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 have to admit I was a bit surprised when I read how turn order works in AoS. I'm used to most games featuring purely alternating turn order, sometimes with a small bonus to offset the advantage of going first/choosing who goes first.

Of course, according to the AoS rules you roll a die each round to decide who goes first that round.

It seems to me that those die rolls will have an absolutely huge influence on the way the games play out, far moreso than a die roll to determine a fixed turn order would. Getting to go twice in a row seems like it would provide a massive advantage at certain key points in the game, allowing you to close with enemy shooters before they get a chance to fire for example. In my experience with WHFB (and other games), there is often a critical turn where most of the forces on each side get committed. Winning or losing the die roll on that particular battle round seems like it would make a massive difference.

It also seems like this bit of randomness would really muck with strategic planning. If you know that the other guy is taking the next turn and then you will go after that, you can plan movements, bait your opponent into charge range, force your opponent to get into missile range if they want to engage, etc. Now though you have no idea if you are going to get another turn or if they are going to get two in a row next.

I'm curious how those of you that have actually gotten to play the game a lot feel about this rule and your impressions of how it affects gameplay.

Me and my buds alternate turns, for the reasons you mentioned. Also, alternating-turns in the long run can cause another issue in that it creates a meta skewed towards betting on double turns. This is because an army based on shooting, magic, and/or one-phase combat abilities will have an almost assured victory if it gets a double turn but not be significantly hampered if it doesn't. Such an army will attempt to go second, then the moment the initiative switches and it goes twice in a row it gains a massive advantage that well-rounded armies could not match or replicate. If it doesn't get to go twice in a row and things just alternate the whole game then that army type still works perfectly well and isn't significantly held back for having been played the way it was.

I'm a bit mixed on it actually. It have decided the fate of many games I've played. Both in my favor and against me. Usually around turn 4 or 5 when it's time to claim those objectives and get the points or wipe out the few units remaining getting two turns in a row is devastating to the opposition.

So a pro would be that it can flip a game that seemed lost for one side to a minor victory.
Whilst a con would probably be that it's harder to setup ambushes and move tactically since all is thrown out the window if you fail the dice roll.

I do play with the roll every turn rule, but I much prefer I go you go for it. I feel it's a bit daft that if you get double turned, or you get a double, someone has to sit around for the equivalent of 1 whole turn. Now I'd rather be doing something than sitting around rolling saves for eternity, and then it's not even guarrenteed you get a double turn after that.

I've been trying both random rolling and regular turn alternation and have concluded that random turn order is more fun.

Take into account that I play purely narrative oriented games, in these games the random rolling allows for epicness, Boarboyz making those insane distance charges, A unit of archers peppering a enemie to dust before they can charge your hero, A monster absolutely demolishing a battleline before he can be intercepted.

Yes the tactics become more random and less trustworthy, but with random turn order all bets are off every turn and that creates hope for both players. And that makes a game fun for both side untill the very last turn which is my wargaming mantra.

Vid.

I really like it from a competitive/Matched view point. There is an interesting series of relationships between list building/deployment/first turn advantage and double turn advantage as follows:

1. Deploying in a few drops secures you the choice to choose who goes first or second. That's a bonus for armies which can deploy in a few drops but it has some drawbacks; it means you can't use MSU (unless you have battalions) and it means your opponent can best deploy against you as you'll have all your units on the table quickly.

2. Choosing to go second nets you the chance for an early double turn. But if you play against an army with lots of turn 1 threat (a cannon army etc) then you have to take a round of shooting before you can apply mystic shield. Going for a the early double turn also means you'll risk the double turn against you in end game.

Going second is most often considered favourable, but in tournaments my opponents almost always choose to go first because of the amount of cannon fire I can bring, but that then means they risk me winning the double turn early on too.

Overall I think it is an interesting mechanic that adds a new side of strategy to the game.

I like the way you have to roll for turn. I play mostly cc lists and I normally lose the initiative. So turn one they shoot me some and then I move up. Occasionally I get lucky and get the double turn and don't have to take the second round of shooting.

