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.

Predictability is exactly why I don't like static alternating turns. War is very chaotic

 VeteranNoob wrote:
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.

The problem comes when that shooty player goes second, then first in the next round.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 VeteranNoob wrote:
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.

The problem comes when that shooty player goes second, then first in the next round.

How is that really a problem? Its part of the game......sure you get shot up pretty good but its the random nature of the game. Play it in open play when the summoning shenanigans are still in effect.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 VeteranNoob wrote:
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.

The problem comes when that shooty player goes second, then first in the next round.

Well, not sure how your games have gone, but I learned my lesson once in Feb.vs. shooty army and since then if I face one and have to be prepared I stay back and in cover or hidden or using terrain as cover to move past or whatever...in case they do get the double turn. My Fyreslayers now take 2 smiters always (3 one day ) to remove targets from the table in the early stages. Certainly other armies do this as well. Then there's playing your advantage after they have gone to move in, and perhaps get the double turn yourself. It's just another element of the game where you can't relay as much on special rules and just have to employ clever generalship.

Like Bottle, I really like the AoS turn order rule for a number of reasons. I'll touch on a couple more:

First, it approaches "fairness" in gameplay tempo. If we look at regular Igo-Ugo gameplay as a series of rounds, it looks like this: [AB][AB][AB][AB][AB][AB]. In effect, the first player *always* gets to go first every round. There is an automatic bonus of a half-tempo that persists for the entire game. However, under AoS, it might be more llike this: [AB][AB][BA][BA][AB][BA]. The average tempo advantage from going first is much smaller. In addition, that first player turn happens when the units are farthest apart, so the impact is somewhat muted.

Second, the AoS turn order has a strong strategy component - if you are going first in the round, then you need to consider the possibility your opponent will go first next round, gaining a double turn. This adds a layer of strategy that is otherwise lacking. There is a lot of meta strategy around it, and it definitely rewards strategic play and a certain sort of risk-taking in the face of uncertainty.

While the AoS turn order is a huge improvement, I think it could be improved with a couple of tweaks:

1. I believe that any ties should be decided by the player who went second in the previous round. This creates another decision point, and it's a meaningful one, whether to take the double turn now, or to defer it for the possibility of taking a double turn later in the game.

2. The game kinda needs shooting reactions, as that's the only really unbalanced part of the double turn mechanism. The movement is fine. The close combat is fine. But just standing around and eating fire isn't so much fun.


IMO, the AoS turn order is possibly the biggest innovation in the game, even moreso than the reduction of the core rules down to a mere 4 pages.

stay back and in cover or hidden or using terrain as cover to move past or whatever...in case they do get the double turn

And now if they don't get the double turn everything you have is too far back to do much and the double-shooting potential is still looming. If they do get the double turn then they get to move & shoot so no disadvantage. It's become a cast of 50% chance of balanced turn, 50% chance shooter advantage, any way you slice it. As I have mentioned before, random initiative working is contingent on players not taking advantage of the meta it creates. If they don't, all is well, as the many people who have it work great can attest, but I know more than a handful of lists that are near auto-win on a double turn and not disadvantaged if they don't get it.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
2. The game kinda needs shooting reactions, as that's the only really unbalanced part of the double turn mechanism. The movement is fine. The close combat is fine. But just standing around and eating fire isn't so much fun.

I agree with this, I would be 75% more OK with rolled initiative if there was some option to reduce the effectiveness of double turn shooting. It would still leave some problems with single-phase combat buffs (Ironjawz would be kings of the double-turn) but that's still more manageable.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

stay back and in cover or hidden or using terrain as cover to move past or whatever...in case they do get the double turn

And now if they don't get the double turn everything you have is too far back to do much and the double-shooting potential is still looming. If they do get the double turn then they get to move & shoot so no disadvantage. It's become a cast of 50% chance of balanced turn, 50% chance shooter advantage, any way you slice it. As I have mentioned before, random initiative working is contingent on players not taking advantage of the meta it creates. If they don't, all is well, as the many people who have it work great can attest, but I know more than a handful of lists that are near auto-win on a double turn and not disadvantaged if they don't get it.
.

...I don't know what to tell ya, man.
Hopefully you beat back that problem in your games.

We just alternate.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
We just alternate.

As long as you're having fun.

 VeteranNoob wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
We just alternate.

As long as you're having fun.

