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
Furious Fire Dragon




USA

 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.

We mortals are but shadows and dust...
6k
:harlequin: 2k
2k
2k 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/03 06:58:06


 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/03 14:15:21


Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Furious Fire Dragon




USA

 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.

We mortals are but shadows and dust...
6k
:harlequin: 2k
2k
2k 
   
Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





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.

Parabellum Conquest Vanguard and champion of all things Conquest: The Last Argument of Kings

www.underspire.net for all things Conquest 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Hey at least it's better than knowing the outcome just from looking at the lists... I think...
   
Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





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

Parabellum Conquest Vanguard and champion of all things Conquest: The Last Argument of Kings

www.underspire.net for all things Conquest 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




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. :(
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




 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.
   
Made in us
Furious Fire Dragon




USA

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.

We mortals are but shadows and dust...
6k
:harlequin: 2k
2k
2k 
   
Made in us
Elusive Dryad





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.
   
Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





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.

Parabellum Conquest Vanguard and champion of all things Conquest: The Last Argument of Kings

www.underspire.net for all things Conquest 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/06 20:25:05


 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




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.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Didn't that leak say AoS 3rd would be revealed last Monday?
   
Made in gb
Hungry Ork Hunta Lying in Wait





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.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

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


Yeah, Monday seems to have come & gone....
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






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.

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

Reading/Writing LD, be kind!

https://maddpaint.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




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).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/09 13:45:23


2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in ca
Unhealthy Competition With Other Legions






 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.

5,000 Raven Guard
3,000 Night Lords  
   
Made in gb
Torch-Wielding Lunatic





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.

   
Made in ca
Long-Range Ultramarine Land Speeder Pilot








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

 Rippy wrote:
When you lose to a 7 year old, it's wise to not come and admit it and then try to blame the armies
 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






AoS alternate-by-phase works really well.
   
Made in us
Did Fulgrim Just Behead Ferrus?




Noctis Labyrinthus

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.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/11 02:09:52


 
   
Made in us
Inspiring Icon Bearer





Colorado Springs, CO

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?

One of them filthy casuals... 
   
Made in us
Battle-tested Knight Castellan Pilot





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.
   
Made in gb
Nurgle Predator Driver with an Infestation






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...

Chaos | Tau | Space Wolves
NH | SCE | Nurgle
 
   
Made in us
Battle-tested Knight Castellan Pilot





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.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






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.
   
 
Forum Index » AoS General Discussion
Go to: