The Double Turn Thread

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.

**stratigo**

Thadin wrote:
There is a difference between melee and shooting. It's about being able to interact. Most armies in melee have to alternate between their forces, and the enemy forces attacking one unit at a time. Also why Double turn effects shooting armies more than melee.

Except for all the armies that utilize tools to skip the activation order (A surprising number of them). Oh two of them just so happen to post at the top pretty regularly.

Not to mention that melee is just regularly more point efficient than shooting tends to be without a lot of sacrifice. Depending on if you fold magic into shooting.

**Overread**

ccs wrote:
stratigo wrote:

I play kharadrons (on the occaision that I play). How does a KO army both win a game and play around a double turn?

No, I play kharadrons. How do my opponents survive me getting a double turn? I mean provided the enemy army couldn't traverse the entire board in a single turn and has already killed all my stuff.

You miss/fail to wound on enough of your rolls.
They make enough of their saves.

So the only path to victory against that double turn is basically purely in the luck of the dice

**Sarouan**

Overread wrote:

So the only path to victory against that double turn is basically purely in the luck of the dice

No, the way you deployed / moved your units and use the terrain as cover also matters.

But otherwise, yes, luck plays quite a big role. Like in all wargames using dices.

You know that AoS without the double turn will still rely heavily on dices, right ?

**ccs**

Overread wrote:
ccs wrote:
stratigo wrote:

I play kharadrons (on the occaision that I play). How does a KO army both win a game and play around a double turn?

No, I play kharadrons. How do my opponents survive me getting a double turn? I mean provided the enemy army couldn't traverse the entire board in a single turn and has already killed all my stuff.

You miss/fail to wound on enough of your rolls.
They make enough of their saves.

So the only path to victory against that double turn is basically purely in the luck of the dice

No, not victory. Survival. Though the two are often linked....

But luck of the dice is what it always comes down to, x2 turn or no. On a double turn you just need to do this twice in a row vs getting a chance to lessen the 2nd volley 1st.
I suppose if you were truly worried about it you could find ways to put things in reserve/outflank/etc for early turns. Like my Slayers. Some of them can be tunneling until I bring them on to the board. In the end, as a defense, that just boils down to "Don't get hit".

**Sarouan**

And sometimes, you want the other player to have the double turn - so that he can waste it. It's especially true against shooting armies on the first turns, where most things are out of range. If you keep your units away and force him to spread his army to get something to shoot at while your main force is in reserve and waiting the good time to come and strike.

Depending on the scenarios and the armies, I sometimes give my opponent the double turn even if I get the initiative. Because it gives me a tactical advantage and help me getting ready for the following turns better (and I admit, trying to have a double turn in my advantage next time

).

Luck still plays its part, but that doesn't mean choice is stripped from you entirely.

I just wish we have more scenarios with victory conditions giving more points to the player who chose to go second. We have some, but not that many. That's how you encourage choice better - because right now, it's kinda linked to just how your army will destroy the other.

**NinthMusketeer**

Going second is already an advantage for most armies because of the double. Going first means everything will be out of range anyways aside from alpha strike or very long-range builds.

Fixing the first/second imbalance is simple anyways; roll off then the winner decides to deploy their whole army first and also go first, or deploy second and go second. Then alternate turns from there, with no random initiative. I have done it in practice plenty of times with a wide variety of matchups. It works.

**Sarouan**

NinthMusketeer wrote:

Fixing the first/second imbalance is simple anyways; roll off then the winner decides to deploy their whole army first and also go first, or deploy second and go second. Then alternate turns from there, with no random initiative. I have done it in practice plenty of times with a wide variety of matchups. It works.

Well of course it works. You'll just end up with more predictable results in your games with imbalanced lists, though.

What you're doing is not fixing the double turn, it's erasing it and replacing it with something else.

What I'm wishing is keeping the double turn, but giving more incentives for the player to choose second when they have the initiative. And I think that can be achieved by playing scenarios with more victory conditions giving an advantage to the second player.

To be honest, I think it's a bit alike to the tendancy of 40k's new version with missions not that much focused on destroying the enemy, but rather playing the objectives to win. That way, you can't just win by destroying your enemy with a double turn.

**Jackal90**

This isn’t a dig, but do a lot of people not use terrain and start off right in front of their opponents?

The thread is full of comments about shooting entire armies off the board in a double turn.

1: AoS has far less devastating shooting than 40k.
2: AoS has far less range on its shooting.
3: terrain exists. Do players not use it any more?

I’m not saying that a double turn of shooting isn’t severely painful, but it sounds as if people are just sitting in front of a gun line army out in the open here.

Chaff, terrain, LoS blocking etc, it all has a use.

Even pure tournament cheese armies based solely on shooting don’t wipe entire armies on a double turn as players make use of what they have.
If you sit a blob of troops in the open in front of a gun line it’s either stupidity or you actually have a plan. (Draw shooting, distraction, flanking etc)

**auticus**

In our area you have to run tournament standard tables or people will throw epic fits.

Tournament standard tables you generally don't block line of sight pretty much anywhere because here at least using custom terrain that blocks line of sight people consider modeling for advantage. When I bring something out that is not a gw kit that is terrain, even stuff that i have had for 20 odd years and used to be used in tournaments, but is itself not a gw kit, someone will pitch a fit. That has happened to me almost every single time I've played at the store with non GW terrain in AOS unless it didn't block line of sight (like I have pet store aquarium terrain i use a lot but because it doesn't really block line of sight, no one cares) - the moment I bring a building or something that blocks line of sight there is a hate thread in our facebook group about how the events are rigged.

If its not an "official GW kit" you shouldn't be using it, and every GW kit basically has holes everywhere so you can't fully block line of sight.

Add to that true line of sight rules and well... there you have it.

Thats just my commentary on terrain and here. I know where I am is not an oddity either because I have army buddies all over the US and their stores are similar if not the exact same throughout from texas to california to the midwest to the east coast.

So blocking line of sight is pretty much not a thing here. Screening doesn't really do it since you can almost always find a way to see Bob's right pinky finger to draw line of sight to it with true line of sight, and its almost impossible to screen line of sight with other models if you really want to get down and dirty and pedantic about it, which a lot of my former opponents do.

**NinthMusketeer**

Jackal90 wrote:
This isn’t a dig, but do a lot of people not use terrain and start off right in front of their opponents?

The thread is full of comments about shooting entire armies off the board in a double turn.

1: AoS has far less devastating shooting than 40k.
2: AoS has far less range on its shooting.
3: terrain exists. Do players not use it any more?

I’m not saying that a double turn of shooting isn’t severely painful, but it sounds as if people are just sitting in front of a gun line army out in the open here.

Chaff, terrain, LoS blocking etc, it all has a use.

Even pure tournament cheese armies based solely on shooting don’t wipe entire armies on a double turn as players make use of what they have.
If you sit a blob of troops in the open in front of a gun line it’s either stupidity or you actually have a plan. (Draw shooting, distraction, flanking etc)

The shooting armies pulling this stuff generally have means around the issue of LoS terrain. Obviously they do not wipe out the -entire- enemy army but when one side loses half or more in one go it is still over; even with a double turn themselves they simply don't have the tools to recover.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sarouan wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:

Fixing the first/second imbalance is simple anyways; roll off then the winner decides to deploy their whole army first and also go first, or deploy second and go second. Then alternate turns from there, with no random initiative. I have done it in practice plenty of times with a wide variety of matchups. It works.

Well of course it works. You'll just end up with more predictable results in your games with imbalanced lists, though.

What you're doing is not fixing the double turn, it's erasing it and replacing it with something else.

What I'm wishing is keeping the double turn, but giving more incentives for the player to choose second when they have the initiative. And I think that can be achieved by playing scenarios with more victory conditions giving an advantage to the second player.

To be honest, I think it's a bit alike to the tendancy of 40k's new version with missions not that much focused on destroying the enemy, but rather playing the objectives to win. That way, you can't just win by destroying your enemy with a double turn.

So, because problem B exists we should not bother fixing problem A? Because imbalanced listbuilding certainly exists wether the double turn does or not. And honestly? I am not even talking tournaments. Tourney players know what they are getting into. I want the experience for my league players to be better than it currently is. I want to improve things for the casual players I see week to week. When two people show up with balanced lists the outcome of the game can still be one-sided in a very unfun way, and that is frustrating for me to witness as a community organizer.

