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.

So here's a question for you all. As we all know, the double turn is probably still the most polarising part of the game. (I'm in the camp of enjyoing it). So what if it was changed next ed to use the reactions of Warcry instead? Rather than an opponent possibly having consecutive turns, we would use reactions instead. Still allowing interactivty between both players during both turns, but avoiding the massacres that could happen if a player got a particularly vicous double turn.

We've become locked in a cycle of continually changing, and continually ineffective, means of compensating for a mechanic that is not necessary for gameplay, the majority of players tolerate at best, and which is the explicit reason why a not-insignificant number of potential players refuse to play AoS.

Too little and it doesn't solve the problem, too much and it creates a new one. I honestly, legitimately, hope you find a way to strike the perfect balance but for me it's a puzzle I walked away from a long time ago.

The problem is whilst the game remains one where each player takes a full round of activating their entire army per turn before their opponent can, the double turn remains insanely bonkers powerful as a mechanic.

It's also something you cannot plan for - the only tactics I ever see being rolled out for it are either just regular tactics (screen your good units with cheaper ones) that you should be doing anyway; or simply not moving forward so your opponent "wastes" one doubleturn getting toward you - which is pretty much impossible to do unless you're in a scripted game where you are defending a location - otherwise moving forward is almost essential in a game that only has 6 turns in most matches.


It's just insanely powerful and I'm still baffled how GW can with one hand talk about improving game balance and yet with the other seem very fixated on keeping the double-turn as part of the core competitive game scene.





I have to agree that trying to keep the game as is with the turn sequence and trying to keep the double turn via various means is just bloating and complicating the game in trying to balance out something that's insanely unbalanced to start with and where the clear easy method of solving the problem is to remove what causes the problem in the first place - the double turn itself.










I do kinda agree, if the game alternated activating units instead of whole armies and if there was a numerical token limit on how many activations a player had per turn or such (ergo to balance out armies that have fewer units with those which have more); then a chance of activating two units in a row back to back or activating the same one twice would be powerful, but not brokenly powerful. But activating a whole army twice in a row is just insanely powerful.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
We've become locked in a cycle of continually changing, and continually ineffective, means of compensating for a mechanic that is not necessary for gameplay, the majority of players tolerate at best, and which is the explicit reason why a not-insignificant number of potential players refuse to play AoS.

Too little and it doesn't solve the problem, too much and it creates a new one. I honestly, legitimately, hope you find a way to strike the perfect balance but for me it's a puzzle I walked away from a long time ago.

You could just not use it. Whoever goes 2nd still gets the extra CP each round & you just roll off to see who controls any endless spells 1st.

Just House Rule It isn't a satisfactory solution for some people. People in the same play group can and will have different ideas on how the game should be played and balanced, especially because it's a polarizing mechanic.

I'd rather it be removed. Some people in my local group agree, some don't. And for the handful that like visiting tournaments, practicing for one means having to play with it.

ccs wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
We've become locked in a cycle of continually changing, and continually ineffective, means of compensating for a mechanic that is not necessary for gameplay, the majority of players tolerate at best, and which is the explicit reason why a not-insignificant number of potential players refuse to play AoS.

Too little and it doesn't solve the problem, too much and it creates a new one. I honestly, legitimately, hope you find a way to strike the perfect balance but for me it's a puzzle I walked away from a long time ago.

You could just not use it. Whoever goes 2nd still gets the extra CP each round & you just roll off to see who controls any endless spells 1st.

3rd edition has been great for that, as the extra command point neatly compensates for first turn advantage in a way every army can benefit from. Dropping random initiative along with whatever compensation the current GHB has laid down has resulted in far more fun gameplay for me, and has consistently done so since first edition. Some degree of YMMV obviously, though I would hazard a guess that chess players would find the game remarkably less tactical were random initiative added...

I sometimes forget that people are still upset about the double turn. It's literally a non-issue in my gaming group. Getting a double turn is not a good predictor of who will win.

I think a lot of people become mentally defeated when a double turn happens to them, and they're already checked out from the game when it's their turn again.

The core skill for this game is keeping an even keel, which is something gamers really struggle with for the most part.

 Bloviator wrote:

The core skill for this game is keeping an even keel, which is something gamers really struggle with for the most part.

Personally I've yet to see anyone suggest tactics or method that's specific and unique to tackling and dealing with the double turn. In fact far as I can tell about the only way to counter the double turn happening against you is to not move into the game board space. Ergo to hold back. Which works great for the doubleturn - if you get it you've got an extra turn to move forward; if your opponent gets it they have to "waste" one turn moving forward to you. Of course in practice this doesn't work in a game with only 6 or so turns and where many games rely on mid-table objectives.

Yes you can ride out a doubleturn, but in general getting two full activations of an army is VERY insanely powerful. Even more so for any army using shooting and/or magic as they can hit at range without letting you get comeback on them. The alternating nature of close combat can mask some of the issues with the doubleturn as that at least lets you swap over; but the doubleturn still puts a lot of control over which engagements happen to the player who got the doubleturn. Lets them get a second round of magic and buffs to apply to boost their side in combat etc...

It seems a lot of players simply do not incorporate screens into their list building, or give consideration to potential trades in advance.

I've seen double turns really screw over the apparent beneficiary because they're caught out of position, or they don't gain enough ground on the second turn to be in a good position for the clap back.

In a game like AoS, where the design philosophy places hugely consequential outcomes on marginal statistical probabilities in order to level the playing field between skilled and unskilled players, the double turn is the epitome of that philosophy.

Yes, a good double turn can absolutely hose a player. But it's really rare, where after one occurs, the other player has no recourse.

Apologies if this is the wrong assumption, but the way you talk about the double turn makes me think you're mainly referencing the 1-2 double turn, which isn't nearly as consequential as the 2-3 double turn. If you're made to go first on turn 1 you can still position yourself to weather a 1-2 double turn. Not scoring 5 victory points on the first turn doesn't mean the game is over.

If you find yourself going first on turn 2, you've had 2 turns to position yourself to try and weather the potential 2-3 double turn. There's always recourse. Seriously, the defeats I see as a result of a double turn, more often than not, have more to do with the other players' state of mind than the game state.

People can be touchy here, so I want to make it clear that I'm engaging in earnest and respectful discourse here. Your point about shooting/magic vs the masking of the effect in alternating combats is a good perspective that I'll give some thought to over the next few games I play.

I can count on one hand the number of games I've taken a double and lost. I can also count on one hand the number of players I've encountered who genuinely like the concept, rather than supporting it simply because they are afraid they can't win without.

Chess would be more tactical with random initiative! /s

I dont play alot of AOS because of the double turn. I play Ironjaws (mostly brutes) and I do not have screening units. (I know I could include allies or the new Tolkien Orks as screens but I WANT to play an elite army) The double turn mechanic makes no sense and is something that nobody really likes but some people tolerate. If you watch alot of battle reports for AOS, it is the one roll that really matters (Just like going 1st in 40k is).

Both of these issues can be fixed with alternating activations. Almost all other wargames have some system in place for alternating activations, but GW is holding on to their stupid, outdated, all or nothing, turn system like grim death.

You can't tell me that taking two rounds of magic from a Tzeentch army feels fair or fun. If your opponent does not engage you, they can decimate your army with magic and shooting without you getting much of a say.

Translate this mechanic to any other game or sport and see how it feels. It is lazy and poorly thought out like the original AOS rules where you got extra advantages for wearing a hooded sweatshirt. It makes the game less fun, less fair, and less tactical.

Sadly, it is the only rule in AOS that I really dislike. Everything else about the game seems pretty good.

If it's that easy, come up with some AA rules that are viable and share them. I and many others I know would be excited to try them out but I've never seen an AAAoS system that isn't riddled with exploits.

Funnily enough in my last game I refused twice in a row to take double turn.

But as I say. Bad players whine, good players deal with it.

tneva82 wrote:
Funnily enough in my last game I refused twice in a row to take double turn.

But as I say. Bad players whine, good players deal with it.

Backwards; bad players think it is possible to come back from a double because they have gotten them then lost. Good players know that when you take a double you do so to make it impossible for the opposing player to come back from it.

The trick is that when someone makes the 'git gud' (GG) response it reveals where they're at;
-It only makes sense if they person they respond to was complaining because they didn't like losing
-This reveals that the GG-speaker automatically assumed that the complaint was coming from that direction
-This in turn strongly indicates (though notably, not a complete guarantee) that the GG-speaker would only themselves make complaints due to losses
-Which itself in turn reveals the GG-speaker's enjoyment is closely if not entirely tied to winning the game

So it is important to understand that when someone responds to a complaint with 'git gud' or something to that effect, they are essentially outing themselves as a player that cares more about the result than the gameplay. Taking this into consideration with regard to the original topic of random initiative...

tneva82 wrote:
Funnily enough in my last game I refused twice in a row to take double turn.

But as I say. Bad players whine, good players deal with it.

I mean that actually defends the argument that the double turn doesn't need to be part of the game

Asides you not taking it just means that you had a normal game with normal turn sequences. Had you taken one of those chances are it would have solidified your win even more than you already won (as I'm assuming from your tone that you won the game).

late to the party here, but I want to chime in. I love AoS. Really do. It's my main game w/ my son which makes it even more impacting and meaningful.
Yet one strategy around this issues -- letting your opponent take first turn and "going for the double" is a factor. There is more nuance to all the decisions of course, but they are over my head for the most part. I'm not a fantastic player, but try to be a good opponent.
I will admit, there are times when I don't want to admit, how much I dislike the double turn mechanic.
But I see players really 'playing to it' and embracing it, so I try to take those lost rolls as part of the chaotic experience in the realms.

The bonuses handed out to the second player in certain GHB seasons/scenarios often go too far and make it so the ideal state of play is going second the whole time. It already grants an extra CP and an extra heroic action per round in every Matched game, with some scenarios even letting the second player pull objectives as well.

for CASUAL/NARRATIVE play, this is what our group does ...

If a double turn happens, the opponent gains an additional Command Point.


The double turn has the worst impact in round 4-5, in our experience. What's devastating about it is that frequently the game can be decided by that priority roll-off. 1 additional CP is usually enough of a glimmer-hope to let the opponent stay in if it's a close game.


The other mechanic we messed with (to some success) is the Shooting Phase. Addressing this seemed to take the burden off the double-roll. So, here's the rules we use in our narrative play ...
- units can still only fire once per round in either shooting phase
- You can order your units to shoot during your opponent's shooting phase (alternating activations). However, if you do so you cannot have them fire during your turn. (token to track shooting required)
- So say you go first and your units are out of range, they can pass this turn and hope to shoot during your opponent's turn.
- Alternatively, if you have 2nd turn you can shoot during your opponent's turn (and then forgo shooting during your turn)
- a stopgap is that you can't shoot and unleash hell during the same turn. I.e. If you have your unit fire during the shooting phase, and they get charged? well, hope you landed your shots.

Again, it seems to alleviate part of the issue tied to the double turn.

Those are some interesting ideas, definitely sound like they could improve things!