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

I wish we could get rid of the double turn :(

Galas wrote:My group has stopped using the double turn. Even the 2-3 guys that were reluctant to that, agree after 2 weeks of gaming without it. It makes the game objetively better. And we are a group of 10-15 people.

So if you are house ruling things, why not house rule what is broken instead of the double turn. If the changes means it changes the game so be it. It's for your group. So change what is broken.

auticus wrote:I wish we could get rid of the double turn :(

Don't you play with house rules my friend? Can't you change the rules that make the double turn dreaded? Or is it your group will not adapt? I know you explained to me why the double turn is bad. I say turn it around. In stead of having the double turn that is bad, change what is bad by keeping the double turn. Or do people really love the IGOUGO that they don't want that to change?

I have changed the rules years a go and my son loved it (for 40K when it became boring), so I can't see why grown men wouldn't want to make the game better when it's played by friends/group most times. I know with strangers it's not done, but a close group who can agree should be able to change other mechanics of the game that make the double turn bad.

In other words why don't people stop the IGOUGO mechanics in Age of Sigmar.

Dude, changing it so that turns are simply 'you me you me' is super simple and easy for everyone to agree on, as well as for new people to accept.

I would agree that IGOUGO is an outdated concept and shouldn't be used in games as big as AoS or 40k but those are much harder mechanics to get everyone to agree to change. The simpler and the less houserules the less barrier of entry and the less arguments.

Davor wrote:

Galas wrote:My group has stopped using the double turn. Even the 2-3 guys that were reluctant to that, agree after 2 weeks of gaming without it. It makes the game objetively better. And we are a group of 10-15 people.

So if you are house ruling things, why not house rule what is broken instead of the double turn. If the changes means it changes the game so be it. It's for your group. So change what is broken.

They did. Nothing in AoS is even as close to how broken the double turn is. Not to mention the ease of solution to beneficial result ratio is extremely good.

As for the rest, it isn't that simple and you know it.

 jonolikespie wrote:
.

I would agree that IGOUGO is an outdated concept and shouldn't be used in games as big as AoS or 40k but those are much harder mechanics to get everyone to agree to change.

IGUGO works very well for games as big as AoS/40k if done right.

For AoS you have two options:
alternate phases instead of turns and keep the double turn
remove the double turn


I know there are people who like it, but there were also those who "liked" and defended measuring from the model instead of the base because it is the best rule ever made.

Honestly I like chucking the double turn entirely and just alternating. The hypocrisy comes when people argue 'but that creates second-turn disadvantage!' It does, but the double-turn provides a disadvantage that's exponentially worse. I distinctly remember every single game in which my tournament army got a double turn and actually lost, because both times I made a critical mistake. That isn't to brag; a newbie with three matches under their belt could have won most of my double-turn games, it's that bad.

It does seem a very odd choice to allow in the game considering what you can achieve in a single turn; giving a player two turns one after the other is only fun in so much as yes it lets them act out a specific battleplan without interruption; but it means that they've now had two full turns of dealing damage to their opponent. It's one thing I really hope GW turns around and removes or revises or such.

Anyone going against an opponent who gets to turns against them is going to be at a huge disadvantage. With the game operating a lot faster now even the first two turns offer little protection.

Sure, in theory after your opponent has two you've got a chance for two, but by that point you're already at a huge disadvantage. You might not even get many choices either because after two turns (esp this edition) most units that can get into close combat will be locked in close combat, so already a good portion of what is still alive will already be tangled up.

It's also just really, really unenjoyable to be on the receiving end of. IGOUGO has enough downtime as it is, the double turn leaves you spending even more time sitting around uninvolved with anything actually going on on the table.

 Fafnir wrote:
It's also just really, really unenjoyable to be on the receiving end of. IGOUGO has enough downtime as it is, the double turn leaves you spending even more time sitting around uninvolved with anything actually going on on the table.

Except rolling the dice and removing even more of your models from the table

 Overread wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
It's also just really, really unenjoyable to be on the receiving end of. IGOUGO has enough downtime as it is, the double turn leaves you spending even more time sitting around uninvolved with anything actually going on on the table.

