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.

Honestly in most AoS games I've played, who wins and who loses feels like a big coin flip. While the same could be said for 40k(my preferred game) it's not nearly as bad here. I'm not so sure if that's solely because of the double turn thing or if it's a more general issue of 40k taking measures to reduce randomness while AoS hasn't yet, I definitely think random turns is at least 50% of the issue. It's frankly quite a bizarre mechanic...why would you put something as important as who gets to take the next turn first on a die roll?

 CommanderWalrus wrote:
Honestly in most AoS games I've played, who wins and who loses feels like a big coin flip. While the same could be said for 40k(my preferred game) it's not nearly as bad here. I'm not so sure if that's solely because of the double turn thing or if it's a more general issue of 40k taking measures to reduce randomness while AoS hasn't yet, I definitely think random turns is at least 50% of the issue. It's frankly quite a bizarre mechanic...why would you put something as important as who gets to take the next turn first on a die roll?

40k reducing randomness? Are you serious? If so you & I aren't playing the same edition (8e/9e).....

On "why the double turn"? Well, I can see what they were going for, an abstracted ebb & flow to the battle (and somewhere in the book it probably says as much). But it's poorly implemented.

At this point the double turn is the most limiting factor in the entire game. Originally the back and forth of melee was implemented to reduce the severity of double turn. Now, however, we see the developers wanting to test different unit capabilities - many of which are non-reactive - and they can't do it without making Double turns overwhelming.

The only other way to keep double turn is to go to alternating activations.

 Eldarsif wrote:
The only other way to keep double turn is to go to alternating activations.

Warcry seems to be working well with it. However when you can have a huge difference between unit numbers like, say, Ogors vs Skaven, it can make for a huge disparity and throw off the effectiveness of AA.

Alternating activations would require a rework in a number of AoS mechanics. It would have to be a massive overhaul of the rules, likely an unwise plan given the core rules are rather well liked for the most part. Alternating by phase, on the other hand, is so compatible it can be house-ruled in and someone can go from not knowing it to playing it with full understanding in less than five minutes.

To a degree, the double turn is a decent fix for first turn advantage. You can't get it unless you're going second. Practically, it doesn't work because the first player doesn't often have a first strike advantage and often ends up having to play defensively for the charge. Second player ends up both getting the first strike and the potential for an immediate follow up, which is when the mechanic really creates non-game experiences.

I think there's ways to make it work. For example, second player could attempt to seize by spending a command point and rolling under the turn number or something like that. Largely though, I think its purpose has largely been made redundant by scenario design.

NinthMusketeer wrote:Alternating activations would require a rework in a number of AoS mechanics. It would have to be a massive overhaul of the rules, likely an unwise plan given the core rules are rather well liked for the most part. Alternating by phase, on the other hand, is so compatible it can be house-ruled in and someone can go from not knowing it to playing it with full understanding in less than five minutes.

I have found it works well in Battletech, though they alternate actions within the Phase and damage does not get allocated till the end of the Phase.

LunarSol wrote:To a degree, the double turn is a decent fix for first turn advantage. You can't get it unless you're going second. Practically, it doesn't work because the first player doesn't often have a first strike advantage and often ends up having to play defensively for the charge. Second player ends up both getting the first strike and the potential for an immediate follow up, which is when the mechanic really creates non-game experiences.

I think there's ways to make it work. For example, second player could attempt to seize by spending a command point and rolling under the turn number or something like that. Largely though, I think its purpose has largely been made redundant by scenario design.

I wonder if Warcry's Initiative system could be utilized in this manner. For those who don't know, you roll 6D6 and count up the singles and multiples (pairs, triples, and quads). The number of singles you roll determines your Initiative. This can make your Initiative from 0 to 6. The multiples can then be spent that turn on Abilities that can improve your model's interactions. You are granted a Wild Die that can be used to add more singles, improve a multiple (pair to a triple, triple to a quad), or be saved to be used next turn.

The multiple dice could be used for what is now Command Point abilities, allowing for such to be a renewable (if rather random) resource instead during the fight.

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?

The group of fluff gamers notorious for mis-playing rules got rid of one on purpose? Would be a good excuse.

They make beautiful tables and bat reps and it's for entertainment. I love them but a lot of people watch WWE so it's all good.

Arguing against roll-off turns is like saying "this game has parts that are too hard for me to think down the road, 40k has OP armies and I can blow my opponent off in alpha strike so I want that here."

Once you extend into knowing it's a deliberate mechanic in the game and how it works you become a better general. TBH the only place I hear about it being an issue is online. Never in a game or games store or tournament.

Arguing against roll-off turns is like saying "this game has parts that are too hard for me to think down the road, 40k has OP armies and I can blow my opponent off in alpha strike so I want that here."

This is the most repeated "defense" of double turns that I think I've seen and it... doesn't make any sense. Can you explain how removing the double turn is going to make Kharadron overlords or Lumineth Realm Lords *more* able to blow their opponent away in alpha strike?
Can you explain how the double turn mechanic currently prevents them from doing so?
I hear the phrase but never any explanation deeper than it, as if somebody said it once and everybody else repeats it because it sounds right to them.

Once you extend into knowing it's a deliberate mechanic in the game and how it works you become a better general.

I am a better general for knowing that ignoring the possibility of the double turn is the best way to play, I guess. What an incredibly good and deliberate mechanic!

popisdead wrote:


Once you extend into knowing it's a deliberate mechanic in the game and how it works you become a better general. TBH the only place I hear about it being an issue is online. Never in a game or games store or tournament.

I'd say likely because many of the people that dont like it, dont' play the game so you wont encounter them at your games store or tournaments. I know a whole swarm of people in real life that hate the double turn and is why they wont touch AOS. You also wont find them down at the game store playing AOS or participating in AOS tournaments.

Once you extend into knowing it's a deliberate mechanic in the game and how it works you become a better general.

I dont think so. It makes you a better gamer sure because you know how to take advantage of game mechanics. General? No. Hardly. Most of the people I have ever known that are good at AOS would absolutely crap their pants if they had to command any real troops on a battlefield, because a real battlefield you can't min/max optimize your forces and push to have the scenario be in your favor all the time. You have to be able to mitigate risk, work with the battlefield, and a number of other factors that exist as it pertains to military tactics and strategies that a simple game like AOS do not test at all.

The game could also have a mechanic where I get to kick you in the balls if you roll a certain number on X dice. And then when you complain about it I can tell you to just suck it up and know how it works so you can become a better general. That doesn't make that a fun mechanic to put into the game though. Same as the fun rules that AOS had on release like if you have a beard, or if you kneel you lose, etc. When people complained about it we could just tell them thats just how it works, suck it up and get better. Also doesn't make it a fun mechanic to put into a game though.

Same as a mechanic where you stand there for two full turns doing nothing but removing models for 45-60 minutes. I call that a waste of an afternoon - no matter which side of the table I am on be it removing my models or making you remove your models.

 auticus wrote:

popisdead wrote:


Once you extend into knowing it's a deliberate mechanic in the game and how it works you become a better general. TBH the only place I hear about it being an issue is online. Never in a game or games store or tournament.

I'd say likely because many of the people that dont like it, dont' play the game so you wont encounter them at your games store or tournaments. I know a whole swarm of people in real life that hate the double turn and is why they wont touch AOS. You also wont find them down at the game store playing AOS or participating in AOS tournaments.

But if it didn't exist, would these people play Sigmar?
Because if that answer is a yes? Then I really don't understand their stance on this since we HAVE Open & Narrative play as options and, as you put it, there's a swarm of these people.
That sounds like a community who simply has to decide to play "open" & choose wich rules they want to apply to their games.

Outside of the tourney scene there's nothing stopping people getting together & choosing to use 99.999% of Matched Play rules in Open/Narrative play.

Either you are well aware that there very much is something stopping people, or you are veeeery inexperienced with how the world works.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Either you are well aware that there very much is something stopping people, or you are veeeery inexperienced with how the world works.

Ah, reading comprehension. A lost art....

Look, I understand perfectly that it's stopping some people.
But outside the tourney setting or someone being the one odd duck out of the group? I don't understand the why of it given that the books contain instructions/suggestions on how to play that allow you to alter wich rules you use. Especially when you encounter groups of such people who have minis, who have the books, & who claim to otherwise be ok with the game & all agree they don't like the rule. Yet aren't playing claiming it's because of the double turn - something they could choose to use or not.

Because it splits up the player base.

In my local area there are two camps of AOS players; those who use the double-turn and those who do not.

What this has led to is a fracturing of the community and less opportunities for people to find games and different opponents. Despite an initial upswell in interest with 2.0's release, AOS has not grown at all around here in the subsequent 3 years because of the double turn and because of how it splits up the playerbase. KoW tournaments here get more players than AOS ones do ffs. The amount of new players I've seen just bounce off of the game or potential players not touch it because of the mechanic is honestly staggering. Meanwhile, 40k, X-Wing, AT, Bolt Action, LOTR and KoW keep attracting new players.