I really do not like the rolling each turn. I think it doesn't quite work with a game as frontloaded as AoS (or 40k for that matter) where you can easily get wiped out if you roll bad on initiative two turns in a row, or lose the initiative roll on a key turn and then have a unit that was poised to charge into a critical area be jammed or shot off the table before you can do it.

I think that would work better IF the game had alternating unit activations, and the roll was to see who got to pick a unit first, rather than who gets to do everything first.

I get the reason for it, and the reason is sound just being able to do everything potentially twice in a row is too powerful for a game like this, in my opinion.

Love it. Can't wait until 40k catches up to AoS.

I enjoy the randomness of the roll. it gives no advantage to either player in the long run. a shooty army gets to shoot twice a cc army gets to miss a second round of shooting before attacking again it all balances out.

Im all for it just like I am with it in LOTR. The only thing I would change is ties go to the player who didn't start first last turn

My preference would be you move a unit then I move a unit then you move a unit then I move a unit.

That being said, I prefer random turn order to static turn order because I like reaction as much as I like static strategy and with I go U go there is little reaction. You can almost script most games with IGO UGO and that turns me off.

I've mostly been a fan so far, for the reasons Bottle stated. I think knowing it can happen makes for another choice in generalship. Do you sometimes go for an over-committed bottom of turn 1, hoping fully you get top of 2, or do you play a more calculated game with a plan that works better for either out-come.

It isn't perfect... but I tend to like it more than I don't. I also think it, like the way combats are resolved, was a rules-writer's attempt at fixing the whole complaint that in 40k, too much time elapses between meaningful choices the innactive player gets to make.

Well, my game turn is much more fun to me than my opponent's turn (doing stuff vs just waiting for the other guy to play). And slow players tend to be a bit annoying to play with, because I just spend forever doing nothing but watch the guy move his minis at a sloth's pace.
For this reason alone, I prefer alternating turns. It's not about tactics or anything, it's just that during a game I spend 50% of the time idle, and I prefer this time to be evenly spread throughout the game.

As a long time 40K player I thought I was going to hate it but it actually works really well. Both in the turn iniative roll off and alternating CC. In fact if there was one thing from AoS I would bring to 40K it would be the alternating CC rounds as it makes the game so much more enjoyable. I can't tell the number of times I've just walked away and come back in on opponents CC phase just because it was so boring. This style really keeps you engaged the whole time.

Bottle's post is an example of what I was talking about; an army designed to take advantage of double-turning. The argument that your opponent may get one later to balance things out doesn't hold water for me because if they lost most of their army already then it doesn't really help. I will say it works well with the close combat system though, since both sides get to swing regardless of whose turn it is.

This rule is what sold me on the game. I feel it is more of an accurate abstraction in representing the chaos of a battlefield and far more fun and engaging to play.

I find it irritating and I forget it so much. I'll stare at the board without realising it's my turn because the turn order changed. My poor opponents.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Bottle's post is an example of what I was talking about; an army designed to take advantage of double-turning. The argument that your opponent may get one later to balance things out doesn't hold water for me because if they lost most of their army already then it doesn't really help. I will say it works well with the close combat system though, since both sides get to swing regardless of whose turn it is.

True. But if you build a low deployment drop army designed to go second and get the double turn then you may run into a hard counter of MSU + lots of 24" ranged threat. You drop everything quickly in the deployment to secure the choice and instead find you get alpha striked by cannons or so by giving the opponent the first turn. I'm not saying it's an unflawed system, but it certainly does add a new aspect to the game strategy that can be interesting to explore in my opinion

 Bottle wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Bottle's post is an example of what I was talking about; an army designed to take advantage of double-turning. The argument that your opponent may get one later to balance things out doesn't hold water for me because if they lost most of their army already then it doesn't really help. I will say it works well with the close combat system though, since both sides get to swing regardless of whose turn it is.

