Age of Sigmar shares many similarities in its gameplay with other Warhammer games, but there is one mechanic that makes it unique and differentiates it from its grimdark brother. Yes, today we are going to talk about the controversial “double turn”.
Anyone who has ever played AoS knows what I'm talking about: the double turn is a situation that occurs frequently in AoS games, because since the initiative roll is random (opposite roll between both players) it often happens that a player has the opportunity to play two consecutive turns, so he can play for example two movement phases in a row without his opponent having had the opportunity to move his models.
In this post I'm going to explain why, in my opinion, the double turn is essential for Age of Sigmar to be one of the best game systems that GW has created. I'm a great defender of this mechanic, and I've argued a thousand times with the detractors of the game who always use the double turn as justification of why they don't like Age of Sigmar as much as other wargames. I often end up finding that most haters of this mechanic suffered it once against them and, from that moment on, the frustration that it caused them has made them leave the game or criticize it without having given it a second chance. Let's face it, AoS is not an easy game to play, it holds a tactical challenge.
I think you know when an AoS fan has become an experienced player the moment they stop seeing the double turn situation as an enemy, and begin to see it as an opportunity that takes them towards victory. Playing AoS competitively means having the possibility and the threat of double turn in mind at all times, since an experienced player will radically play a game depending on whether he has the possibility of double turn for or against.
We've all been newbies (I'm not an exception), and I've learned a lot teaching Age of Sigmar to other players who were just starting to play. What is the most typical comment that I come across, especially in tournaments?
Indeed: "My rival has had a double turn and destroyed me."
To which I always answer: “And have you learned something from the experience? Could you have played better? "
I'm surprised when many players, instead of answer that perhaps they could have approached the game from a different perspective, answer that it was all a matter of luck. Well, here is the first myth that I want to demystify: it is true that luck influences, after all it is a dice game, but the reality is that in wargames strategy is more important than luck!
I insist that I'm not saying that the dice rolls do not influence the games or that there are no unfavorable pairings, I am saying that in the vast majority of times that a game ends on turn 2 it is because you have bet for the wrong horse. In other words, instead of dominating the game and taking the initiative of the action and getting what you are interested in playing, you have played with fire and it has not turned out well.
During a game there are two main forms of play: if you have the possibility of the double turn you must play in a dominant way, while if you have the double turn against you, you have to play reactively.
Yeah, I know, this seems a sex role play. Let me explain what I'm talking about.
What I mean by dominant is to position your units in an agressive way to have better tabletop control. The objective is to find a balance between not being left behind and not risking completely your units
Why?
Well, because the reactive player, if he can decide the double turn, he can give it to you if he sees that he is able to hold it and then he becomes the dominant one.
In resume, the dominant player tries to get the decisive turns played when he has the double turn in favor, while the reactive player has to try to make few things happen at the tabletop until he becomes dominant, either because he gives away to his opponent the double turn at a time that is not excessively favorable for him, or because the opponent makes the wrong decision (forced by your strategy) to play the double turn at an inappropriate time. Playing as a dominant is difficult because you have to be able to calculate the risks and wait for the opportunity, while the difficulty of playing as a reactive lies in being able to make yourself aware that you are playing the comeback and that you have to try to get your opponent to make bad decisions (for example putting baits on it).
Be that as it may, the player who wins the initiative roll is the one who has the weight of the decision; and as for example the decision of choosing which player to start the game, making the wrong decision can spell the end. Therefore, the chance of winning the initiative roll is not what is truly relevant in this game, if not to play according to the situation and know how to wait for your moment. If you play for all or nothing then be aware that there is a good chance that all goes wrong! Ultimately, what is truly important are the decisions that both players make.
All of this leads me to a situation that I see very often by newbies players:
"My opponent has had a double turn, so I have given up."
No! We all get discouraged when we see how at a stroke we lose many units, but you must continue the game while there is any option left, since if your opponent has just had a double turn it means that now it is you who has the option to have it!
Those who know me already know it, but I've played lots of games in which after a double turn at the beginning everything gets difficult and it seems the end of the world, but I continued playing and the game has arrived until the 5th turn deciding if I win or lose in few details. If I had surrendered to the first change I would never have played such epic games, and I assure you that those are the best, and no other wargame has given me that kind of heroic comeback.
Another point in favor of the double turn mechanic, and that I think many players value, is that it offers the possibility that two players can play the same game many times and each time the game ends differently, adding a very important replay factor. In the competitive environment, this means that a seemingly worse roster can beat one that looks better if played properly and you decide to take a chance and it turns out well; which is essential so that we can see that the same factions do not always win; and that although there are some lists or battletomes a little more broken than others you always have the possibility of winning even if you start with a slight disadvantage.
Finally, I want to make it clear that it's not a perfect system. I am a great defender of the double turn, but as I see it, it has two bad things: the first is that it generates discontent, because nobody likes the feeling that they can annihilate you, and many people do not resist these bad experiences and leave the game a few games before acclimatizing to the double turn. The second, and surely the worst part of the double turn, is that although it tactically opens up a universe of possibilities, it's very boring when you have to spend an hour watching your opponent play while you are doing nothing.
In summary, learning to play double turn situations is difficult, and it's something that is only achieved with a lot of experience based not only on playing games, but on later analyzing what happened and being critical about how you could have done better. My idea when writing this text is to demystify that the double turn is an aberration that makes AoS a bad competitive game, and at the same time offer my vision as an experienced wargame player to raise awareness that the double turn is not only a fun mechanic, but directly I find it a wonderful tactic in the world of wargames.
Check Age of Sigmar Tactics if you want to learn more about how to optimise for the double turn.
No comments:
Post a Comment