Except rolling the dice and removing even more of your models from the table

Which makes things even worse, since it means I can't just clock out for half an hour.

Often times, since it turns most games into pretty one-sided affairs, it'll be better just to concede if someone gets the double turn, just to save yourself from having to sit through it.

Ain't nothing less fun that sitting at a table and spending 45 minutes doing nothing but waiting and taking models off the table.

Oh yea, we usually don't play with it but wanted to try out endless spells, where a key part is turn priority.

We'll definitely be going back to no double turns and be leaving out endless spells for now

Surely is possible to work endless spells without double turns or make a few modifications to make it work?

I'm sure there is. But we just don't feel that motivated to come up with and troubleshoot a fix for an add on we won't be able to take advantage of until we both expand our spell centred armies.

Once he's gotten more painted for his legions or the new storm casts and I either use my sylvaneth or get morathi and warlocksthen well revisit endless spells

 jonolikespie wrote:
Ain't nothing less fun that sitting at a table and spending 45 minutes doing nothing but waiting and taking models off the table.

This is the primary reason we have agree to stop using the double turn. It is just not fun. Not for the person that receives all the damage one army can do in two turns, not even for the player that can use the double turn, because whats the point in playing when you opponent can't respond?

And Davor, has others have said, we could try to do an alternative system of phases like the Lord of the Rings game of GW but that would be much more complex and create much more debate in our community. To just stop using the double turn has been 2000 times more easy. Nobody argues anymore about using it.

jonolikespie wrote:Dude, changing it so that turns are simply 'you me you me' is super simple and easy for everyone to agree on, as well as for new people to accept.

I would agree that IGOUGO is an outdated concept and shouldn't be used in games as big as AoS or 40k but those are much harder mechanics to get everyone to agree to change. The simpler and the less houserules the less barrier of entry and the less arguments.

Fair enough, I see where you are coming from.

NinthMusketeer wrote:[As for the rest, it isn't that simple and you know it.

I never said it would be, but after being in this hobby for over 20 years and just see us complain and do nothing about it, I find it sad as us as grown men can't even try to fix it to have more fun. I find it funny when we were 5 something was broken we would talk about it in a few minutes and then we continue playing. Funny as adults we can't do that no more.

Galas wrote:And Davor, has others have said, we could try to do an alternative system of phases like the Lord of the Rings game of GW but that would be much more complex and create much more debate in our community. To just stop using the double turn has been 2000 times more easy. Nobody argues anymore about using it.

I just find it sad as a community we will moan and complain and do nothing about it. I see people like Auticus who want to do something about it and it gives me hope that grown men can come together and have fun. As for more debate in our community, isn't that what we are doing? So why not turn that debating negative energy into debating positive energy. After all there is nothing wrong with debating and that is why we come to forums, to debate and other things. Debating is not a bad thing.

Yes I know in pick up stranger games it is really awckward but when you already have a group you play with regularly I can't see why people can't keep making house rules as they go.

That said, there is no right or wrong answer here, we all have opinions and that is all they are.

We do house rules all the time. We play competitive tournaments too but most of the time we are doing narrative games, multi player games, narrative mini-campaings, etc... and all of those use a ton of house rules.

We did something about the double turn. We stoped using it because we believe it is a bad mechanic that makes the game less fun by existing. We have no reason to think and write 20 different changes to try to make it more interesting, when at a fundamental level is something we don't like.

 Galas wrote:
We do house rules all the time. We play competitive tournaments too but most of the time we are doing narrative games, multi player games, narrative mini-campaings, etc... and all of those use a ton of house rules.

We did something about the double turn. We stoped using it because we believe it is a bad mechanic that makes the game less fun by existing. We have no reason to try 20 different changes to try to make it more interesting, when at a fundamental level is something we don't like.

That is great. I am really glad people come together and use lots of house rules.

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:
Just played a 1000 game using endless spells. I took cogs for daughters of khaine, he took geminids for his legions of nagash. We had a total of 4 potential casts a turn and we summoned a grand total of 0 endless spells either through failing the cast or dispelling or in my case past turn 1, the spell being strictly worse than mind blades. We did each get a double turn though, and I dont think even a clutch geminids would have made up for the carnage those turns created.