True. But if you build a low deployment drop army designed to go second and get the double turn then you may run into a hard counter of MSU + lots of 24" ranged threat. You drop everything quickly in the deployment to secure the choice and instead find you get alpha striked by cannons or so by giving the opponent the first turn. I'm not saying it's an unflawed system, but it certainly does add a new aspect to the game strategy that can be interesting to explore in my opinion

While I am all for strategy in listbuilding, what bothers me is the strategy based around a single d6 roll. It becomes 'flip a coin to see who gets a huge advantage' which I don't like.

I don't see the big deal some people make it out to be. I guess they may be just use to 40K or Fantasy and NEED the igougo mechanic. LotR did it great with no problems for YEARS so this is nothing new and works great.

Some people just like their comfort zone or are too nerdish and can't handle the unpredictability this offers when they math hammer.

Davor wrote:
I don't see the big deal some people make it out to be. I guess they may be just use to 40K or Fantasy and NEED the igougo mechanic. LotR did it great with no problems for YEARS so this is nothing new and works great.

Some people just like their comfort zone or are too nerdish and can't handle the unpredictability this offers when they math hammer.

That's a pretty passive-aggressive insult at people who don't share your opinion. Further, LotR and AoS have very different systems, so that isn't a valid analogy. "Works great" is very anecdotal, especially when you have people speaking of first-hand experience where it didn't. The only thing we can say for sure is that it does not always work well, but neither does it always do poorly. Based on that it seems like your post was just inflammatory with no reasoned arguments, so perhaps you can elaborate without insulting a good portion of us?

[edit] Interestingly, I find this quote from your signature somewhat humorous given the context!

Agies Grimm:The "Learn to play, bro" mentality is mostly just a way for someone to try to shame you by implying that their metaphorical nerd-wiener is bigger than yours. Which, ironically, I think nerds do even more vehemently than jocks.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Bottle wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Bottle's post is an example of what I was talking about; an army designed to take advantage of double-turning. The argument that your opponent may get one later to balance things out doesn't hold water for me because if they lost most of their army already then it doesn't really help. I will say it works well with the close combat system though, since both sides get to swing regardless of whose turn it is.

True. But if you build a low deployment drop army designed to go second and get the double turn then you may run into a hard counter of MSU + lots of 24" ranged threat. You drop everything quickly in the deployment to secure the choice and instead find you get alpha striked by cannons or so by giving the opponent the first turn. I'm not saying it's an unflawed system, but it certainly does add a new aspect to the game strategy that can be interesting to explore in my opinion

While I am all for strategy in listbuilding, what bothers me is the strategy based around a single d6 roll. It becomes 'flip a coin to see who gets a huge advantage' which I don't like.

Fair enough! I know we have slightly different takes on this. And I do have a few qualms about some of the recent design decisions. For example I talk about armies having to make a list building choice to try and get as few drops as possible to secure the choice of turn at the start. Up until now this has been restrictive to players because it forces you to build around a battalion or two - and is another pro point for summoning lists. However, I understand in the Sylvaneth book there are battalions that have a few requirements and then "+ any additional Sylvaneth units", which means players can make their army a single drop and still take whatever they want too. That sucks and takes away that strategic element I was talking about.

 Bottle wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Bottle wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Bottle's post is an example of what I was talking about; an army designed to take advantage of double-turning. The argument that your opponent may get one later to balance things out doesn't hold water for me because if they lost most of their army already then it doesn't really help. I will say it works well with the close combat system though, since both sides get to swing regardless of whose turn it is.

True. But if you build a low deployment drop army designed to go second and get the double turn then you may run into a hard counter of MSU + lots of 24" ranged threat. You drop everything quickly in the deployment to secure the choice and instead find you get alpha striked by cannons or so by giving the opponent the first turn. I'm not saying it's an unflawed system, but it certainly does add a new aspect to the game strategy that can be interesting to explore in my opinion

While I am all for strategy in listbuilding, what bothers me is the strategy based around a single d6 roll. It becomes 'flip a coin to see who gets a huge advantage' which I don't like.

