00:46:32


Post by: Amishprn86


 Void__Dragon wrote:
I have never once heard a compelling argument in favor of double turns. Never. I've played with it because "dem's the rules" but it's a bad rule and no one in this thread or in my experience has ever intelligently defended it.


I travel for GTs and Majors for AoS (sadly not in the past year b.c Covid) I do teams and singles. And I can tell you the game would be extremely boring and you would know who would win by end of turn 2 within the double turn (other than a couple missions).

I would rather not have it, but sadly the game needs it. GW had a chance to redo some of the problems for 3.0 but it looks like they decided not to do that.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/13 01:59:11


Post by: Rihgu


I was thinking about it today and the only GW rule the majority of players seem fine with houseruling away is 10 points for painted models in 40k. And heck are they adamant about it, too.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/13 02:04:30


Post by: JNAProductions


Rihgu wrote:
I was thinking about it today and the only GW rule the majority of players seem fine with houseruling away is 10 points for painted models in 40k. And heck are they adamant about it, too.
There are a lot of people on here who LOVE that rule.

I don't get why-it encourages you to paint fast rather than well, so even if you value the look more than the playing, I'd imagine you'd rather face an army that's half-done, but the half that's done is gorgeous; than a shoddily (but completely) painted army.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/13 02:27:18


Post by: Wayniac


 JNAProductions wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
I was thinking about it today and the only GW rule the majority of players seem fine with houseruling away is 10 points for painted models in 40k. And heck are they adamant about it, too.
There are a lot of people on here who LOVE that rule.

I don't get why-it encourages you to paint fast rather than well, so even if you value the look more than the playing, I'd imagine you'd rather face an army that's half-done, but the half that's done is gorgeous; than a shoddily (but completely) painted army.
People like that rule because they just don't want to see unpainted armies and would rather see a half-assed painted one than gray plastic.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/13 03:09:27


Post by: auticus


 Amishprn86 wrote:
 Void__Dragon wrote:
I have never once heard a compelling argument in favor of double turns. Never. I've played with it because "dem's the rules" but it's a bad rule and no one in this thread or in my experience has ever intelligently defended it.


I travel for GTs and Majors for AoS (sadly not in the past year b.c Covid) I do teams and singles. And I can tell you the game would be extremely boring and you would know who would win by end of turn 2 within the double turn (other than a couple missions).

I would rather not have it, but sadly the game needs it. GW had a chance to redo some of the problems for 3.0 but it looks like they decided not to do that.


That speaks volumes to how garbage the rules and balance are. How its the #1 fantasy game really astounds me. Many / most of my games WITH the double turn... were decided by turn 2 as well. Thats one of the things I really dont like about AOS or 40k. They both suffer from that. It astounds me how thats ok and how popular the game is despite that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
I was thinking about it today and the only GW rule the majority of players seem fine with houseruling away is 10 points for painted models in 40k. And heck are they adamant about it, too.
There are a lot of people on here who LOVE that rule.

I don't get why-it encourages you to paint fast rather than well, so even if you value the look more than the playing, I'd imagine you'd rather face an army that's half-done, but the half that's done is gorgeous; than a shoddily (but completely) painted army.
People like that rule because they just don't want to see unpainted armies and would rather see a half-assed painted one than gray plastic.


Yep. Thats my feelings on it too. I dont like grey plastic either.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/13 07:32:59


Post by: Cyel


 auticus wrote:
How its the #1 fantasy game really astounds me.


Sales-wise.

Monopoly is also a top boardgame sales-wise, but if you take a look at BGG rankings, it's nowhere to be seen...

People buy them because they are popular and they are popular because people buy them. I am quite sure that just like most people who buy Monopoly don't even know that there's an entire world of modern bardgame design that makes Monopoly feel like a joke of a game, a lot of people think that all miniature wargames must be like GW games, just with worse models.

(Not to mention people who bought Brass or Arkwright or Food Chain Magnate thinking that it must be something like Monopoly, because all boardgames are ... )



Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/13 13:42:34


Post by: auticus


Cyel wrote:
 auticus wrote:
How its the #1 fantasy game really astounds me.


Sales-wise.

Monopoly is also a top boardgame sales-wise, but if you take a look at BGG rankings, it's nowhere to be seen...

People buy them because they are popular and they are popular because people buy them. I am quite sure that just like most people who buy Monopoly don't even know that there's an entire world of modern bardgame design that makes Monopoly feel like a joke of a game, a lot of people think that all miniature wargames must be like GW games, just with worse models.

(Not to mention people who bought Brass or Arkwright or Food Chain Magnate thinking that it must be something like Monopoly, because all boardgames are ... )



I do think that its common knowledge for most places in the world (I have not seen contrary but for a few rare instances) that AOS is also the most played fantasy wargame - if not THE ONLY fantasy wargame - played from locale to locale. You can pretty much go anywhere and find open public games and events of AOS. You cannot do the same with any other fantasy wargame. Many of which struggle to hold a handful of people in a region.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/13 13:59:02


Post by: NinthMusketeer


People would rather play a wargame with deep flaws than fail to find games for one with a better ruleset.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/13 15:00:30


Post by: Wayniac


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
People would rather play a wargame with deep flaws than fail to find games for one with a better ruleset.
absolutely. And on top of that they want to have a variety of opponents rather than a handful so even if there were a couple of people playing a different game it's still an uphill struggle because 4 people is not enough, it has to be 40.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/13 15:23:01


Post by: auticus


Probably the biggest frustration I have lol. Oh well. I always have Total Warhammer.

I am finishing up Primo Victoria which is an advanced AOS ruleset and proper rebalanced models based on my azyr engine, so I'll put some battles of that up on my channel in the future and at least entertain myself.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/13 15:34:59


Post by: Rihgu


 auticus wrote:
Probably the biggest frustration I have lol. Oh well. I always have Total Warhammer.

I am finishing up Primo Victoria which is an advanced AOS ruleset and proper rebalanced models based on my azyr engine, so I'll put some battles of that up on my channel in the future and at least entertain myself.


I actually await this with baited breath! I remember doing a bunch of work on "pointifying" early AoS only to find out that you not only had done the work, but with actual tools and data science type experience backing it up. Azyr came out to the same "points" as I had figured out for like... 3 units... but you had already done most of the game by the time I figured those 3 out

So very interested to see this Primo Victoria!


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/13 15:42:34


Post by: auticus


Rihgu wrote:
 auticus wrote:
Probably the biggest frustration I have lol. Oh well. I always have Total Warhammer.

I am finishing up Primo Victoria which is an advanced AOS ruleset and proper rebalanced models based on my azyr engine, so I'll put some battles of that up on my channel in the future and at least entertain myself.


I actually await this with baited breath! I remember doing a bunch of work on "pointifying" early AoS only to find out that you not only had done the work, but with actual tools and data science type experience backing it up. Azyr came out to the same "points" as I had figured out for like... 3 units... but you had already done most of the game by the time I figured those 3 out

So very interested to see this Primo Victoria!


Thanks for the comments i got rid of my entire AOS collection and books but will be going off of the model collection. I'm going to be hosting my game studio's website here in the summer and it will be up there. I plan on starting with stormcast and warriors of chaos and working my way through everything through there.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/13 23:25:52


Post by: Void__Dragon


 Amishprn86 wrote:
 Void__Dragon wrote:
I have never once heard a compelling argument in favor of double turns. Never. I've played with it because "dem's the rules" but it's a bad rule and no one in this thread or in my experience has ever intelligently defended it.


I travel for GTs and Majors for AoS (sadly not in the past year b.c Covid) I do teams and singles. And I can tell you the game would be extremely boring and you would know who would win by end of turn 2 within the double turn (other than a couple missions).

I would rather not have it, but sadly the game needs it. GW had a chance to redo some of the problems for 3.0 but it looks like they decided not to do that.


So your argument is that it is a bad rule but the rest of the rules are so much worse that it is necessary? And you actually give GW money for AoS products?


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/14 00:08:35


Post by: Amishprn86


 Void__Dragon wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
 Void__Dragon wrote:
I have never once heard a compelling argument in favor of double turns. Never. I've played with it because "dem's the rules" but it's a bad rule and no one in this thread or in my experience has ever intelligently defended it.


I travel for GTs and Majors for AoS (sadly not in the past year b.c Covid) I do teams and singles. And I can tell you the game would be extremely boring and you would know who would win by end of turn 2 within the double turn (other than a couple missions).

I would rather not have it, but sadly the game needs it. GW had a chance to redo some of the problems for 3.0 but it looks like they decided not to do that.


So your argument is that it is a bad rule but the rest of the rules are so much worse that it is necessary? And you actually give GW money for AoS products?


I would rather it be removed, but after testing it gone, i'd rather have it in the game until a large amount of things are changed.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/14 05:24:06


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 Void__Dragon wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
 Void__Dragon wrote:
I have never once heard a compelling argument in favor of double turns. Never. I've played with it because "dem's the rules" but it's a bad rule and no one in this thread or in my experience has ever intelligently defended it.


I travel for GTs and Majors for AoS (sadly not in the past year b.c Covid) I do teams and singles. And I can tell you the game would be extremely boring and you would know who would win by end of turn 2 within the double turn (other than a couple missions).

I would rather not have it, but sadly the game needs it. GW had a chance to redo some of the problems for 3.0 but it looks like they decided not to do that.


So your argument is that it is a bad rule but the rest of the rules are so much worse that it is necessary? And you actually give GW money for AoS products?
That IS the appeal; even players at a heavy disadvantage can still have a chance.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/14 05:37:09


Post by: Cyel


That's true. When you design games you use randomness to have worse players not feel hopeless against better ones.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/14 06:53:17


Post by: NinthMusketeer


I have found it is less often that and far, far more often a worse army list vs a better one. It is a crutch for the horrid imbalances the game suffers.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/14 13:41:23


Post by: auticus


Right - the problem is that it doesn't even really help that because the strong armies ALSO take advantage of low drops to get the double turn as well.

Double turn isn't something that always goes to the weaker list. It can just as easily and often go to the stronger list as well.

Making the game pointless to play. If you're looking for a game won on strategy and tactics, this is a huge disappointment.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/14 16:33:51


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Technically building a list to take advantage IS a strategy you know


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/14 17:27:32


Post by: Eldarain


The disproportionate and seemingly random distribution of quality Battalions really wasn't handled well.

I'm glad to hear a more equitable way of building armies is coming to open up that strategy to armies not blessed with quality battalions


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/14 18:32:00


Post by: auticus


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Technically building a list to take advantage IS a strategy you know


You're not wrong. Its just that with what we are talking about, we are really playing very expensive farkle as opposed to a war game.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/14 18:39:50


Post by: Cyel


 auticus wrote:
Right - the problem is that it doesn't even really help that because the strong armies ALSO take advantage of low drops to get the double turn as well.

Double turn isn't something that always goes to the weaker list. It can just as easily and often go to the stronger list as well.

Making the game pointless to play. If you're looking for a game won on strategy and tactics, this is a huge disappointment.


Right, but randomness is put into games to make worse player not FEEL hopeless. So that after a game they can think (or fool themselves ) "I could have won if I had had a bit more luck" instead of "I had no chance whatsoever from the beginning".

Having said this, I don't think GW puts randomness in their games with specific design goals in mind. They seem to have the game design mindset firmly back in the 70's or 80's at best. I'm sure they have some motto like this: "Players want to be passengers of the game when it plays itself, not the drivers. Their hands are needed to throw dice, the rest is irrelevant"


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/14 19:00:16


Post by: Rihgu


That sounds like their design philosophy pre AoS, maybe. Back when close combat was a flowchart that players didn't interact with at all, before command abilities, etc.
Modern GW definitely wants players to drive.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/14 19:03:24


Post by: auticus


What a world we'd all live in if balance was the most important factor


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/14 19:22:01


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Fun should be the most important factor. Balance is only a concern when it gets in the way of that, which ties into why it doesn't need to be 'perfect'. What perfect balance actually is, is balance good enough to not disrupt entertainment.


Do you play with Random Turns? @ 2021/05/14 20:20:20


Post by: auticus


Not asking for perfect balance.

Asking for a game that isn't decided on a double turn die roll off of a d6, or a game where the list building is so off the rails that you can determine winner before deployment many times.

A game where the winner is decided by meaningful choices in the game.

A game where there are no garbage choices, especially when models cost so much money and time to paint.