If you're a new player and you haven't been completely turned off the game by the double turn, but continue to decide to keep trying it with the people who houserule it out, you're restricting yourself to an even smaller community (of an already small community) and getting even less opportunities to play. What further entrenches this problem is that for these 2 sides their decision is absolute; they won't decide to have the old one-off game with/without the double turn. It isn't like coming up with some narrative scenario and rules for a fun one-off game every now and then to take a break from matched play. It's not even something innocuous and inoffensive that the entire community decides to houserule either (like being able to discard impossible Maelstrom of War cards in 8th).

In general tabletop games thrive off of having a large, varied community. That's not to say people can't find enjoyment otherwise; I've certainly seen people play all manner of games and only really ever play the same 1 or 2 people every time with the same 1 or 2 factions. There's nothing wrong with that but it is not how the majority of people actually enjoy tabletop wargaming and it also doesn't lead to those communities growing or bringing new people in.

ccs wrote:
Because if that answer is a yes? Then I really don't understand their stance on this since we HAVE Open & Narrative play as options and, as you put it, there's a swarm of these people.
That sounds like a community who simply has to decide to play "open" & choose wich rules they want to apply to their games.

Outside of the tourney scene there's nothing stopping people getting together & choosing to use 99.999% of Matched Play rules in Open/Narrative play.

How many people do you know who will use Open/Narrative play, even with using almost all the Matched Play stuff? The stigma is that these styles are ridiculously imbalanced and "unfair" because it's not Matched Play, which is specifically stated to be balanced, ergo the other modes are not and obviously if something is not balanced you can't have a fun game (the irony of course being Matched is just as imbalanced if not worse since you can hide behind "the rules let me" rather than admit you're an donkey-cave). . I have rarely if ever met anyone who will do anything other than Matched Play and even if they did are reluctant to houserule anything because that means it's no longer the "real" rules. My area is not as bad as say auticus' where people will throw tantrums and try to sabotage anything using houserules as "playing wrong" but there's a stigma against houserules and I've seen that mindset since 1996.

I have found people dislike houseruling because, as said above, it reduces the player pool. If you get too acclimated to houserules in your area and go somewhere else, you are "playing wrong". If someone new to the area comes in from an area that didn't have houserules you now have a conflict when that person asks to play by the rules as written and you wan to play with your group's houserules.

 Bosskelot wrote:
Because it splits up the player base.
....
If you're a new player and you haven't been completely turned off the game by the double turn, but continue to decide to keep trying it with the people who houserule it out, you're restricting yourself to an even smaller community (of an already small community) and getting even less opportunities to play. What further entrenches this problem is that for these 2 sides their decision is absolute; they won't decide to have the old one-off game with/without the double turn. It isn't like coming up with some narrative scenario and rules for a fun one-off game every now and then to take a break from matched play. It's not even something innocuous and inoffensive that the entire community decides to houserule either (like being able to discard impossible Maelstrom of War cards in 8th).

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It depends on how entrenched they are. It can be as divisive as the tournament scene, when you boil down to it. Nor is every community the same on how stuck each side will be.

ccs wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Either you are well aware that there very much is something stopping people, or you are veeeery inexperienced with how the world works.

Ah, reading comprehension. A lost art....

Look, I understand perfectly that it's stopping some people.
But outside the tourney setting or someone being the one odd duck out of the group? I don't understand the why of it given that the books contain instructions/suggestions on how to play that allow you to alter wich rules you use. Especially when you encounter groups of such people who have minis, who have the books, & who claim to otherwise be ok with the game & all agree they don't like the rule. Yet aren't playing claiming it's because of the double turn - something they could choose to use or not.

You not understanding does not change that it exists, is ubiquitous, and beyond the power of any individual to change. You not understanding does not change that you clearly understand the larger context and have been making a deliberately obtuse, disingenuous argument from the start.

I think the double turn was intended to reduce the power of alpha-strike shooting lists by assuming those lists would go first - melee units could "double turn" up the board to touch them after only one shooting phase.

OFC it turns out that shooting lists will just go second, forcing the melee units to take only 1 movement phase and then shoot at them twice. I play by the rules so I use it in my games, but I don't think it's a "good rule". LOTR's system is 1e200 percent better.

I've never once heard GW say rolling for initiative had anything to do with alpha strikes. They pushed and continuously push the idea that it's supposed to represent the unpredictable ebb and flow of battle. Essentially, rolling for initiative is one of the last ridiculous narrative remnants from when AoS launched. There was a crazy amount of rubbish in the game then and for some reason GW seems to think that initiative is a really cool USP, when, in actuality, it should be jettisoned from the game like the rancid turd it is.

auticus wrote:

popisdead wrote:


Once you extend into knowing it's a deliberate mechanic in the game and how it works you become a better general. TBH the only place I hear about it being an issue is online. Never in a game or games store or tournament.

