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.

Greetings, all. I did a search on this, and there hasn't been a thread on this topic in a few months, so I'm kicking it back open.

There should be a revised turn sequence in 40k. Player 1 doing *everything*, and then player 2 doing *everything* results in a plodding game and no shortness of gamey nonsense.

The turn sequence should be based on units. For the purposes of this brainstorming, a "unit" is a selection in a force organization chart; it makes it simple. The way it would work is that Player 1 activates a unit, moves, shoots, and assaults. Then player 2 activates a unit, and does the same. Continue alternating until done.

The only two problems I can see are Imperial Guard troops choices, which can consist of multiple sub-units, and units that can pull off a first-turn charge. However, if the Guard player HAS to activate his HQ first, followed by any troops selections with command squads, the enforced "chain of command" should make up for the capabilities of multipart units. As for units that can pull off a first-turn charge, well, those are a.) bs, and b.) a problem as the rules currently are.

Edit: Furthermore, the order in which units take their turns should be determined before the first unit activates. That way, there is an additional level of thinking and planning.

So. Comments?

By the way, this was inspired by my interest in AT-43, a game with a better ruleset than 40k, but put out by a company that is even more incompetent than Games Workshop.

Honestly I don't see a problem with the 40k turn order.

Also, you have to compare the fact that AT-43 uses less models than 40k.

I have no problem with the warhammer 40k turn system. When I first started playing I played the sequence wrong, example.

Player 1 moves
Player 2 moves
player 1 fires
player 2 fires
player 1 assaults
player 2 assaults

The same basic Idea of what you were saying. The problem with this is drop podding units, or reinforcements. They would get blown away before they could even to anything serious.

grayspark wrote:Honestly I don't see a problem with the 40k turn order.

Also, you have to compare the fact that AT-43 uses less models than 40k.

Granted, AT-43 does use less models. Warmachine also has less models than 40k. However, I don't really see how models can affect turn sequence. They can certainly affect turn time, but not the sequence.

As for you not having a problem with the 40k turn order, fair enough. I've become quite disillusioned and frustrated with 40k, and am only getting back into it because some of my friends are. I'm hoping that we can have games that are more than, "Get into close combat as quick as possible and play Yahtzee".

Avrik_Shasla wrote:I have no problem with the warhammer 40k turn system. When I first started playing I played the sequence wrong, example.

Player 1 moves
Player 2 moves
player 1 fires
player 2 fires
player 1 assaults
player 2 assaults

The same basic Idea of what you were saying. The problem with this is drop podding units, or reinforcements. They would get blown away before they could even to anything serious.

Kinda the same idea, kinda not. Remember, I was advocating one unit of player 1 does everything, and then a unit of Player 2 does everything.

As for drop podding units or reinforcements, how would they be any different than in the conventional 40k game? In the current turn sequence, a drop pod/Deep Strike unit comes in, and either shoots or hunkers down. If they want to assault, they still have to suffer through an entire enemy turn. I don't see much difference.

So what you're propsing is that I would move/shoot/assault with one unit, then my opponent would -so we alternate moving/activating units??
This sounds exactly like the current turn seaquence for Epic Armageddon. It allows a battlefield to develop in a more realistic way, and makes for a more tactical game..but typically 40K uses fewer units/formations than Armageddon, so I'm unsure if it would make an appreciable difference. Would be best to test it as a house rule or something..

I have seen something like this recently, and this is the post I posed then.

TheRedArmy wrote:

Yeah. It's usually not until you actually change a rule that you actually see how far-flung the effects actually are! The same rule applies in D&D - my GM at first was kinda like "we'll kinda leave the alignment system as a grey area for the time being". Too bad for me I was a paladin - with the ability to detect evil and smite evil - and that everything was "subjective" in the eyes of this single person. The alignment system served a vital game purpose; in my particular case, it let me know, without a shadow of a doubt, when there were bad guys in need of a good smiting. When you take it out, suddenly my abilities pale in comparison to other party members because I can't be sure of things anymore.

As for Warhammer, I think it is dangerous to tinker with big rules like that.

Leave board set-up and deployment rules alone
Roll for first turn as per usual (somebody has to start)
Player 1 moves a unit
Player 2 moves a unit - alternate until all units moved
Player 1 fires all units - models killed/destroyed are marked dead, but left in place
Player 2 fires all units, including those killed (it is assumed that they fired at the same time as their foes, but are resolved separately for the sake of the game)
Both players remove all casualties
Assault proceeds as normal

This is kinda dangerous. I have 5 units on the table and go first (Eldar with the whole army in Wave Serpents). You have 27 and go second (Guard). So you move 22 units after you know exactly where my army is going (effectively your whole army, since you can move less-important units first)?

Yeah. I like what you want to do, and even agree on some levels, but this idea is bad for the game.

Granted, AT-43 does use less models. Warmachine also has less models than 40k. However, I don't really see how models can affect turn sequence. They can certainly affect turn time, but not the sequence.

Sorry, I meant squads. My mistake. What I meant in this fashion was that in large point games of 40k you would be spending much longer lengths of time moving everything separately. I can however, see how your idea would make certain games of 40k more interesting, though I just feel it doesn't fit for any game over 1250 points.

Player 1 moves
Player 2 moves
player 1 fires
player 2 fires
player 1 assaults
player 2 assaults

Haha, how nostalgic. Me and my first 40k friend though this was how the game was played when we were 8. That's what happens when you just buy the stuff without having an adult teach you. Was still loads of fun.

Son_Of_Dedogg: I wasn't aware that's how Epic worked. Epic is sounding more and more fun...

TheRedArmy: You are right in that changes can have wide repercussions. I can think of a few changes in my own D&D games like the one in your post. However, that's why I'm asking here, to see what problems people may see crop up. Though, to be fair, my thought was that unit activation would be based on FOC slots; that way, there won't be as big a discrepancy as your hypothetical.

grayspark: I will grant you that AT-43 uses less squads (perhaps, "Distinct Units of Action" would be a better term, to also include single-model units like Casters and Warjacks in Warmachine?) than 40k. About half as many squads, I would say. But, hey, give it a try.