So I read Mearls' recent post a couple days ago. My initial reaction was that I hated the ideas presented. But I wanted to give it some time to settle in. Now that I've done that I can say unequivocally - yes, I really do hate his ideas for modifying the turning undead mechanic.
What he presented (and no I'm not going to link to it) wasn't so much "rules" for a D&D rulebook, it was much more about "house rules" the things we add in or around our games. I don't like his suggestions as far as making it into the rulebooks. Why? Because they add bloat. he suggests having undead respond differently depending on the type. That adds to monster descriptions and adds to stat blocks - no fricken thank you. That also adds to the burden of the DM - which is apparently limitless if you listen to Mearls et al.
Why is it always ADD, ADD, ADD rules when it comes to game designers? How about subtracting the bloat? Knock the corners off and return to a streamlined mechanic based firmly in the Gygaxian history of the game.
It's exactly the same thing in the discipline of Economics. How many economics classes do you think you'll take where they actually talk about shrinking the economy?
Anyway, his post led me to think of the house rules we use in my game. I thought I'd explicate those and I'd love to hear what you do in your games.
I use the turning mechanics outlined in Barrowmaze. The turning number is increased by one and increases by one with each turn attempt per day (both are dungeon specific).
In addition to those, the turn attempt lasts for 1d12 rounds (I should change this to 3d4). If the cleric attacks the turned undead, the turn is broken. There are no rules that I am aware for for LL or B/X for the above. Although my memory is crappy at the best of times.