NO!! Everyone must have fun my way or they aren't doing it right! These players are bad and should feel ba-

Oh sorry, I had the sarcasm meter switched on.

Yes, if all are having fun then all is well

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

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.

No insult was intended. For the life of me, I am not sure what I wanted to say but I know nerdish wasn't it. Dang auto correct lol. This teaches me to make sure I proof read before I hit enter. I guess I am so use to GW where there is no proof reading. Need to stop that. Thanks for pointing that out.

 sfshilo wrote:
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.....)

Yeah. Bloodthirsters, Ogres and Necromancers are famed for their tactical brilliance...
Bravery =/= Leadership.

 sfshilo wrote:
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.....)

What leadership?

I quite like the risk/reward system at present, seems more like what battles should be where your enemy is doing things before you get a chance to do something you want/gains a march on you.

Anyone played either Bolt Action or Gates of Antares by Warlord games?

In those you each have a number of turn dice equal to the number of units you have, then you put them into an opaque bag and one of you reaches in and pulls out a dice and then it is that person's turn to move a unit of their choosing. Once all units have been moved from both sides it's back in the bag for the next turn.

It's a good mechanic for both representing the alternating chaos of battle while giving various advantages/disadvantages based on how elite or numerous your army is.

For example, Beastclaw Raiders might not be so fearsome when you've got 12+ units to their equivalent points cost for much less and you know you will then be able to outmanuever them due to your superior numbers and by extension: options.

Yeah I like that mechanic as well.

 Wunzlez wrote:
Anyone played either Bolt Action or Gates of Antares by Warlord games?

In those you each have a number of turn dice equal to the number of units you have, then you put them into an opaque bag and one of you reaches in and pulls out a dice and then it is that person's turn to move a unit of their choosing. Once all units have been moved from both sides it's back in the bag for the next turn.

It's a good mechanic for both representing the alternating chaos of battle while giving various advantages/disadvantages based on how elite or numerous your army is.

For example, Beastclaw Raiders might not be so fearsome when you've got 12+ units to their equivalent points cost for much less and you know you will then be able to outmanuever them due to your superior numbers and by extension: options.

Alternate unit activation (or in your example, random unit activation) works well for some games, but I think they'd have to change too much about how Phases work for it to be an option for AoS (or 40k for that matter).



I wonder if people would be less annoyed by it if you only rolled for Random Turns starting on turn 3 - that way, there is no devastating alpha strike from heavy shooting armies getting twice the shots before you get in range or insane double move/charge from Destruction armies. Two turns where you can plan for turn order, followed by the semi-tactical chaos of random turns.

 Wunzlez wrote:
Anyone played either Bolt Action or Gates of Antares by Warlord games?

Nope. I'm not of a mind that random individual unit activation is a good match for AoS.

Requizen wrote:
I wonder if people would be less annoyed by it if you only rolled for Random Turns starting on turn 3 - that way, there is no devastating alpha strike from heavy shooting armies getting twice the shots before you get in range or insane double move/charge from Destruction armies. Two turns where you can plan for turn order, followed by the semi-tactical chaos of random turns.

That's what I'm doing in my game:
1. Defender goes first;
2. Attacker goes first;
3+. dice off for initiative, ties decided by second player in previous round.

Attacker is guaranteed a double turn at the start of the game, and it's just a matter of time before the Defender gets their double turn.

I would be very OK with rolling for initiative if it only started on turn 3. That would be the best of both worlds imo.

I hate random initiative but for 2 specific reasons. It gives INSANE advantage to the person who goes first when neither are shooting focused, and it makes armies with a lot of shooting SUPER swing-y.

So for first turn advantage, if you go first you CAN'T get a double turn from T1-T2 and outside of artillery, not much happens turn 1 anyway so you can be conservative with your move and plan for your opponent to have a double turn without exposing yourself too much. Now your opponent has to bet on a double turn, or bet against a double turn and risk swinging the whole game. If he does get the double turn turn 1-2 then he has to take charge initiative, likely overextending himself because now he has to plan for the MUCH more brutal 2-3 double turn you have the opportunity for. He can't even hedge his bets anymore because of how devastating it can be when your opponent gets the mid game double turn.

Flip side is shooting armies. Get double turn 1-2 after your opponent rushed your lines=free win. Your opponent gets a double turn 1-2 after his cav ran 16-18 inches across the board at you=free lose.