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.

tneva82 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
One isn't just sitting around doing nothing though. Reason being same as why double turn is mostly issue with mega shooting. Remove problem of shooting/magic dominance with factions like ko, seraphon and tzeentch that can just delete armies from distance　and double turn is much　less of an issue(especially turn 1-2 which you would be more likely to give away).

Yeah you get to roll some armor saves sometimes and remove models. You know what i mean.

Groovy if you think that's all you do. Easy win vs you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rihgu wrote:
I think they could release AoS3.0 with the only real change being adopting the fight phase ordering of 40k (chargers first, then enemy picks first non-charging unit, and then back and forth, rather than pure back and forth starting with the player who's turn it is). This would add an extra layer to think about when deciding to go for the double turn or not, in that if you don't have any additional charges planned your enemy would get to select the first unit to fight and vice versa.

Other than that, I'm mostly satisfied with the random turns as is.

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

One way to reduce would be scoring vp's end of battle round.

Fight against KO, Lum, Seraphon, DoT and let me know how a double turn goes when they sit back and only shoot and use magic with no melee other than trash units to take an objective.

The inherent issue with Double Turn is that for every game it helps somebody come back from a potential loss, every other game it just cements that the current lead is going to table the other person. In an IGUG game having to twiddle your thumbs for not just one, but two whole turns is extremely dull.

Double Turn is something they clearly added for the sake of being different, something they can point to as being something AoS has that's unique but that didn't necessarily make it a good idea.

If third edition gets rid of it I'd bet 99% of it's current defenders will still say GW made a genius move by removing it and they always disliked it.

 Arbitrator wrote:
The inherent issue with Double Turn is that for every game it helps somebody come back from a potential loss, every other game it just cements that the current lead is going to table the other person. In an IGUG game having to twiddle your thumbs for not just one, but two whole turns is extremely dull.

Double Turn is something they clearly added for the sake of being different, something they can point to as being something AoS has that's unique but that didn't necessarily make it a good idea.

If third edition gets rid of it I'd bet 99% of it's current defenders will still say GW made a genius move by removing it and they always disliked it.

Yeah, having to twiddle your thumbs while your opponent gets to go twice is about as un-fun as it gets, especially if they have a load of spells, command traits, and/or shooting attacks...

Eh, the GW supporter confirmation bias is obviously a think but I doubt even half the current double supporters will turn around and express they're happy about the change. I expect a lot more 'I liked it but see why they got rid of it' people which is a pretty reasonable stance.

Random / Double Turn is one reason I will never play Age of Sigmar.

 auticus wrote:
Random / Double Turn is one reason I will never play Age of Sigmar.

The most common reason I hear from people about why they don't play AoS is that they don't like the setting. The second most common reason is this. A lot of players AoS could have, but doesn't. They wouldn't even need to drop random initiative or eratta the core rules--just have the matched play rules in the next GHB remove random initiative from matched play.

I feel the number of people that would legit be upset if double turn was removed would be very small.

The majority of people I find play with it not because they like it, but because official rules means official rules and they deal with it.

Well, it's kind of a selection pressure in a way. People will play what they like, so over time the population of Age of Sigmar players will like Double Turns more than the general population, because all the people that really like it will move into the AoS group and the people who really hate it will move out.

To me, it is an additional barrier to trying to find a group that is actively playing it after the pandemic dies down. I already am not super excited about IGOUGO but double turn is as mentioned above sometimes IGOUGOUGOIGO which is just worse.

 auticus wrote:
I feel the number of people that would legit be upset if double turn was removed would be very small.

The majority of people I find play with it not because they like it, but because official rules means official rules and they deal with it.

Would require significant changes to game though or otherwise winner of game would be easily determined by seeing lists. Generally he who has least drops wins. Much like in 40k after who goes first is determined winner is already easy to predict(even points per side within 10 pts...) and AOS would be even more easy to predict with fixed turn order.

Would become rather boring game. At least now there's rarely foregone conclusion even on turn 4.

I don't mind it as a concept and use it but feel a game like AoS isn't really built around such a mechanic.

I'm also not conceptually against it. If all damage was resolve simultaneously for example then it would be less of a problem. So if shooting was resolved like melee with both sides shooting in a shared phase, and the same with magic, then the "double turn" would only matter for moving, and that would be a lot easier to manage and a lot less unbalanced.

tneva82 wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I feel the number of people that would legit be upset if double turn was removed would be very small.

The majority of people I find play with it not because they like it, but because official rules means official rules and they deal with it.