Fair enough! I know we have slightly different takes on this. And I do have a few qualms about some of the recent design decisions. For example I talk about armies having to make a list building choice to try and get as few drops as possible to secure the choice of turn at the start. Up until now this has been restrictive to players because it forces you to build around a battalion or two - and is another pro point for summoning lists. However, I understand in the Sylvaneth book there are battalions that have a few requirements and then "+ any additional Sylvaneth units", which means players can make their army a single drop and still take whatever they want too. That sucks and takes away that strategic element I was talking about.

Interestingly the most recent battletome (Beastclaw) does not include the +additional units option. I don't know if this is unique to them, but I hope its a sign that they have changed philosophy and the Sylvaneth/Bonesplittaz battletomes will be the only ones to have that option.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Bottle wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Bottle wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Bottle's post is an example of what I was talking about; an army designed to take advantage of double-turning. The argument that your opponent may get one later to balance things out doesn't hold water for me because if they lost most of their army already then it doesn't really help. I will say it works well with the close combat system though, since both sides get to swing regardless of whose turn it is.

True. But if you build a low deployment drop army designed to go second and get the double turn then you may run into a hard counter of MSU + lots of 24" ranged threat. You drop everything quickly in the deployment to secure the choice and instead find you get alpha striked by cannons or so by giving the opponent the first turn. I'm not saying it's an unflawed system, but it certainly does add a new aspect to the game strategy that can be interesting to explore in my opinion

While I am all for strategy in listbuilding, what bothers me is the strategy based around a single d6 roll. It becomes 'flip a coin to see who gets a huge advantage' which I don't like.

Fair enough! I know we have slightly different takes on this. And I do have a few qualms about some of the recent design decisions. For example I talk about armies having to make a list building choice to try and get as few drops as possible to secure the choice of turn at the start. Up until now this has been restrictive to players because it forces you to build around a battalion or two - and is another pro point for summoning lists. However, I understand in the Sylvaneth book there are battalions that have a few requirements and then "+ any additional Sylvaneth units", which means players can make their army a single drop and still take whatever they want too. That sucks and takes away that strategic element I was talking about.

Interestingly the most recent battletome (Beastclaw) does not include the +additional units option. I don't know if this is unique to them, but I hope its a sign that they have changed philosophy and the Sylvaneth/Bonesplittaz battletomes will be the only ones to have that option.

From the way the fluff is, the Beastclaws don't really interact with many groups peacefully much, if at all with the constant threat of the everlasting winter followingthem.

The random turn is actually more fair than the old way because, with the old way, if you go second, you are second in every turn of the game while with the initiative roll you have a chance of also going first in subsequent turns.

I'm a fan of the system. Yeah there's some edge cases where the game will basically end on turn 2 because of a double turn, but I think it also gives a lot of incentives to play risk/reward heavy, which I consider healthy for the game.

I think it's better overall than igougo, honestly. There's variance, there's chances for comebacks, there's rewards for playing hyper aggressive but also punishments for doing the same, way moreso than there is in 40k.

Though, I will say that I think it's likely that some armies are happier about it than others. Any army can take advantage of double turns, but only some can prepare for and deal with being on the receiving end. For some forces, it can be a deathknell, though that can be remedied through clever list-building, which again I think is good.

I like it. It's not perfect, but it's a decent representation of 1) a clever general, 2) the chaos of battle, 3) an army's drive/enthusiasm. Realistically, methinks a lot of push against it is due to people planning armies around it or peoples finding it confusing due to a 40k/fantasy background.

Absolutely love it and find it one of the most enjoyable part of the game. Makes it much more strategic and have to consider and adapt throughout the battle how to engage the enemy(ies). It's also nice to know if player 1 goes first and has all shooty that I won't just have a turn then necessarily be shot off right after. I know some people online don't care for it, I've yet to encounter one in play yet, but I can sorta see why they don't like it even though I disagree.

I dont hate it, but I do believe alternating activations to be better for skirmish games.

Roll off should include the leadership of your general, this makes the game a bit more predictable, and allows you to strategize what character to take. (That beatstick Leader may not be very good at leading.....)