Maybe it's different when you have more wizards tk throw more spells around with and a 6x4 to really take advantage of cogs, but I'd really rather cut the double turn instead of having a balancing mechanic that needs to be casted, not dispelled and then effect you.

Thanks for sharing, but one match is far from enough data to go off of. Hopefully more people will share their battle results so we can get a better idea of how this edition is going to play out. I does show me that a 30" unbind range is likely to be a real game changer. Has anyone else seen the points leaks on reddit? I can't link to it since I'm at work right now, but it looks like Tzeentch (rightly) got hit hard with points hikes.

Yea I really think the change to unbind really plays in a lot, coupled with needing 7s to cast.

It just seems weird as "counter play". The counter play to the double turn is if:

A) a player takes an endless spell
B) it's successfully cast
C) it resolves it's effect
D) it's close enough to the casters units that your opponent moving it will benefit in some way.

Or you can just unload with your endless spell, take the mediocre hit in return from the spell manipulation and possibly get a game ending double turn

I used an alternating system in my last campaign. A lot of guys loved it. A lot of guys that hate house rules hated it because it was a house rule.

The majority don't want house rules so it was binned. So double turn for me is here to stay.

Sadly there are a couple guys that liked alt activation so much that they won't play AOS without it now which means they aren't participating with us anymore.

I posted this in the N&R thread, but thought I'd say it here as well. Battalions seem to have gotten a 50-60 pt increase across the board to account for the extra CP they generate. Since you can buy CP for 50 points, this makes sense. As a side note, Monsters of Chaos are still not an ally options for Slaves to Darkness, so a (non-Khorne) Slaughterbrute still can't ally with his master. I guess Thorgrath Thrice-Blooded will have to use the generic Chaos allegiance abilities if he wants to play with his pet Slaughterbrute, Cuddlekins.

Aw, that's a pity for chaos.

Also, I find people getting mad at "houserule away initiative rolls" funny because technically you're still using them but always conceding to give the opponent his turn instead of taking a double turn yourself.

So it's their own fault for not being gentlemen about it.

But eh, that's the spirit of competitiveness. I think a good adjustment for it, since it was a LotR, would to be able to assign some units a overwatch/reactive move ability when a double turn happens to better blunt the damage and keep both players active.

Honestly I think dumping rolled initiative but having endless spells is a rather artful way of compensating for first turn advantage.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Honestly I think dumping rolled initiative but having endless spells is a rather artful way of compensating for first turn advantage.

I like that idea. I may run it by my group.

Sadly there are a couple guys that liked alt activation so much that they won't play AOS without it now which means they aren't participating with us anymore.

Haha, talk about backfire. Maybe you can get some Skirmish/ShadeSpire games on the side with them?

I’ve played AoS since 2015 and have never felt like I wanted to remove the double turn. Never heard anyone in my group complain about it either, even when comparing the game to 40k. I’ve played in tournaments and run an AoS FB group. Again, never heard a single complaint about the double turn from an AoS player in those. I find it exciting personally and would not want it removed. I enjoy the uncertainty. Many historical games have similarly random mechanics where your entire army could conceivably ignore your commands if the dice go against you. I have no problem with those either. So there’s an alternate perspective.

Agreed and i quite enjoy how they nerfed it a bit as well made endless spells work into it but to each their own. I can however easily see a competitive player's point in that it puts his strategy and min-maxing far too much into random chance's hand rather than losing on his own terms.

So to that I understand the preference for house rules. Which in itself is just a good warhammer tradition.

But it's not just a min-maxing thing. There's nothing to min max, it's entirely out of the players' hands. You just get it or you don't. It's inherently unfair. Do you enjoy just sitting there for 45 minutes not playing while your opponent wins an uncontested game?

Yeah, as I said, nobody in my group is a min-maxer competitive players, we are mostly narrative and casual ones. We just don't find fun in the double turn.

Not saying that people that likes it is wrong. Of course it is not. What is fun is subjetive.