**stratigo**

Jackal90 wrote:
This isn’t a dig, but do a lot of people not use terrain and start off right in front of their opponents?

The thread is full of comments about shooting entire armies off the board in a double turn.

1: AoS has far less devastating shooting than 40k.
2: AoS has far less range on its shooting.
3: terrain exists. Do players not use it any more?

I’m not saying that a double turn of shooting isn’t severely painful, but it sounds as if people are just sitting in front of a gun line army out in the open here.

Chaff, terrain, LoS blocking etc, it all has a use.

Even pure tournament cheese armies based solely on shooting don’t wipe entire armies on a double turn as players make use of what they have.
If you sit a blob of troops in the open in front of a gun line it’s either stupidity or you actually have a plan. (Draw shooting, distraction, flanking etc)

AoS armies have significantly more generous movement and move tricks than 40k armies. A good table you can hide your army and reserve a bunch and dodge the first turn shooting phase almost completely (Under 9th edition at least)

In AoS, against a number of armies, hiding doesn't matter. They can teleport from the board to anywhere, or they move 20 inches and then charge 12, the limits to off the board reserves are a lot more generous than 40k. Or some other set of tricks that render attempting to hide nonviable.

**Jackal90**

stratigo wrote:
Jackal90 wrote:
This isn’t a dig, but do a lot of people not use terrain and start off right in front of their opponents?

The thread is full of comments about shooting entire armies off the board in a double turn.

1: AoS has far less devastating shooting than 40k.
2: AoS has far less range on its shooting.
3: terrain exists. Do players not use it any more?

I’m not saying that a double turn of shooting isn’t severely painful, but it sounds as if people are just sitting in front of a gun line army out in the open here.

Chaff, terrain, LoS blocking etc, it all has a use.

Even pure tournament cheese armies based solely on shooting don’t wipe entire armies on a double turn as players make use of what they have.
If you sit a blob of troops in the open in front of a gun line it’s either stupidity or you actually have a plan. (Draw shooting, distraction, flanking etc)

AoS armies have significantly more generous movement and move tricks than 40k armies. A good table you can hide your army and reserve a bunch and dodge the first turn shooting phase almost completely (Under 9th edition at least)

In AoS, against a number of armies, hiding doesn't matter. They can teleport from the board to anywhere, or they move 20 inches and then charge 12, the limits to off the board reserves are a lot more generous than 40k. Or some other set of tricks that render attempting to hide nonviable.

You realise we are talking about gun line armies here, right?
If you are advancing your gun line or teleporting it close to the enemy then that helps them even more as it’s less distance to close.
You are basically saving them a turn or more of movement.

Also, as you stated, movement and it’s tricks are big in AoS.
Utilising them helps even more.

Also, terrain isn’t just to block LoS, it’s to gain cover.

**Overread**

Sarouan wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:

Fixing the first/second imbalance is simple anyways; roll off then the winner decides to deploy their whole army first and also go first, or deploy second and go second. Then alternate turns from there, with no random initiative. I have done it in practice plenty of times with a wide variety of matchups. It works.

Well of course it works. You'll just end up with more predictable results in your games with imbalanced lists, though.

What you're doing is not fixing the double turn, it's erasing it and replacing it with something else.

What I'm wishing is keeping the double turn, but giving more incentives for the player to choose second when they have the initiative. And I think that can be achieved by playing scenarios with more victory conditions giving an advantage to the second player.

The problem is the way you want the double turn basically means re-writing the entire game and all the unit profiles to account for it.

When you talk about how it helps reduce the predictability of results based on army lists I'd say that the double turn isn't even attempting to "fix" that. Because no part of the mechanic takes into account the different potential of either side there is no benefit to the underdog. The doubleturn might not happen; it might happen to the superior army or it could happen to the underdog. That's 2 chances against 1 for "helping" the weaker side.

In a game where we already talk about the problems of armies being too powerful within a SINGLE turn; surely its apparent that the games whole structure is jsut poorly setup to allow for the potential for a faction to get TWO whole turns in a row.

I'd also say that its darn hard to impossible to balance for. See no matter how you choose to balance units they will always perform significantly better when they get a double turn. If you balance all armies to the same level (in an ideal situation) then any army getting a double is sitll performing TWICE in a row and doubling their potential performance (accepting that magic/ranged armies are likely performing perfectly double whilst close combat might be a bit more variable).

Either way i've still yet to hear of any method of armies being able to prepare, plan or anything for properly dealing with the doubleturn. Furthermore I've not heard of any method what so ever in dealing with the issue of double performance and thus increased performance for units when they get a doubleturn. Perhaps every unit needs two unit profiles for a regular and double-turn - then at least unit stats could be lower on the double to represent increased fatigue. Even so it would likely just complicate and bloat the game.

In the end I still say move doubleturn to openplay.

**NinthMusketeer**

Jackal90 wrote:
stratigo wrote:
Jackal90 wrote:
This isn’t a dig, but do a lot of people not use terrain and start off right in front of their opponents?

The thread is full of comments about shooting entire armies off the board in a double turn.

1: AoS has far less devastating shooting than 40k.
2: AoS has far less range on its shooting.
3: terrain exists. Do players not use it any more?

I’m not saying that a double turn of shooting isn’t severely painful, but it sounds as if people are just sitting in front of a gun line army out in the open here.

Chaff, terrain, LoS blocking etc, it all has a use.

Even pure tournament cheese armies based solely on shooting don’t wipe entire armies on a double turn as players make use of what they have.
If you sit a blob of troops in the open in front of a gun line it’s either stupidity or you actually have a plan. (Draw shooting, distraction, flanking etc)

AoS armies have significantly more generous movement and move tricks than 40k armies. A good table you can hide your army and reserve a bunch and dodge the first turn shooting phase almost completely (Under 9th edition at least)

In AoS, against a number of armies, hiding doesn't matter. They can teleport from the board to anywhere, or they move 20 inches and then charge 12, the limits to off the board reserves are a lot more generous than 40k. Or some other set of tricks that render attempting to hide nonviable.

You realise we are talking about gun line armies here, right?
If you are advancing your gun line or teleporting it close to the enemy then that helps them even more as it’s less distance to close.
You are basically saving them a turn or more of movement.

Also, as you stated, movement and it’s tricks are big in AoS.
Utilising them helps even more.

Also, terrain isn’t just to block LoS, it’s to gain cover.

While I feel Stratigo is being rather hyperbolic here, the core of his sentiment is right; the 'problem armies' generally have means to get around the difficulties you mentioned. That is generally half the reason they are problem armies in the first place. You have decent theory-hammer for why that is not the case (and the factors you raise do mitigate the situation to some degree), but I have seen the reality play out in person. Even done so myself.

**stratigo**

Jackal90 wrote:
stratigo wrote:
Jackal90 wrote:
This isn’t a dig, but do a lot of people not use terrain and start off right in front of their opponents?

The thread is full of comments about shooting entire armies off the board in a double turn.

1: AoS has far less devastating shooting than 40k.
2: AoS has far less range on its shooting.
3: terrain exists. Do players not use it any more?

I’m not saying that a double turn of shooting isn’t severely painful, but it sounds as if people are just sitting in front of a gun line army out in the open here.

Chaff, terrain, LoS blocking etc, it all has a use.

Even pure tournament cheese armies based solely on shooting don’t wipe entire armies on a double turn as players make use of what they have.
If you sit a blob of troops in the open in front of a gun line it’s either stupidity or you actually have a plan. (Draw shooting, distraction, flanking etc)

AoS armies have significantly more generous movement and move tricks than 40k armies. A good table you can hide your army and reserve a bunch and dodge the first turn shooting phase almost completely (Under 9th edition at least)

In AoS, against a number of armies, hiding doesn't matter. They can teleport from the board to anywhere, or they move 20 inches and then charge 12, the limits to off the board reserves are a lot more generous than 40k. Or some other set of tricks that render attempting to hide nonviable.

You realise we are talking about gun line armies here, right?
If you are advancing your gun line or teleporting it close to the enemy then that helps them even more as it’s less distance to close.
You are basically saving them a turn or more of movement.

Also, as you stated, movement and it’s tricks are big in AoS.
Utilising them helps even more.

Also, terrain isn’t just to block LoS, it’s to gain cover.

The only gunline army in AoS that actually sits static is CoS (and I guess someone trying to do raptors still, but, come on people, it's been a year at least). And even then, no CoS army relying on just a mostly static block (even with a bridge) of firepower is going to do well competitively. It's just not mobile enough.

Every other shooting army has extreme mobility or other tricks. There's no hiding from Tzeentch or KO. And... what other gunlines are there? Would we count kroak lists a gunline because they nuke you so hard in magic? They're not exactly limited in mobility.

And I still don't see much difference between a shooting and combat alpha strike. They both strike from anywhere on the board and do all their damage before you can respond.

**Cyel**

I don't play AoS myself (hell, no!!!) but I will show you a comment of our Polish top tournament AoS player on the matter (I was surprised to learn there are AoS tournies, but later I found out there are tournaments for Munchkin and Monopoly too, so...) Maybe you will find his opinion interesting.

I am sorry for the way it is presented, it was too long for me to bother with proper translation so I just used Google Translate to change it from Polish to English and made some minor corrections. You should get the gist, though.

Aos is a primitive game where 50% of the battles are resolved with a stupid throw for a turn. The faction is unbalanced as hell ... e.g. Sisters vs Beastclow or Death vs Sylvaneth etc. This means that it should not be treated as a serious tournament game. I don't write this maliciously because I play SCE myself and I'm pissed off by the problem you described. However, this is just the tip of the system's iceberg of problems. Unfortunately, Aos is played mostly for beautiful models and not for tournament competition, which is decided by strategic thinking. The truth is that people who treat this game as a "duel of mind and dice" and try to play very precisely are wrong. For them it is warmashine, infinity, nineth age. We play aosa. Here in three hours of the match we perform two (because later ones do not matter) opposing dice rolls and that's the end of the tactical depth of this system.

To anyone who would like to say that it is not so and I do not know myself because Aos is a game where "better general" wins, I will say this: I have won several tournaments in several to be on the podium and this year with a motto "do not think because you will make a mistake" we have won the vice-championship of Poland. Terrain, spells, abilities, the idea for the army, everything is great, but ithe bottom line, in the era of "my unit has 120 attacks and now save" complaining about the lack of territory with cover as the reason for the lack of balance in the tournament playing is strongly tertiary. Focus on the movement of your wrist during the throw for a turn and you will see progress, cheers.

Dante, and by arguing with me, you only prove that I am right. You are just the perfect example that my thesis on the aos is correct. You, Adam, Jagred, Pioterek Kurkowski, Dagmara and many other players are simply better than us. You know the rules better, you have better rosters, an idea for the game, table review, etc. And yet, two teams from Katowice lost to Częstochowa. How could this happen? Following your way of thinking, we are just better than you, which is not true. In my opinion, you have skill above us and you lost because in two of the three matches your players failed the throws for the second round (and no skill could help them make up for it) and this is the reason. Maybe I exaggerated a bit that nothing matters except for a roll for a turn, but unfortunately it still determines the fate of most battles too much. As for my vice-championship, why "without sarcasm" I just gave it as an example of the fact that playing mindlessly with the most primitive lists like a punch in the face, we took second place in the most prestigious tournament in Poland.

In my earlier statement, there was no champion's hubris, but a pitying smirk that meant nobody should try to tell me that skill counts as hell. Well, it does not count and our result at this year's DMP in Aos is an irrefutable proof of that. I could write more, but I don't want to. You, as the best player in this country, answer sincerely - would you like this stupid throw to stay or disappear?
Ps. for those who write about gak storms. I write my posts without any pressure and at ease. I care not for who will think what and if I can convince anyone.

**NinthMusketeer**

In the third sentence his viewpoint seems to suggest some pretense of AoS being a serious tourney game or even a serious game at all. In my eyes that is a mistake of perspective from the onset; I cannot recall seeing anyone claim AoS as a serious game and certainly never for tournaments.

The rest is largely elaborating on the why and how of a basic concept there is broad agreement with. No surprise given the details are where there is a lot of differing opinions.

**Cyel**

The notion that unnecessary randomness of the game sets the skill ceiling very low and removes player agency is universal for all types of games, though, tournament or not.

**auticus**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
In the third sentence his viewpoint seems to suggest some pretense of AoS being a serious tourney game or even a serious game at all. In my eyes that is a mistake of perspective from the onset; I cannot recall seeing anyone claim AoS as a serious game and certainly never for tournaments.

The rest is largely elaborating on the why and how of a basic concept there is broad agreement with. No surprise given the details are where there is a lot of differing opinions.

The disconnect with that comes from a great many of people, on here, on facebook, on twitter, down at my game store, i'm sure down at most of your game stores, treat AOS like a serious tourney game and a serious game. There are many people in this very section of dakka that use a form of git gud to hand waive issues and who talk about how the best players are the ones that always win no matter what, indicating that there is a degree of skill that they possess and with that skill they win most of their game and place high in tournaments.

That people treat AOS as a serious tourney game is etched in stone by guys like Rufio (@sixdiceskills) who have created an esports type platform for tabletop gaming, with AOS as one of the featured brands.

I believe a great many people see AOS as a game of mind and skill and in depth tactical strategy, and therein lies the disconnect.

I agree pretty much 100% with the quote from the polish tournament player above.

**Amishprn86**

Cyel wrote:
I don't play AoS myself (hell, no!!!) but I will show you a comment of our Polish top tournament AoS player on the matter (I was surprised to learn there are AoS tournies, but later I found out there are tournaments for Munchkin and Monopoly too, so...) Maybe you will find his opinion interesting.

I am sorry for the way it is presented, it was too long for me to bother with proper translation so I just used Google Translate to change it from Polish to English and made some minor corrections. You should get the gist, though.

Aos is a primitive game where 50% of the battles are resolved with a stupid throw for a turn. The faction is unbalanced as hell ... e.g. Sisters vs Beastclow or Death vs Sylvaneth etc. This means that it should not be treated as a serious tournament game. I don't write this maliciously because I play SCE myself and I'm pissed off by the problem you described. However, this is just the tip of the system's iceberg of problems. Unfortunately, Aos is played mostly for beautiful models and not for tournament competition, which is decided by strategic thinking. The truth is that people who treat this game as a "duel of mind and dice" and try to play very precisely are wrong. For them it is warmashine, infinity, nineth age. We play aosa. Here in three hours of the match we perform two (because later ones do not matter) opposing dice rolls and that's the end of the tactical depth of this system.

To anyone who would like to say that it is not so and I do not know myself because Aos is a game where "better general" wins, I will say this: I have won several tournaments in several to be on the podium and this year with a motto "do not think because you will make a mistake" we have won the vice-championship of Poland. Terrain, spells, abilities, the idea for the army, everything is great, but ithe bottom line, in the era of "my unit has 120 attacks and now save" complaining about the lack of territory with cover as the reason for the lack of balance in the tournament playing is strongly tertiary. Focus on the movement of your wrist during the throw for a turn and you will see progress, cheers.

Dante, and by arguing with me, you only prove that I am right. You are just the perfect example that my thesis on the aos is correct. You, Adam, Jagred, Pioterek Kurkowski, Dagmara and many other players are simply better than us. You know the rules better, you have better rosters, an idea for the game, table review, etc. And yet, two teams from Katowice lost to Częstochowa. How could this happen? Following your way of thinking, we are just better than you, which is not true. In my opinion, you have skill above us and you lost because in two of the three matches your players failed the throws for the second round (and no skill could help them make up for it) and this is the reason. Maybe I exaggerated a bit that nothing matters except for a roll for a turn, but unfortunately it still determines the fate of most battles too much. As for my vice-championship, why "without sarcasm" I just gave it as an example of the fact that playing mindlessly with the most primitive lists like a punch in the face, we took second place in the most prestigious tournament in Poland.

In my earlier statement, there was no champion's hubris, but a pitying smirk that meant nobody should try to tell me that skill counts as hell. Well, it does not count and our result at this year's DMP in Aos is an irrefutable proof of that. I could write more, but I don't want to. You, as the best player in this country, answer sincerely - would you like this stupid throw to stay or disappear?
Ps. for those who write about gak storms. I write my posts without any pressure and at ease. I care not for who will think what and if I can convince anyone.

AOS tournaments are honestly very popular, one of the closer bigger ones near me are always 100+, then the biggest one i go to every year 300+ (this year would have been record breaking if not for Covid).

As a tournament player for AoS, the double turn doesn't effect the game all the much honestly. Players are expecting it to happen and make sure to put things in place for when it does happen. The problem is, there are a handful of armies that can not do that.

I can also say that i have won server tournaments too even with the double turn against me, as he has said he won b.c he got the double turn. There are times when i was playing IDK I let them take the 2nd turn in hopes they go for the double turn b.c I knew I would win if he did (not against all armies, against certain ones). That also goes for my CoS and BoC armies. Just 2 weeks ago playing new Lumineth (on TTS so he can play all the units) vs my BoC he got the double turn and I still won.

The double turn is very strong and it should be left out of the game, but b.c it is there, most armies can mitigate it and a good player even moreso.

**Sarouan**

I do agree that the initiative roll determining if you get a double turn or not can be very frustrating. However, how you take it at heart or not is another matter - and yeah, I agree as well that seeing AoS as a "serious" hardcore tournament game isn't really wise. It's just not suited to that mindset, IMHO (and to be honest, I believe all games using dice or random features in any way inside their game system will never be perfectly suited for players who want only those with skills to be on the podium).

Trouble is, in the AoS game design studio, there are known tournament players and they clearly made the rules for equal game for that purpose. So I can't really blame people thinking that.

**Thadin**

I do not believe that Initiative roll-off, in an IGOUGO system like AoS is suited for any method of play. It is not suited for tournament play, and it is not suited for casual play. It leads to negative experiences only IMO.

As the lethality and threat ranges of AoS have been steadily increasing with army updates and new armies, double turns have been getting more oppressive.

There is a middle ground to be had between player skill and knowledge being the final say in victory, and winning off a double turn deciding the game. There is enough randomness in dice rolls to begin with, we don't need a single roll-off deciding if a player gets another round of magic and uncontested shooting back to back.

**Overread**

If the game had 60 turns then having one or two doubles would be powerful but not overwhelming; but in game with only 6 turns maximum (generally speaking) getting a double is a massive difference.

**Sarouan**

Thadin wrote:
I do not believe that Initiative roll-off, in an IGOUGO system like AoS is suited for any method of play.

While I wouldn't go as far as you in your reasoning, I do agree that the fact AoS is an IGOUGO system really makes the double turn a near automatic choice if you don't have a reason in the scenario's winning conditions to play second.

If we just had alternating players' turn during each phase rather than a whole round like in Kill Team, it would be totally different - because there would be advantages in some phases and less so in others (moving after the enemy helps you to adapt and adjust your battleline afterwards).

**NinthMusketeer**

I agree; alternating by phase would change the dynamic completely. IMO it is also a big improvement.

**auticus**

That would be a minor form of alt activation and I'd be all for it.

**Sarouan**

To be honest, I thought about using the rules of Kill Teams as core for AoS, but it dramatically changes the game. For example, no more separate charge phase - it's included in the movement phase.

Since I did use Kill Team's system for 40k, I know it works perfectly fine in the end, but well...if it's not official, there barely are any chance to make it popular.

**auticus**

I know it works perfectly fine in the end, but well...if it's not official, there barely are any chance to make it popular.

Bingo.

I've used alt activation (true pure alt activation) in AOS for most of the time I played it and while it always split my community because house rules are bad, it was also the most popular house rule I had ever employed because the other half REALLY liked it and how it made the game a lot more different and tactical as opposed to just relying on alpha strikes and doing things your opponent couldn't respond to (the staple of all GW games basically).

**NinthMusketeer**

We do alternate-by-phase a lot in our Path to Glory leagues and have a lot of success there. A few rough edges, but certainly no worse than igougo is to start with.

**Sarouan**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
We do alternate-by-phase a lot in our Path to Glory leagues and have a lot of success there. A few rough edges, but certainly no worse than igougo is to start with.

Do you alternate shooting units activation or is every player activating all of their shooting units when it's their turn ?

Then maybe we should talk about it on a separate thread, but I'm actually interested on that topic.