I'd say likely because many of the people that dont like it, dont' play the game so you wont encounter them at your games store or tournaments. I know a whole swarm of people in real life that hate the double turn and is why they wont touch AOS. You also wont find them down at the game store playing AOS or participating in AOS tournaments.

Once you extend into knowing it's a deliberate mechanic in the game and how it works you become a better general.

I dont think so. It makes you a better gamer sure because you know how to take advantage of game mechanics. General? No. Hardly. Most of the people I have ever known that are good at AOS would absolutely crap their pants if they had to command any real troops on a battlefield, because a real battlefield you can't min/max optimize your forces and push to have the scenario be in your favor all the time. You have to be able to mitigate risk, work with the battlefield, and a number of other factors that exist as it pertains to military tactics and strategies that a simple game like AOS do not test at all.

The game could also have a mechanic where I get to kick you in the balls if you roll a certain number on X dice. And then when you complain about it I can tell you to just suck it up and know how it works so you can become a better general. That doesn't make that a fun mechanic to put into the game though. Same as the fun rules that AOS had on release like if you have a beard, or if you kneel you lose, etc. When people complained about it we could just tell them thats just how it works, suck it up and get better. Also doesn't make it a fun mechanic to put into a game though.

Same as a mechanic where you stand there for two full turns doing nothing but removing models for 45-60 minutes. I call that a waste of an afternoon - no matter which side of the table I am on be it removing my models or making you remove your models.

So if someone doesn't play the game they don't count. It is like not voting, the political parties win. If they don't understand the balance built upon the priority roll within the game and don't play, again, okay? Great I guess? People like to express negativity online.

I've never stood around for 45 - 60 minutes and just removed models. that implies your turns are taking an hour each and it's a 5 round game. I don't recall playing a 5 hour game since Storm of Magic. Also you are aware of activation? And that you get to roll dice when your opponent does? Feel free to find things that are a better use of your afternoon. No one is demanding you stand around and only remove models.

I don't think many people who play fantasy games as hobbies are too concerned with having to field troops in the real world. Those people with experience tend to play Flames of War and Team Yankee and are quite good at it. A game built upon real world instances.

popisdead wrote:

auticus wrote:

popisdead wrote:


Once you extend into knowing it's a deliberate mechanic in the game and how it works you become a better general. TBH the only place I hear about it being an issue is online. Never in a game or games store or tournament.

I'd say likely because many of the people that dont like it, dont' play the game so you wont encounter them at your games store or tournaments. I know a whole swarm of people in real life that hate the double turn and is why they wont touch AOS. You also wont find them down at the game store playing AOS or participating in AOS tournaments.

Once you extend into knowing it's a deliberate mechanic in the game and how it works you become a better general.

I dont think so. It makes you a better gamer sure because you know how to take advantage of game mechanics. General? No. Hardly. Most of the people I have ever known that are good at AOS would absolutely crap their pants if they had to command any real troops on a battlefield, because a real battlefield you can't min/max optimize your forces and push to have the scenario be in your favor all the time. You have to be able to mitigate risk, work with the battlefield, and a number of other factors that exist as it pertains to military tactics and strategies that a simple game like AOS do not test at all.

The game could also have a mechanic where I get to kick you in the balls if you roll a certain number on X dice. And then when you complain about it I can tell you to just suck it up and know how it works so you can become a better general. That doesn't make that a fun mechanic to put into the game though. Same as the fun rules that AOS had on release like if you have a beard, or if you kneel you lose, etc. When people complained about it we could just tell them thats just how it works, suck it up and get better. Also doesn't make it a fun mechanic to put into a game though.

Same as a mechanic where you stand there for two full turns doing nothing but removing models for 45-60 minutes. I call that a waste of an afternoon - no matter which side of the table I am on be it removing my models or making you remove your models.

So if someone doesn't play the game they don't count. It is like not voting, the political parties win. If they don't understand the balance built upon the priority roll within the game and don't play, again, okay? Great I guess? People like to express negativity online.

I've never stood around for 45 - 60 minutes and just removed models. that implies your turns are taking an hour each and it's a 5 round game. I don't recall playing a 5 hour game since Storm of Magic. Also you are aware of activation? And that you get to roll dice when your opponent does? Feel free to find things that are a better use of your afternoon. No one is demanding you stand around and only remove models.

I don't think many people who play fantasy games as hobbies are too concerned with having to field troops in the real world. Those people with experience tend to play Flames of War and Team Yankee and are quite good at it. A game built upon real world instances.

Before the combat phase, dice-rolling is almost entirely reactionary.

I don't consider "Rolling Saves" to be playing the game. Not in a meaningful way.

Are there a notable number of players (read: sales) avoiding AoS due to random initiative? Yes, it seems so.

Would players who like random initiative leave AoS if it were removed, and have somewhere to go if they did? No on both counts.

I think GW has gotten to a point where they understand that reality, and it becomes a basic business decision. They may just remove it from matched though, or keep it but nerf it again (note that they made random initiative significantly less random in 2nd edition).

Wayniac wrote:

ccs wrote:
Because if that answer is a yes? Then I really don't understand their stance on this since we HAVE Open & Narrative play as options and, as you put it, there's a swarm of these people.
That sounds like a community who simply has to decide to play "open" & choose wich rules they want to apply to their games.

Outside of the tourney scene there's nothing stopping people getting together & choosing to use 99.999% of Matched Play rules in Open/Narrative play.

How many people do you know who will use Open/Narrative play, even with using almost all the Matched Play stuff?

Plenty. Virtually everyone. There is a range of opinions on the use of the double turn rule.
With a few hardcore cases on either end. Most of us though are veterans of multiple editions/systems/RPGs, years & years of gaming xp, & flexible. We're not playing in a tourney, there's nothing on the line, it's just a game at the local shop on Sunday afternoon etc. So if we alter something? The universe won't care. The GW Arbites won't show up.

What happens with the double turn is this:
Two anti-2x turn players? = No double turn
Two pro-2x turn players? = Double Turn
Anti + Pro? Well, since most of us a flexible, an agreement will be reached & someone will yield. If not roll off. High roll decides.
The polar opposites? They just don't play each other. They've made the decision to limit their pool of opponents by x.
ME? I don't care either way. I let my opponent decide. Or my teammates & foes if it's a muti-player game.

Wayniac wrote:
The stigma is that these styles are ridiculously imbalanced and "unfair" because it's not Matched Play, which is specifically stated to be balanced, ergo the other modes are not and obviously if something is not balanced you can't have a fun game (the irony of course being Matched is just as imbalanced if not worse since you can hide behind "the rules let me" rather than admit you're an donkey-cave). . I have rarely if ever met anyone who will do anything other than Matched Play and even if they did are reluctant to houserule anything because that means it's no longer the "real" rules. My area is not as bad as say auticus' where people will throw tantrums and try to sabotage anything using houserules as "playing wrong" but there's a stigma against houserules and I've seen that mindset since 1996.

I have found people dislike houseruling because, as said above, it reduces the player pool. If you get too acclimated to houserules in your area and go somewhere else, you are "playing wrong". If someone new to the area comes in from an area that didn't have houserules you now have a conflict when that person asks to play by the rules as written and you wan to play with your group's houserules.

Wich still doesn't answer the question of why like minded players in an area wouldn't get together & play the game their way concerning the double turn.
They aren't playing now because the standard game includes the double turn.
If they went elsewhere? They still wouldn't be playing for the same reason.

And if you do go play elsewhere? There's no conflict needed. That saying about "When in Rome...." applies.
Once you're accepted into the new group, then maybe you can affect some change.

popisdead wrote:
If they don't understand the balance built upon the priority roll within the game and don't play, again, okay? Great I guess?

If the game is balanced upon the priority roll then why do so many people so successfully houserule it out to great success and fun? Shouldn't their games be broken?

IGOUGO is the problem, not the double turn. Alternating activations would fix a lot. Star Wars legion does this incredibly well.

As for the double turn, I play with it. It makes the game interesting, if nothing else.

 mokoshkana wrote:
IGOUGO is the problem, not the double turn. Alternating activations would fix a lot. Star Wars legion does this incredibly well.

Actually it is the combination of the two that are the problem. IGUGO can work, as evidenced with 8 Editions of Fantasy Battles.

Double Turn with alternating activations also can work, as evidenced by Warcry. Part of the problem with it at AoS's level is the disparity in some armies between the number of units they can field, like say, Sons of Behemat and Skaven.

It's true; Sons will deploy 6-9 very important models, while Skaven only get to deploy 1!*

*Expendable models not included.

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.

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.

Also, for people not wanting to play, the poll shows that the double turn is far more popular than the anecdotes on here would make it seem.

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.