Would require significant changes to game though or otherwise winner of game would be easily determined by seeing lists. Generally he who has least drops wins. Much like in 40k after who goes first is determined winner is already easy to predict(even points per side within 10 pts...) and AOS would be even more easy to predict with fixed turn order.

Would become rather boring game. At least now there's rarely foregone conclusion even on turn 4.

I was playing it without double turn for years and didn't require significant changes. And games were still easily determined by just seeing lists. My last AOS game in 2019 I was deleted in 2 turns by triple keeper of secrets summoning in a free 2000 points by turn 2 (thats with double turn in play since we had to get rid of all house rules by that point). The game itself lends to being a game about lists, double-turn or not.

I'd say 75% of my games were foregone conclusions by turn 2 or 3 both with and without double turn in play, and were heavily based on lists magic-the-gathering style. So I dont agree with that premise at all based on my own experience with the game from 2015-2019.

In matched play I build my armies to be low drop and secure turn choice. Then I go second and never take the double. Found it to be a satisfying mix of results. I would go as far as to say that the claim "removing the double would make results pre-determined" could only be seriously entertained by someone who has little to no experience outside random initiative. The only games it would make pre-determined are those where there is a large disparity in the power of lists, which goes back to my original argument of the double being a crutch against awful balance by randomly handing out victories every few games.

But it isn't a real victory. It's winning a boxing match where the ref stepped in to kick the opponent in the balls one round in. Double turn wins are quite possibly the least satisfying game result I have found in wargaming my entire life, save perhaps being shot off the board turn 1 in 40k. I have more fun losing without a double than winning with one. The sheer lack of effort involved in securing the win when getting to go twice in the first half of the game is that bad for me.

Besides, the change required amounts to two sentences: "When determining deployment in Matched Play roll off; the winner chooses their deployment zone then deploys their entire army following the rules of the scenario, followed by their opponent. The player that chose their deployment zone takes the first turn in the battle round."

Or alternatively: "In Matched Play, the player that goes first in round 1 will also go first in rounds 2 and 3 (no initiative roll is made). Roll initiative normally in subsequent rounds."

tneva82 wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I feel the number of people that would legit be upset if double turn was removed would be very small.

The majority of people I find play with it not because they like it, but because official rules means official rules and they deal with it.

Would require significant changes to game though or otherwise winner of game would be easily determined by seeing lists.

About 1/2 of all the AoS games I've played have been without double turns. Can't say we've ever found much that needed changing.
The only things that we had to change were determining how to move the 1st predatory Endless Spell & sometimes there's a detail within a battleplan that refers to the 1st player of the round.
All we've done in such instances is roll off at the top of the round - same as you would if the actual double turn was to be used - then move spell/destroy objective/etc as described, then we just resume with the standard IGOUGO.
Works fine.

On determining winning just by seeing lists.... Well, sometimes this is true.
*One guy fields crap & the other doesn't. Ex: When my buddy puts his Nighthaunts on the table. I'm just not impressed. IMO I'd have to TRY and lose to him....
*One guy fields something really strong/OP (or believed to be) & it breaks the other players morale before dice are ever rolled. Games really hard to win when you start assuming you'll lose....
*One guy fields something really strong/OP (or believed to be) & the other guy hasn't yet figured out the key to breaking it yet. Ex: My SoB vs my friends Luminith. The elves haven't yet beaten my giants, but he's getting closer/better....

tneva82 wrote:
Generally he who has least drops wins. Much like in 40k after who goes first is determined winner is already easy to predict(even points per side within 10 pts...) and AOS would be even more easy to predict with fixed turn order.

Not my experience at all in Sigmar.
*My last 2k pt game? No double turn used (my opponent dislikes it). My StD (99% Marauder based & some chariots, no battalion) vs Orks.
The Orks were some battalion, had 6 units & 3(?) drops. Me? I had 15 drops.
The Orks went first.
By the end of the 1st round I'd lost (effectively) 3 units. Each was reduced to 1-3 models who weren't taking BS tests thanks to the General.
By the end of the 2nd? I'd lost those 3 stragglers + 2 chariots - but killed the Ork Boss on Mawchrusha! & a shamen in return.
Turns 3 - 5 was spent mopping up 3 ork combat units, another shamen, & earning victory pts.

*The game before that?
2k pts - Undead (legions of Nagash, no named characters, combined army played by 2 players) vs our Luminith Elf friend. No double turn used.
The Elves placed 1st & went first.
They DID win. But it was a very close fight & had nothing with his list being better, going 1st (though that certainly helped him as he killed some characters right off with that damned elf archery. ), or having fewer drops.
He won due to luck. He had a unit pass just enough saves on our last turn, allowing him to live, kill off the undead unit & retain control of an objective.

If you can choose turn, the default choice is second. It means an easy win should you snag the double round 2 or 3. Choosing first is only for armies that specifically accommodate that.

We play with the double turn. And yes, I hate it and wish it would be jettisoned from matched play.

 Da Boss wrote:
I'm also not conceptually against it. If all damage was resolve simultaneously for example then it would be less of a problem. So if shooting was resolved like melee with both sides shooting in a shared phase, and the same with magic, then the "double turn" would only matter for moving, and that would be a lot easier to manage and a lot less unbalanced.

This wont fix the problem tho

Heavy melee list like khorne that have close to 0 shooting will still have a huge disavantage

a friend of mine plays khorne a lot vs KO, lumineth and the likes

if he lose initiative turn 1 generally it means he'll get tabled

 InVerno wrote:
This wont fix the problem tho

Heavy melee list like khorne that have close to 0 shooting will still have a huge disavantage

a friend of mine plays khorne a lot vs KO, lumineth and the likes

if he lose initiative turn 1 generally it means he'll get tabled

I'm sorry, but that has little to do with the turn setup, but how the two armies are configured. Ranged units will always have first strike potential against melee armies, unless they can appear in melee range readily enough.

In a way, the Battletech method mentioned would actually work better for the Khornates going second because they can then plan their movement against the fire lanes the KO would set up (provided terrain allows for lanes to be generated).

If forests/overgrown terrain properly blocked line of sight it would make things better. Because flying units ignore it KO bypass the main counter-play to shooting.

KO really are a perfect gakstorm right now.

Thankfully, only one person "plays" KO in my area, as in they rarely ever showed up for anything even before COVID, but if more showed up, or more extreme shooting armies showed up, I'd just toss on some more forests with rules that actually matter.

There's a realmscape feature in the realm of fire (full realmscape rules, not the matched ones) which can help with that.

I really hate the double turn. I find that more often than not, if I am behind, I cannot play the game with it in mind, but instead I'm forcing to think to myself "if they get the turn I guess I just lose". Certain armies or match ups make it so having the double turn go to one person ends the game. The amount of times I got free wins by healing my legions of nagash units twice was awful, and felt good for nobody. Me getting a win I didn't deserve because the double turn felt bad. Me losing because of it felt bad. I read "it can let you turn around lost ganes" as "you get a win you didn't deserve", and for every lost game it turns around into a fair one, I've seen two close matches ruined because of it. Playing a weaker army vs newer ones is hard enough without double turns going to the enemy.

My entire playgroup unanimously agreed to drop it. We've been happy ever since. I suggest everyone drop the rule.

I have developed a begrudging ambivalence towards Random Turns. I play with them as they are a part of the rule, and have set my expectations to expect the worst playing with it, but I would not be unhappy if it were removed.

To be fair there are a lot of players in my FLGS who stay away from AoS purely because of the random turns and if it were removed I could easily imagine seeing the playerbase swell.

The game has also changed a lot from when it was first introduced so the double turn is becoming an ever increasing liability.

At a certain point it becomes a pure business decision. Remove double, gain customers. It isn't like double-supporters have anywhere else to go.

AoS 3.0 is probably around the corner so I guess we'll see what happens.

 Eldarsif wrote:
AoS 3.0 is probably around the corner so I guess we'll see what happens.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
At a certain point it becomes a pure business decision. Remove double, gain customers. It isn't like double-supporters have anywhere else to go.

I suspect that the vast majority of double-turn supporters would shrug their shoulders and not care if double turn was removed as well. While they exist, I dont read a ton of people or know a ton of people that love the rule, they support it simply because "them's the rules and we have to play the official rules".

 auticus wrote:
I suspect that the vast majority of double-turn supporters would shrug their shoulders and not care if double turn was removed as well. While they exist, I dont read a ton of people or know a ton of people that love the rule, they support it simply because "them's the rules and we have to play the official rules".

We even see that here. I don't see any responses extolling the virtues of the concept, just the fact that the rule exists.

On the other hand, it's not like communities don't house rule a lot to fit the mood of their group, even if it is just to fit a certain tournament paradigm that they have borrowed.

Ninthmusketeer has basically convinced me that double turn isn't good, and I'm going to convince my friends to house rule alternating turns. I'll likely still play random turns with strangers (because it's the rules!) until GW says otherwise, though.

A technique I use with strangers is creating a low-drop army list, choosing to go second, then just never taking the double. Because tbh I would rather just lose.