Switch Theme:

Do you play with Random Turns?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
Do you play with the random turn rule?
Yes
No
Sometimes
I don't play AoS, I'm just here to see what people are talking about

View results
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





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?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

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.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





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.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

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.
   
Made in us
Excited Doom Diver






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

Space Wolves 4k
Harlequins 2k
Chaos Knights 2k
Spiderfangs 2k
Ossiarch Bonereapers 1k 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






 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.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/12 04:47:39


15k+
3k
Emperor's Spears 2k
Beastmen 9500
CoS: 3500

Reading/Writing LD, be kind!

https://maddpaint.blogspot.com 
   
Made in fi
Ye Lord of The End Times (and a good guy)





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).

2021 painted/bought: 506/499 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






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






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.

15k+
3k
Emperor's Spears 2k
Beastmen 9500
CoS: 3500

Reading/Writing LD, be kind!

https://maddpaint.blogspot.com 
   
Made in de
!!Goffik Rocker!!






Nuremberg

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?

   
Made in it
Been Around the Block





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
   
Made in us
Excited Doom Diver







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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/03/12 11:10:27


Space Wolves 4k
Harlequins 2k
Chaos Knights 2k
Spiderfangs 2k
Ossiarch Bonereapers 1k 
   
Made in us
Battle-tested Knight Castellan Pilot





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.
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut






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.


Square Bases for Life!
AoS is pure garbage
Kill Primaris, Kill the Primarchs. They don't belong in 40K
40K is fantasy in space, not sci-fi 
   
Made in de
!!Goffik Rocker!!






Nuremberg

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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/12 17:10:32


   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 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.

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






 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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/03/12 18:28:44


 
   
Made in es
Fresh-Faced New User




 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/12 18:31:44


 
   
Made in ca
Excited Doom Diver






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.

Space Wolves 4k
Harlequins 2k
Chaos Knights 2k
Spiderfangs 2k
Ossiarch Bonereapers 1k 
   
Made in de
!!Goffik Rocker!!






Nuremberg

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.

   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/12 20:34:43


 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in fi
Ye Lord of The End Times (and a good guy)





 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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/03/12 20:37:22


2021 painted/bought: 506/499 
   
Made in us
Battle-tested Knight Castellan Pilot





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

I'm curious in what way?
   
Made in us
Freaky Flayed One




MD

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.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/03/12 22:16:58


 
   
Made in us
Second Story Man





Astonished of Heck

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.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






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.
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot




New Jersey, State of Perfection

 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.

This ain't no pansy GW Armor, son - Digital Sculpting Plog, Now with Heavy Weapon Platforms!
Sympathy for the Devil, or: The Project Log from Hell

Ma55ter_fett wrote:It reads like the ramblings of a Nigerian lobotomized Shakespeare typed into a cellphone with a very aggressive autocomplete function.
 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






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 message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/13 03:34:44


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 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.
   
 
Forum Index » AoS General Discussion
Go to: