I hate it. I find it makes the game slow. I find it makes the game boring. I love what GW did for Lord of the Rings now The Hobbit. I love the I move, you move, I shoot, you shoot, then everyone assaults.

I find it makes the game faster because I am doing things all the time, that I don't have to wait 15-30 minutes to do anything. I also find I am not just taking models off the table and not be able to do anything turn one if I am going second. I can also see if we get to use D-Weapons you can counter it, by moving out of Line of Site then. A small counter to a devastating weapon. While the game time will more likely be the same, it will feel faster because you are actually doing something instead of ignoring your opponent, or talking to friends, or even picking your nose waiting for your turn.

I find it more interaction with your opponent as well. You move, then you get to counter his move. You fire and he fires so you are both removing minis at the same time. This way it doesn't seem so bad when you are
just removing minis and it seems your opponent is not doing anything. You are both doing so it doesn't seem so one sided.

I don't know, I just wish 40K was more like this. I don't like the I do everything while my opponent does nothing but just removes minis.

So I just want to make sure, I am not missing something since I haven't gamed in ages. How come you like this system? Why do you like to move then you shoot, then you assault? What makes this fun for you?

I find the full-turn system to be the game's biggest failing.
Too much happens in each player's turn. There is no fine manouvering. You do what you can in your turn and then you wait and see how much of your army you still have for your next turn.

There is a reason why in chess you don't get to move every one of your pieces on the board before the other player gets to move what's left of his. It markedly lowers the strategy involved.

Ive heard of people using this in 40k, but for me its too confusing. What if a unit dies before it can shoot? What if your tank loses its battle cannon as its firing?

Its a fun idea, but to complicated to be seriously considered.

Put simply, I don't. Both the lotr and Deadzone activation systems are better, but at the end of the day, 40k is a game I enjoy playing regardless of the rules, so I just put up with it for the sake of the fun of playing toy soldiers.

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:
What if a unit dies before it can shoot?

Then it's dead and can't shoot. I don't see what's confusing about that.

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:
What if your tank loses its battle cannon as its firing?

It can't. You're not going at the same time, you're just alternating the phases rather than the entire turn.


Neither of these things is any different than what happens now, it's just one player isn't standing around doing nothing for a whole player turn.

That said, my favorite is still AT-43's method: Alternating unit activation rather than having phases.

*edit* been answered as I was typing.

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:
Ive heard of people using this in 40k, but for me its too confusing. What if a unit dies before it can shoot? What if your tank loses its battle cannon as its firing?

Its a fun idea, but to complicated to be seriously considered.

If you're talking about the LOTR system of move-move, shoot-shoot, fight, then I think you might have misunderstood, It's not simultaneous, you roll a Priority at the start of each turn to see who gets to act first in each phase. If you were to port it to 40k, here's how it would work:

- I have priority, so move first. In my move phase, I move a Russ to hit one of your squads, and move everything else around wherever. In your move phase, you move that squad into cover, negating my move.

- Instead, I see you have lined up a shot on my command squad with a Predator. I get first shot this turn, so I hit that predator and destroy the turret.

As you can see, this means you have to think a lot more about positioning and movement, as you might ebd up moving second next turn or having your target move into cover or similar. Movement in particular becomes far more of a battle between players than just lining up shots the opponent can do nothing about.

I've been thinking of something similar for 40k for a while now. Didn't know it was in Hobbit/LotR.

 Purifier wrote:
I
There is a reason why in chess you don't get to move every one of your pieces on the board before the other player gets to move what's left of his. It markedly lowers the strategy involved.

This isn't chess.

Jefffar wrote:
I've been thinking of something similar for 40k for a while now. Didn't know it was in Hobbit/LotR.

Great set of rules. I can't believe 40K is not like this. So much rich character in the Characters for 40K that it's really not represented into the game.

It would also take care of a number of issues such as all those skimmers and bikers mysteriously standing still at the start of the battle and thus not benefiting from their Jink rule during the first shooting phase of the game.

I would probably get rid of Overwatch with this change though, as there will be no way for a melee unit to get in reach without taking at least a round or two of fire. Overwatch is sort of surplus after this.

I'd probably shake up interceptor too, possibly it allowing the weapon to be fired in the movement phase instead of moving. No requirements about the target coming in from reserves.

Jefffar wrote:


I would probably get rid of Overwatch with this change though, as there will be no way for a melee unit to get in reach without taking at least a round or two of fire. Overwatch is sort of surplus after this.

What I would do is say, if you don't shoot in the fire phase, you can Overwatch at full BS then. So this way there is no shooting twice per turn. OR if you Overwatch at BS 1 if you fired in your shooting phase, you can't shoot next turn.

Jefffar wrote:
I would probably get rid of Overwatch with this change though, as there will be no way for a melee unit to get in reach without taking at least a round or two of fire.

I'd probably shake up interceptor too, possibly it allowing the weapon to be fired in the movement phase instead of moving. No requirements about the target coming in from reserves.

In LOTR, charging is done as movement, which would remove that issue. Just say that a unit cab move6+d6 into contact with the enemy, let then overwatch, and you're sorted.

 Paradigm wrote:

Jefffar wrote:
I would probably get rid of Overwatch with this change though, as there will be no way for a melee unit to get in reach without taking at least a round or two of fire.

I'd probably shake up interceptor too, possibly it allowing the weapon to be fired in the movement phase instead of moving. No requirements about the target coming in from reserves.

In LOTR, charging is done as movement, which would remove that issue. Just say that a unit cab move6+d6 into contact with the enemy, let then overwatch, and you're sorted.

That is even better than what I said and more simpler. Good one.

I don't like skipping the shooting phase by going straight into charging in 40k. It sort of makes sense in a fantasy game where missile attacks are not the primary means of dealing death. In a game like 40k, shooting should play a larger role and charges should be able to be shot down far easier than they are in a fantasy setting.

To me A Moves, B Moves, A Shoots, B Shoots, A Charges, B Charges, Resolve all combats makes more sense for 40K than A Moves and Charges, B Moves and Charges, A Shoots with what isn't locked in combat, B Shoots with what isn't locked in combat, Resolve all combats.

Tried this once. If you can get your opponent to go with it it's a blast. Here's how we did it:

A moves
B moves
A shoots
B shoots

Charges done on order if initiative
If you overwatch, you don't get close combat attacks.

Jefffar wrote:
I don't like skipping the shooting phase by going straight into charging in 40k. It sort of makes sense in a fantasy game where missile attacks are not the primary means of dealing death. In a game like 40k, shooting should play a larger role and charges should be able to be shot down far easier than they are in a fantasy setting.

To me A Moves, B Moves, A Shoots, B Shoots, A Charges, B Charges, Resolve all combats makes more sense for 40K than A Moves and Charges, B Moves and Charges, A Shoots with what isn't locked in combat, B Shoots with what isn't locked in combat, Resolve all combats.

What you mean skipping the shooting phase? Either you shoot, and then don't assault, or the other person gets to assault, so it makes you not be able to shoot at a target you wanted, but you can still Over watch. It adds another layer of tactics. Make sure you don't get assaulted if you don't want to. I thought this is what a lot of people want, more tactics and abilities to have in the game.

Who knows, we can even have a rule saying if locked in combat, you can still shoot, but then your Initiative is 1 the or make it a special rule for characters. Again, another choice/tactic that can be considered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arrias117 wrote:
Tried this once. If you can get your opponent to go with it it's a blast. Here's how we did it:

A moves
B moves
A shoots
B shoots

Charges done on order if initiative
If you overwatch, you don't get close combat attacks.

I love it. I was thinking of even going one step further and say in the movement phase Initiative goes first or can "pass" and wait to see what the slower person does, or use a Ld test so Ld stats can be used more.

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:
Ive heard of people using this in 40k, but for me its too confusing. What if a unit dies before it can shoot? What if your tank loses its battle cannon as its firing?

Its a fun idea, but to complicated to be seriously considered.

It doesn't quite work like that.
In normal 40k, if on turn 1 a unit gets killed by enemy shooting, it is removed. In LOTR, if your opponent is going first, he'll have a movement phase, and then you will. Then he will shoot, and possibly remove a unit. If that unit is removed, it is exactly like normal 40k in that it cannot do anything else. Then you can shoot.

LRBT's won't be losing it's guns as they fire. Either the enemy went first and shot them off like normal 40k, or you went first and fired them as normal.

 Gitsmasher wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
I
There is a reason why in chess you don't get to move every one of your pieces on the board before the other player gets to move what's left of his. It markedly lowers the strategy involved.

This isn't chess.

How very observant of you. Did you also have a point or did you just want to show off your astute senses?

Davor wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arrias117 wrote:
Tried this once. If you can get your opponent to go with it it's a blast. Here's how we did it:

A moves
B moves
A shoots
B shoots

Charges done on order if initiative
If you overwatch, you don't get close combat attacks.

I love it. I was thinking of even going one step further and say in the movement phase Initiative goes first or can "pass" and wait to see what the slower person does, or use a Ld test so Ld stats can be used more.

You could always use ld like X-Wing uses pilot skill. Highest leadership moves last, shoots first?

Honestly, I think at that part, things get a bit too different/odd. Should mention, that we did two rounds of combat to make up for the lost round.

I like having a smoke while my opponent moves. I like the turn based system because it keeps things simple, despite GWs best efforts it seems.

darkcloak wrote:
I like having a smoke while my opponent moves. I like the turn based system because it keeps things simple, despite GWs best efforts it seems.

As much as the "I go, you go" system annoys me, one upside of it is that I get enough time to read all of the 157 rules I'll need for my turn.

 Selym wrote:

darkcloak wrote:
I like having a smoke while my opponent moves. I like the turn based system because it keeps things simple, despite GWs best efforts it seems.

As much as the "I go, you go" system annoys me, one upside of it is that I get enough time to read all of the 157 rules I'll need for my turn.

Why does it annoy you? This is what I like to see other peoples opinion of it.

Davor wrote:

 Selym wrote:

darkcloak wrote:
I like having a smoke while my opponent moves. I like the turn based system because it keeps things simple, despite GWs best efforts it seems.

As much as the "I go, you go" system annoys me, one upside of it is that I get enough time to read all of the 157 rules I'll need for my turn.

Why does it annoy you? This is what I like to see other peoples opinion of it.

Well, aside from the lack of moment-to-moment interaction, I have to spend upwards of 40 minutes not talking, playing or doing anything interesting. And if I talk, either it annoys the other player (who is trying to remember a billion rules, how many wounds his models have, and which ones have shot yet), or it distracts both of us from the game and it never gets finished.

I have only had one player with whom I can talk and play with at the same time, but he's moved away.

 Gitsmasher wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
I
There is a reason why in chess you don't get to move every one of your pieces on the board before the other player gets to move what's left of his. It markedly lowers the strategy involved.

This isn't chess.

But it is a strategy game. That is the key to comprehending the analogy.

One benefit of the current system is that it gives you some down time to observe and think. I've played a lot of Epic and Twilight Imperium, and the constant need to act and think of action sequences gets exhausting after awhile. That being said, I still think I would prefer a more integrated turn structure.

There are several different formats to allowing two (or more!) sides to play a game. Honestly, I'm not sure which way is better.

Firestorm Armada uses an activation system whereby you execute the actions for a unit then the other player does one of their units and you go back and forth until it's done.

Honestly I think that adds quite a bit of time to the game. It certainly gives a more tactical feel as you can be more responsive to immediate developments. It also helps engage both sides at the same time. However, it leads to situations where one side may have several more units than the other which gives them a tactical advantage... Maybe that's a good thing?

With 40k, the only time both players aren't engaged is during movement. Shooting and Assault both require both players. For larger games, it can mean that one player is sitting for 5 or 10 minutes not doing a whole lot while the other completes movement. I tend to use this time to plot my upcoming movement and to look up any rules that I may need to know based on what's developing.

I'm not sure why'd you would be sitting there for 40 minutes not doing anything. The only reason I can think of for that is if you are in an Apoc game and your opponent has 10k worth of stuff to shuffle around. Or if you are playing someone that is brand new and needs to look up how far each and every unit can move WHILE they are in their own movement phase..

 Purifier wrote:

 Gitsmasher wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
I
There is a reason why in chess you don't get to move every one of your pieces on the board before the other player gets to move what's left of his. It markedly lowers the strategy involved.

This isn't chess.

How very observant of you. Did you also have a point or did you just want to show off your astute senses?

There is no need to be ignorant/highly sarcastic, some people enjoy Warhammer because of its simplicity. And while I don't agree that doesn't mean they aren't entitled to their opinions, or that they shouldn't post their opinions on the forums. Sort of removes part of the point of a forum if you can't discuss opinions without being ridiculed.

 Purifier wrote:

 Gitsmasher wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
I
There is a reason why in chess you don't get to move every one of your pieces on the board before the other player gets to move what's left of his. It markedly lowers the strategy involved.

This isn't chess.

How very observant of you. Did you also have a point or did you just want to show off your astute senses?

Your comparing apples to oranges.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:
What if a unit dies before it can shoot?

Then it's dead and can't shoot. I don't see what's confusing about that.

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:
What if your tank loses its battle cannon as its firing?

It can't. You're not going at the same time, you're just alternating the phases rather than the entire turn.


Neither of these things is any different than what happens now, it's just one player isn't standing around doing nothing for a whole player turn.

That said, my favorite is still AT-43's method: Alternating unit activation rather than having phases.

Good point.

 Selym wrote:

Davor wrote:

 Selym wrote:

darkcloak wrote:
I like having a smoke while my opponent moves. I like the turn based system because it keeps things simple, despite GWs best efforts it seems.

As much as the "I go, you go" system annoys me, one upside of it is that I get enough time to read all of the 157 rules I'll need for my turn.

Why does it annoy you? This is what I like to see other peoples opinion of it.

Well, aside from the lack of moment-to-moment interaction, I have to spend upwards of 40 minutes not talking, playing or doing anything interesting. And if I talk, either it annoys the other player (who is trying to remember a billion rules, how many wounds his models have, and which ones have shot yet), or it distracts both of us from the game and it never gets finished.

I have only had one player with whom I can talk and play with at the same time, but he's moved away.

I feel the same as you, at the moment both me and my bro-inlaw (regular opponent) tend to remind each other about rules or reserves etc so that we don't end up forgetting stuff after having a random conversation mid game.

Back in the day we sat down with 2nd edition and tried to come up with a house rule for unit activation. We ended up using Initiative order and where we had a unit each with the same initiative we would roll a D6 and highest got to chose.

It worked ok but with bigger games it got quite confusing, especially as 2nd wasn't the most fluid of games at best of times lol.

I like the idea of a phase by phase for both players as it does get a little drawn out with one guy waiting for the other to move and then shoot and then assault then finally its my turn, it slows a lot down.

It makes a lot of sense to alternate the phases as, realistically anyway, you're not gonna wait for your opponent to move, then shoot at you and then try and charge at you.

If you know you're in a warzone, when they move, you know it is in an attempt to get into a better position for combat so you should move in response whether to engage or to disengage.

If you are shot at, you should be able to shoot back immediately as this just seems like how battle should go about.

As for charging, I always though Overwatch was a weird and useless thing because an enemy charging at you is actually an easier target than one 24" away that you need to take more time to aim at, but that's just me.

I tend to look at things more logically though which tends to get in the way of games like this lol.

I like the idea of movement being based on a units initiative but it gets complicated if there are a lot that are the same.

To fix this just do what they do in D&D. Roll a dice for each squad or independent character and just mark down what they rolled then compile them from highest to lowest and bam, there you have a better turn order that actually ends up being more balanced.

Not to mention it reflects more realistically because cmon, a bunch of marines on foot would never move faster in a turn order then dudes in air craft as aircraft, for the most part, need to be constantly moving so they would have a higher priority for each movement phase.

Idk why but I keep double posting with one click

the problem with having inter-locked turns where you both play at the same time technically is theres a point where it drags the game on further than one-whole-turn method does. Its fine at smaller scale, but 40k has been steeping into the 2k pts is standard lately rather than 1k. When you have 80+ models moving and shooting at once, it heavily favors whoever goes first if they are able to get a shot off since they will start the game with more forces. Some cases i have nearly tabled my opponents in turn 1, just because i shot like hell and he flopped every save. No chances to recover at that point. If 40k simply adopted the Hobbit turn system, i think my games would take almost half as long MORE than they do as it is (which is around 3hrs lol)

What they COULD do, however, is break it up. Each turn is divided into how ever many turns comes up when you divide your units by 3, so every mini-turn you move/shoot/assault 3 units then your opponent does the same...and when you have none left your opponent moves/shoots whatever is left.
Every model gets moved, shoots/runs, and assaults if applicable before the same unit can do anything again.

Yes some lists would have some issues because people put all their points into 2-3 units for some dumb reason, but in that case it would basically go back to the original rules.

Case you didnt understand what i meant:
I have 12 units, size not a factor, my opponent has 14. I activate 3 to move/shoot them, then he activates 3. Then i activate another 3 (total 6), etcetc until i have activated the last of my units, which allows him to activate the last 2 units he has over me. Once we have activated every unit, a "Turn" is over and everything resets, allowing me to use the original 3 units again.

Full army UGO-IGO is a hilarious relic from the 1980s that has been dragged forward and included for 30+ years, like most of 40ks mechanics (three rolls to resolve shooting, looking up on grid resolution charts, etc.).
The fact that in your own turn you're stuck moving before shooting is also outdated and silly, and reminiscent of WFB and other Napoleonic style games. Compared to how modern wars are fought the idea of a rigid turn structure is a bad fit.

There are so many better and more interesting activation rules that 40k would really benefit from. Reactions, alternating activation, passing the initiative, etc.

But again GW will focus on minor tweaks (oooh Force Organization changed, how thrilling) instead of actual critical updates that would really make the game more enjoyable.

I'd actually love if 40K adopted the Battlegroup system. Each player rolls 1D6, 2D6, or 3D6 depending on the scale of the game (e.g. platoon, company, battalion level), and that's the number of activations they get in their turn. This means that you don't necessarily get to use everything you brought to the table every turn, and actually makes you think twice about going MSU. Also if you don't get to fire everything in that opening round, going first isn't the huge advantage it is right now.

I really despise any system where I don't get to use my full army every turn. 40k entails a RIDICULOUS amount of time, thought, and effort into assembling, converting, and painting units. Not being able to use those units in a game after paying the points to bring them would be a bigger failing than the alternating turn system. It's fine for games where most of your figs are one and two dollar pre-painted made-in-Taiwan jobs, but for a real wargame I'd prefer to use the whole army I paid for.

I WOULD like to see some kind of alternating activation system, though. Perhaps an initiative system? Give each unit an Init score, and either roll a d6 for them at the beginning of the turn (adding it to their initiative) or just have them go in Initiative order. Tied initiatives compare the base Init to break ties. (Or go at the same time.) It would open up a whole slew of commander abilities. (I would think a sweet IG ability would be for an HQ to make a Ld test, and by every point he passes it by, he can swap one init die result among his army.)

Just some random thoughts on it.

The alternating activation sequence of AT-43 and Confrontation: Age of Ragnarok were easily one of the more superior parts about those games than the IGOUGO of 40K.

They even implemented ways to tactically manipulate your activations.

Come to think of it, Epic: Armageddon uses a version of alternating activations that works tremendously.

Each of those games allows a player to use their entire army every single turn (barring units that get destroyed before getting activated).

I play about a deozen games and like each one for its differences, so I never have wished one game would do it one way or the other very much.

Flames of War is SOMEWHAT interactive, turn wise, while still maintaining turn based movement and shooting but Warhammer has adopted some of those pieces from it and Im sure others.

But you like what you like. I just think holding a game up to any other game and wishing it was LIKE that game defeats the purpose. At some point you just end up proxying models and playing the other game itself.

I like variety but thats just me. Mentally engaging to be able to do it different ways and still be competitive.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I really despise any system where I don't get to use my full army every turn. 40k entails a RIDICULOUS amount of time, thought, and effort into assembling, converting, and painting units. Not being able to use those units in a game after paying the points to bring them would be a bigger failing than the alternating turn system. It's fine for games where most of your figs are one and two dollar pre-painted made-in-Taiwan jobs, but for a real wargame I'd prefer to use the whole army I paid for.

Sure, but 40k also doesn't accomplish this.

I go first and remove 'X' units. Then you can move. Functionally the same as activating back and forth and getting to blow up a unit before you activate it, but with less down time between turns.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
I really despise any system where I don't get to use my full army every turn. 40k entails a RIDICULOUS amount of time, thought, and effort into assembling, converting, and painting units. Not being able to use those units in a game after paying the points to bring them would be a bigger failing than the alternating turn system. It's fine for games where most of your figs are one and two dollar pre-painted made-in-Taiwan jobs, but for a real wargame I'd prefer to use the whole army I paid for.

Sure, but 40k also doesn't accomplish this.

I go first and remove 'X' units. Then you can move. Functionally the same as activating back and forth and getting to blow up a unit before you activate it, but with less down time between turns.

That argument is a little specious. There is a vast gulf of difference between 'my unit got killed before it could act' and 'my unit never participated in this game whatsoever.' The first is disappointing but understandable. The second is a fundamental flaw in a game system, and is one of the biggest reasons I don't participate in Clix any longer. I'm not opposed to an alternating system, but one where everyone doesn't get to go is just not going to do it for me.

 Jimsolo wrote:


That argument is a little specious. There is a vast gulf of difference between 'my unit got killed before it could act' and 'my unit never participated in this game whatsoever.' The first is disappointing but understandable. The second is a fundamental flaw in a game system, and is one of the biggest reasons I don't participate in Clix any longer. I'm not opposed to an alternating system, but one where everyone doesn't get to go is just not going to do it for me.

How is it any different? You just slightly different wording to try and make a distinction that doesn't exist.

Either way you want to word it, in either case, the destroyed unit never participated.

So again, what's the difference? If anything, the current system would destroy more models/units than an alternating activation system through a single turn of fire unmitigated by any losses.

Seriously, I don't understand the point you're making. How is it better to remove models on turn 1 from an alpha strike, than move most of your units/models in an engaging back and forth system while losing out on the same amount of models/units, if not less.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:


That argument is a little specious. There is a vast gulf of difference between 'my unit got killed before it could act' and 'my unit never participated in this game whatsoever.' The first is disappointing but understandable. The second is a fundamental flaw in a game system, and is one of the biggest reasons I don't participate in Clix any longer. I'm not opposed to an alternating system, but one where everyone doesn't get to go is just not going to do it for me.

How is it any different? You just slightly different wording to try and make a distinction that doesn't exist.

Either way you want to word it, in either case, the destroyed unit never participated.

So again, what's the difference? If anything, the current system would destroy more models/units than an alternating activation system through a single turn of fire unmitigated by any losses.

Seriously, I don't understand the point you're making. How is it better to remove models on turn 1 from an alpha strike, than move most of your units/models in an engaging back and forth system while losing out on the same amount of models/units, if not less.

If my models get taken out by my enemy's initial strike, they are still eligible for their saves, still eligible to use certain defensive abilities (depending on model/unit) and still sucking up enemy fire. In THIS edition of 40k, the only time a unit never interacts with the game is if I forget them. In which case, the fault is mine. 6th edition closed the last hole that existed on that front--units failing to arrive from Reserves.

On the other hand, it's entirely possible in, say, a Clix game (the only game I know of that uses the system you're describing) to take models that never attack, are never attacked, never get activated, and never use any special abilities. They never interact with the game in any way. And if all you did was shell out a dollar for them and fish them out of the commons bin, that's okay. But if you paid 40k prices in money, time, and work, that'd be irritating enough to keep me away from the game.

Don't get me wrong--losing models to an alpha strike is also annoying. (And some kind of alternating system where everyone eventually gets to go would STILL go a long way to eliminating that.) But there's definitely a difference between the two.

 Jimsolo wrote:

If my models get taken out by my enemy's initial strike, they are still eligible for their saves, still eligible to use certain defensive abilities (depending on model/unit) and still sucking up enemy fire. In THIS edition of 40k, the only time a unit never interacts with the game is if I forget them. In which case, the fault is mine. 6th edition closed the last hole that existed on that front--units failing to arrive from Reserves.

On the other hand, it's entirely possible in, say, a Clix game (the only game I know of that uses the system you're describing) to take models that never attack, are never attacked, never get activated, and never use any special abilities. They never interact with the game in any way. And if all you did was shell out a dollar for them and fish them out of the commons bin, that's okay. But if you paid 40k prices in money, time, and work, that'd be irritating enough to keep me away from the game.

Don't get me wrong--losing models to an alpha strike is also annoying. (And some kind of alternating system where everyone eventually gets to go would STILL go a long way to eliminating that.) But there's definitely a difference between the two.

Why are you assuming that an alternating activation game means your units will never be able to take defensive/reactionary actions? I mean, if you were to turn 40k into an alternating activation, you'd still get to roll armour saves and the like. I don't know where you got that assumption from, but I guess that explains your variance in wording.

Point is, in a proper alternating activation system, you're not going to lose out on moving units any more than an IGOUGO system. That being explained, if 40k were alternating activation, there'd be no difference in losing a 20-man Guard blob on turn 1 (despite your best efforts to roll 5+'s) in an IGOUGO system, than losing that same 20-man blob at the end of all your opponent's activations before you got to activate them.

The big difference, however, in that scenario is that neither player sat around for an exceedingly long amount of time (depending on point values and army type, obviously) for movement and other management rolling. Both players were engaged in back and forth tactical decision making about what to activate next and target prioritization.

Zodiark wrote:
Idk why but I keep double posting with one click

Just leave it. It's a glitch. If you see your double post a few hours later, delete one of them, otherwise leave it. Happens to us all sooner or later.

 Blacksails wrote:

Why are you assuming that an alternating activation game means your units will never be able to take defensive/reactionary actions? I mean, if you were to turn 40k into an alternating activation, you'd still get to roll armour saves and the like. I don't know where you got that assumption from, but I guess that explains your variance in wording.

Point is, in a proper alternating activation system, you're not going to lose out on moving units any more than an IGOUGO system. That being explained, if 40k were alternating activation, there'd be no difference in losing a 20-man Guard blob on turn 1 (despite your best efforts to roll 5+'s) in an IGOUGO system, than losing that same 20-man blob at the end of all your opponent's activations before you got to activate them.

The big difference, however, in that scenario is that neither player sat around for an exceedingly long amount of time (depending on point values and army type, obviously) for movement and other management rolling. Both players were engaged in back and forth tactical decision making about what to activate next and target prioritization.

I never said that. I said that in an alternating activation system where all the units don't get to go (such as Heroclix), it's possible to have a unit that never gets attacks, never attacks, is never the target of an ability, never uses an ability, and does nothing but take up space in the army roster. I don't think that an alternating activation system would magically take away their ability to react. That would be silly. Sorry if you got that impression, that's not what I was saying.

in 40k (or Fantasy, or Fuzzy Heroes, or every other wargame I'm aware of) the 'deadweight model' problem doesn't happen. (Don't get the wrong idea, 40k has plenty of problems, this just isn't one.) I've only ever seen it occur in Clix systems, which are the only games I'm aware of that uses an alternating activation system which doesn't end in all units being afforded the opportunity to act.

If we're talking about a theoretical IGOUGO system (which you seem to be using to mean an alternating activation system) I'm talking about the possibility of an IG infantry platoon never shooting, moving, assaulting, getting shot, getting assaulted, or being the target of any ability (friendly or enemy). Getting killed is better than never participating at all. (Shoot, for an IG infantry-themed army, getting killed can even be the proper function of a unit.)

Sorry for any miscommunications there.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

Why are you assuming that an alternating activation game means your units will never be able to take defensive/reactionary actions? I mean, if you were to turn 40k into an alternating activation, you'd still get to roll armour saves and the like. I don't know where you got that assumption from, but I guess that explains your variance in wording.

Point is, in a proper alternating activation system, you're not going to lose out on moving units any more than an IGOUGO system. That being explained, if 40k were alternating activation, there'd be no difference in losing a 20-man Guard blob on turn 1 (despite your best efforts to roll 5+'s) in an IGOUGO system, than losing that same 20-man blob at the end of all your opponent's activations before you got to activate them.

The big difference, however, in that scenario is that neither player sat around for an exceedingly long amount of time (depending on point values and army type, obviously) for movement and other management rolling. Both players were engaged in back and forth tactical decision making about what to activate next and target prioritization.

I never said that. I said that in an alternating activation system where all the units don't get to go (such as Heroclix), it's possible to have a unit that never gets attacks, never attacks, is never the target of an ability, never uses an ability, and does nothing but take up space in the army roster. I don't think that an alternating activation system would magically take away their ability to react. That would be silly. Sorry if you got that impression, that's not what I was saying.

in 40k (or Fantasy, or Fuzzy Heroes, or every other wargame I'm aware of) the 'deadweight model' problem doesn't happen. (Don't get the wrong idea, 40k has plenty of problems, this just isn't one.) I've only ever seen it occur in Clix systems, which are the only games I'm aware of that uses an alternating activation system which doesn't end in all units being afforded the opportunity to act.

If we're talking about a theoretical IGOUGO system (which you seem to be using to mean an alternating activation system) I'm talking about the possibility of an IG infantry platoon never shooting, moving, assaulting, getting shot, getting assaulted, or being the target of any ability (friendly or enemy). Getting killed is better than never participating at all. (Shoot, for an IG infantry-themed army, getting killed can even be the proper function of a unit.)

Sorry for any miscommunications there.

I am puzzled. Why wouldn't the IG player get to do anything with an I go/You go system? Once I move, the IG player moves, or the IG player moves first then I move. So how is the IG player not moving?

As I stated earlier, this game is a tactical juggernaut and the current turn structure actually hinders this a bit because logically and tactically it actually ruins things a bit when you can have guys actually taken out of combat without any chance of doing anything which simply isn't logical for a game as tactical as this.

Think of it like an actual battlefield.

In what example would you see one army standing still and watching as the enemy moves into position and then starts shooting at them, while they stand there and simply take the shots to the face.

It creates a game of give and take which is fine for the bulk of the playerbase but personally, I like more in-depth strategy and tactics hence why I think GW should consider tweaking things a bit.

Until then my play groups house rules work out fairly decently.

Honestly, idk why people have played this game for so long and not found massive problems with the current give and take of the game turn, especially given the level of tech and lore for the game.

I can see the give and take working wonders in Fantasy as it was quite common historically for enemy archers for instance to actually exchange fire back and forth rather than free volleying.

The game I feel, while I haven't been playing anywhere near as long as many of you I have been an avid Warhammer lover since I was in junior high so I think it is time for the game to evolve a little and accommodate different methods of play.

Davor wrote:
I am puzzled. Why wouldn't the IG player get to do anything with an I go/You go system? Once I move, the IG player moves, or the IG player moves first then I move. So how is the IG player not moving?

The example given is an alternating activation system that doesn't guarantee every unit gets to go each turn. (Like Heroclix.) Some form of system limits the number of units you can activate each turn. (Either you can't activate any more than your opponent does, or you only get X number of activations per Y points, or some system.)

 Jimsolo wrote:

I never said that. I said that in an alternating activation system where all the units don't get to go (such as Heroclix), it's possible to have a unit that never gets attacks, never attacks, is never the target of an ability, never uses an ability, and does nothing but take up space in the army roster. I don't think that an alternating activation system would magically take away their ability to react. That would be silly. Sorry if you got that impression, that's not what I was saying.

I think we're on the same page, but part of me still doesn't understand how that's any different from losing a unit before your turn, where your only interaction with it is to roll saves (or not, depending on weapon/armour).

in 40k (or Fantasy, or Fuzzy Heroes, or every other wargame I'm aware of) the 'deadweight model' problem doesn't happen. (Don't get the wrong idea, 40k has plenty of problems, this just isn't one.) I've only ever seen it occur in Clix systems, which are the only games I'm aware of that uses an alternating activation system which doesn't end in all units being afforded the opportunity to act.

Funny enough, I think we're still talking around eachother. In 40k, currently, you can have a unit that was never afforded the opportunity to attack by being eliminated prior to your turn 1. I just don't see how that's not a 'deadweight model' problem of the same sort as losing a unit prior to its activation.

If we're talking about a theoretical IGOUGO system (which you seem to be using to mean an alternating activation system) I'm talking about the possibility of an IG infantry platoon never shooting, moving, assaulting, getting shot, getting assaulted, or being the target of any ability (friendly or enemy). Getting killed is better than never participating at all. (Shoot, for an IG infantry-themed army, getting killed can even be the proper function of a unit.)

First of all, I'll clarify that any reference to IGOUGO is current 40k. Alternating activation, I'll abbreviate to AA for my fingers.

I think we're having a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes an AA system. A most basic one would identical to 40k, only that instead of moving every unit at the same time (and the shooting/assaulting immediately after), you'd nominate a single unit to move/shoot/assault with. Then your opponent does the same in return. Repeat until all units are exhausted. Now, obviously with this rough example you're wondering what happens with lop-sided amounts of units/activations, or how assault would work, but let's ignore those details for now.

In a perfect example where each player had the same number of units, the full game turn wouldn't end until every activation is complete. This means every unit gets to act, with one exception; if a unit is destroyed before you activate, you won't get to activate it. Simple.

So I guess what I'm still confused about is that you keep saying that you'd be afraid of having a unit that just simply wouldn't get to do anything. Trust me, in a good alternating system, the least a unit would do would be identical to the least a unit would do in the current IGOUGO system.

I think you're operating under the assumption that a turn in an AA system is limited by a set number of activations, which I guess is a possibility for some games, but never any of the ones I've played.

Sorry for any miscommunications there.

Sorry on my part, it happens, but hopefully I've cleared it up a bit too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jimsolo wrote:


The example given is an alternating activation system that doesn't guarantee every unit gets to go each turn. (Like Heroclix.) Some form of system limits the number of units you can activate each turn. (Either you can't activate any more than your opponent does, or you only get X number of activations per Y points, or some system.)

Aha, I was right!

Yeah, in games like Firestorm Armada (really, any of Spartan's offering) you get to activate everything every turn...unless its already dead of course. The guy with more units to activate just gets to activate all the leftovers one after the other after his opponent runs out. Makes for interesting list building choices.

 Jimsolo wrote:

Davor wrote:
I am puzzled. Why wouldn't the IG player get to do anything with an I go/You go system? Once I move, the IG player moves, or the IG player moves first then I move. So how is the IG player not moving?

The example given is an alternating activation system that doesn't guarantee every unit gets to go each turn. (Like Heroclix.) Some form of system limits the number of units you can activate each turn. (Either you can't activate any more than your opponent does, or you only get X number of activations per Y points, or some system.)

Units simply not getting a turn is normal in a turn based game like this and many others I have played in the past. The best thing I have seen would be the system used by D&D which is a D20 with your initiative as a modifier for each unit/independent character then you go highest to lowest across the battlefield.

Some may still be wiped out on the first initial shots but it balances the game considerably.

Alright then, I think we are on the same page. I'd be bang alongside an AA system where all the units get to go (eventually)! I'd love to see 40k do something like that.

I just don't want the Heroclix system.

Why not have your own house rules, this game is more than open to it

I hate initiative count-down systems. Its maybe okay for a dozen units on the table, but for a full sized 40k game? *shudder*

You also wind up having to come with rules to break it for when one of your units can't do something because another of your units is in the way.

Personally I prefer Epic 40,000's system: at the start of each phase a chit* is drawn from a cup, whichever players chit is drawn chooses whether to activate his army first or second that phase. * two chits in the cup per phase, plus one for the army with the highest strategy rating.

 Jimsolo wrote:


I just don't want the Heroclix system.

By the sounds of it, I wouldn't either.

All cleared up.

Really though, a properly done AA system is universally superior to the dated IGOUGO system.

 Gashrog wrote:
I hate initiative count-down systems. Its maybe okay for a dozen units on the table, but for a full sized 40k game? *shudder*

You also wind up having to come with rules to break it for when one of your units can't do something because another of your units is in the way.

Personally I prefer Epic 40,000's system: at the start of each phase a chit* is drawn from a cup, whichever players chit is drawn chooses whether to activate his army first or second that phase. * two chits per phase, plus one for the army with the highest strategy rating.

To be fair, from the 2k point games I have watched online and at my local store, an initiative countdown is by fair one of the easiest to use and shortens the game considerably, not to mention adds more of a realism to it than the games current form.

Unless you are prone to having each squad be at its minimum amount and having multiple IP in every game you won't even need more than one D20 and any ties you would simply roll off and whoever rolled higher takes 1st position on it.

Its really easy actually but maybe that's because I have more experience with it.

As for units being in the way, in an actual combat scenario, you would never want to move one unit into the fire of another because then the unit behind would be unable to fire, this in turn is a tactical error by the commander and the unit behind shouldn't be able to fire as it is illogical for them to do so.

Zodiark wrote:

As for units being in the way, in an actual combat scenario, you would never want to move one unit into the fire of another because then the unit behind would be unable to fire, this in turn is a tactical error by the commander and the unit behind shouldn't be able to fire as it is illogical for them to do so.

Two infantry squads are entering a village via a narrow street behind a tank, front infantry squad wins initiative followed by the rear squad then the tank. Front squad can't move forward because the tank's in the way, rear squad can't advance because the front squad is in the way. Tank commander wonders what inbred backwater the infantry are from if they can't even manage to walk in a straight line.

D&D equivalent: Orc attacks wizard, wizard player states intention to dive out of the elf's line of fire, elf player announces he'll fire.. elf beats the wizards initiative so goes first. Okay depending on the edition there's probably a delay option, and even if there isn't any DM worth his salt would allow it anyway, but its still an issue that requires a fudge.

Yeah, I'm with jimsolo on this one, I think. I haven't seen clix, but I have watched a couple of games of malifaux before, which has the AA.

I agree that UGOIGO does create boring lapses, though they can be mitigated somewhat by playing the game at an appropriate points level, and by player experience (it's possible to even move and roll horde armies reasonably quickly with practice). But in order for AA to be better than UGOIGO, it has to actually be better, and I haven't seen that yet.

The problem with AA that's still filtered through phases (as in, it alternates movement, but all movement happens before shooting starts, for example), is that the timing of things can really screw everything up. For example, let's say that I move my uber-unit out to get line of sight on something, but then, oops, it doesn't have a target, because later, after it moved, everything else moved out of the way so it couldn't target anything. That sucks. One of the awkward ways to handle this is to basically force people to have good and crappy units, so they spend a whole pile of time moving pointless, useless crappy MSUs while they wait until the stuff they actually need to have targets waits around, which forces deathstarts surrounded by tiny squads of goobers as both players try to out-abuse the initiative system.

Meanwhile, the AA that is phase independent (single unit move-shoots-assaults) creates the exact problems jimsolo has been pointing out: exacerbating the problem of one player getting crippled before they even have a chance to play.

What we're all really looking for is some way that successfully balances the advantages of getting to move second with the advantages of getting to shoot first. UGOIGO certainly isn't perfect, but at least whoever is going second can hide their guys in cover to try and mitigate the bonus their opponent gets from shooting first, which is also balanced out by the first shooter being forced to deploy first as well.

If you're going to have an alternative, then it's got to be a BETTER alternative which, as mentioned, I've yet to see.

I didn't see anybody mention this option yet - has anyone considered doing 40K using Privateer Press' activation system? Each unit completes all of their actions before the next unit in the army goes.

So a shoota boys mob would move, take their shots, etc, before you move on to the deff dread, who moves, completes it's actions, and so on.

Thoughts?

 Ailaros wrote:


If you're going to have an alternative, then it's got to be a BETTER alternative which, as mentioned, I've yet to see.

I generally disagree with your sentiment about AA, but another alternative is purely simultaneous gameplay.

I played a spaceship combat game that used this kind of turn, where everything was considered to be simultaneous (though movement and shooting would have to happen one at a time for logistical reasons) where casualties were only removed once both players had finished their shooting.

Was certainly interesting.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I WOULD like to see some kind of alternating activation system, though. Perhaps an initiative system? Give each unit an Init score, and either roll a d6 for them at the beginning of the turn (adding it to their initiative) or just have them go in Initiative order. Tied initiatives compare the base Init to break ties. (Or go at the same time.) It would open up a whole slew of commander abilities. (I would think a sweet IG ability would be for an HQ to make a Ld test, and by every point he passes it by, he can swap one init die result among his army.)

As interesting a design concept as this is, I would hope 40k never includes such a concept. I find the game has enough unreasonable balance issues already. GW often has a problem of making core rules that unnecessarily favour particular sides, and in 40k, this usually means Space Marines. The above example would qualify. It's just yet another way that the 40k ruleset could make core rules favour particular sides. Should they have them? It's questionable. But the question of whether or not subjective decisions of better quality troops/discipline should immerse gameplay in pursuit of ideas such as "realism" (which I'll get to) is worthy of debate, but there's no question that it is going to be absolutely central to how the game plays out. It'll dominate a lot of discussions, and it wont guarantee balance, or remove boredom.

Two examples spring to mind. One will be familiar, one a few of you may have run into. So I'll start with the more familiar example.

The Lord of the Rings system, which has already been mentioned, is an underrated system, sure. One of the best core skirmish systems out there (if you ignore the blatant emphasis on Good over Evil). However, one of the primary flaws with the priority system as that the "Good" side had a higher chance of going first, and winning combats (good wins draws, elven blades etc). It puts about half of the armies on the back foot, just because in the films and books the good guys win (they evidently didn't read The Silmarilion). I still liked the LOTR system, but I always found it a bit of a deal-breaker. I don't know if the Hobbit still has this rule, as I haven't played either incarnation in a number of years.

GW aren't the only ones to use subjective scales of effectiveness. Osprey's Force on Force (and the Sci-Fi version of this ruleset: Tomorrow's War) if you can actually learn the ruleset, generally has a elite force that works better, against a more numerous force that works less better. Modifying the type or amount of dice rolled, and making it more likely that the "better" force will act first. This apparently represents modern warfare better. I don't know. I do like that the ruleset is tactical, but it's a style that will not work for every ruleset. I don't want 40k to be a modern skirmish simulator.

I find that GW imbalances all of their games both with faction rules, deliberately deathstar units, and then doesn't even try to fix any of these problems with the core rulesets, and if anything, adds to them. For me, unless a wargame has a very good and specific reason for not doing so (and newsflash: forging the narrative isn't either), the core ruleset should be neutral, and not give specific benefits to particular factions without some effort to address it. Personally, GW's rulesets should be as simple as possible, because their Rules Development Team is barely capable of producing quality at the best of times, let alone trying to throw innovation in there as well.

As an Ork player, I find the idea of using an army that is usually on the offensive, going after a defence orientated army of Space Marines is ludicrous. It does highlight that Initiative 2 for Orks is actually a bit daft anyway (and initiative 2 on Gretchin is ludicrous), but the wider issue is that if the basic core doesn't facilitate a neutral attitude to any army, those differences tend to get increased by poor writing in the codices. It's kind of like Overwatch is now. No Ork player worth his salt is going to use Slugga boyz when shootas just work better in 6th. That itself is bad design.

Whereas if assaults were initiated in the movement phase as they were in 2nd Ed, even with overwatch there, this at least gives a more equal value to shootas/sluggas. Either way, they had valid roles. This was rumoured in the "Heresy Rulebook" that was at one point rumoured to be the 6th Ed rulebook. I decided it wasn't, because I liked it. Instead, we got Gunlinehammer 40,000, and, well, TAU. Whilst a dedicated player can make combat units work, it's more slog than is necessary.

This leads me to the realism point. Does an emphasis on small arms fire make the game more realistic? Possibly. But as far as I'm concerned, screw realism. I write rulesets and fan-rulesets quite a bit. Whilst I don't think that makes me anything resembling an authority, or dismissing the views of others, I would however add that the concept of realism has never, ever mattered to me in any rules I have ever written. If I was to write a ruleset deliberately trying to be realistic, such an attitude would be moronic. But I don't think most rulesets do that. It's nice when it happens, but it isn't necessary. A game should work within the logic and principles of its own context. In other words, so long as a rule doesn't seem stupid for the ruleset, then it's fine. External considerations should always be secondary. For instance, I still hold to the opinion that True Line Of Sight does not work for 40k. It adds unnecessary advantages to the firer, and gives the recipient very little in return. It forces the need for too much LOS blocking terrain, and means that terrain built around the idea of convenience for moving miniatures through, and models designed with a dynamic (or deliberately evasive) poses cause issues that they shouldn't. I shouldn't have to model a realistic forest and struggle to move my models through it to get an in-game effect that a simple rules abstraction like the "depth" rule from 3rd Edition managed. I like when rulesets know they're rulesets, and when rules writers come up with abstracts to make up for problems of using miniatures, such as terrain made for convenience and not accuracy.

Getting back to the OP, I have no overall prejudice against any system. For me, it's what works for that ruleset. I do think there are objectively better rules, but there is no logical way that every wargamer will see that, and anyway, even if every wargaming producer out there did, it either means all games are the same, or the more likely outcome, it becomes obvious not every rule works as well for every setting. Whilst breaking it down to a way like LOTR does, that could work in interesting ways, but I doubt it would be integrated without bringing new problems, and new balance issues. For instance, pinning it to something like a statline, say Initiative, either becomes redundant because most commanders have 3 or 4 so it might as well be a roll-off, or it gives advantages to elite armies, when the better statline already provides enough of an abstract to offset some of the troop differences.

For me, such a system would have to be incorporated in such a way as it favoured neutrality. So an army could contain any mix of shooting and/or melee orientated units and function effectively regardless of some outward idea. If a game unnecessarily favours shooting (like 6th does), then melee units should just be removed completely if shooting units are "supposed" to be better. Because every faction would realise this (even Orks) and have melee as an afterthought, such as modern warfare does. 40k shouldn't weigh some ideas deliberately better. Because it has too much choice, and too many interesting things that should all have a chance.

Whilst I welcome ways to make the game more tactical, I want to see methods that don't just give more buffs to Space Marines. They get enough already. That's my take on it anyway. In essay form. Hope it was interesting.

A little late to the discussion, but there is a large difference between a unit getting destroyed before it can activate, and half your army getting the same treatment. Especiallyis the game's activation type does not require you to plan the sequence of your activations beforehand.

I think I have missed something. What is AA?

As for PP never tired it yet. I bought it, got a bunch of minis but still don't know how the game works. To me it's still, I move/shoot/assault first then you do it. Could be wrong but that is the feeling I got so since I am already doing 40K, din't want to do the same system.

Davor wrote:
I think I have missed something. What is AA?

I used it as an abbreviation for Alternating Activations.

There's probably a more elegant way to say, or a better abbreviation, but for this thread, it seems to have caught on.

I think 40K would be killer if it used the same type of Alternate Activation that Epic Armageddon uses. There, an army's tactical prowess can give it a chance to activate more than one unit in a row, but there are risks involved.

In Epic:A, every single unit you bring to the table at the start of the game has an equal chance of doing something on every turn, barring getting destroyed before the player uses it.

In 40K, starting your first turn in the game with half the army you just deployed is just plain dumb, and antiquated in mechanics.

Thankyou Blacksails.

 Mr. Grey wrote:
I didn't see anybody mention this option yet - has anyone considered doing 40K using Privateer Press' activation system? Each unit completes all of their actions before the next unit in the army goes.

So a shoota boys mob would move, take their shots, etc, before you move on to the deff dread, who moves, completes it's actions, and so on.

Thoughts?

It's an interesting idea, but it would largely be an aesthetic change. There are in-game features in 40k that are starting to work like this, by fixing things to the start of certain phases (such as psychic powers and Imp Guard Orders) that have to be resolved before continuing with the phase. I generally dislike them, as they mostly just encourage gamers with better memory and generally promote gamemanship. It is at least mitigated in games that use it, such as Warmahordes, Rackham's Confrontation and so on that use cards, as you can turn the unit's card over to remind you that you've used them.

These games are also small-scale skirmish, and 40k can be at that scale, but it also can be played large scale. One of the failings of skirmish rulesets like Warmahordes, LOTR and Confrontation etc is the need for a separate ruleset to make large scale games vaguely playable. They invariably fail, because rather than modifying the existing ruleset with abstracts, they invariably go for a new ruleset altogether, or throw in unnecessary gimmicks (looking right at you, War of the Ring...).

In my view, it's not worth doing. Either incorporate the opponent's actions (potential or reactions) into the opponent's considerations, or leave it. I personally find Warmachine's unit options kind of necessary for encouraging the synergy that underpins the game, but with a game like 40k that has so little synergy (and where it does, often does use fixed points in the turn to use them) there's little need.

Worth trying, but I don't think it'll fix any problems.

Mr. Grey wrote:I didn't see anybody mention this option yet - has anyone considered doing 40K using Privateer Press' activation system? Each unit completes all of their actions before the next unit in the army goes.

So a shoota boys mob would move, take their shots, etc, before you move on to the deff dread, who moves, completes it's actions, and so on.

Thoughts?

Why?

I mean, this would make the game a little bit easier, as you wouldn't have to plan out the movement or shooting phases really all that much. There's no reason to risk overkill or stranding a unit if you knew for sure that the intended target was dead or not before it even needed to move.

Blacksails wrote:I played a spaceship combat game that used this kind of turn, where everything was considered to be simultaneous where casualties were only removed once both players had finished their shooting.

Was certainly interesting.

Hmm, that IS an interesting idea.

Though I wonder what effect it would have on a player and their decisions if they knew stuff was already dead before the moved/shot with it, etc. I mean, it completely negates the advantage of shooting first, but would it negate the advantage of moving second?

Also, it would be interesting, though unwieldy and annoying, if a player had to declare all of their targets before the first die was rolled.

AegisGrimm wrote:A little late to the discussion, but there is a large difference between a unit getting destroyed before it can activate, and half your army getting the same treatment. Especiallyis the game's activation type does not require you to plan the sequence of your activations beforehand.

But the person who goes second can plan for it accordingly. Using the fact that they deploy second to mitigate some of the effects of getting to shoot first. Of course, it doesn't do a good enough job at this (though you will find some die-hards who still think it's better to choose to go second), but that's a matter of tweaking.

Meanwhile, the method you're talking about heavily encourages uber-shooty-deathstar units where you funnel much of your resources into the few units that are going to get to strike first, and leave the rest of your army garbage that may or may not get a chance to do anything. When you're guaranteed that every non-destroyed model will get a chance to shoot on the first turn, this equalizes shooting a lot. It doesn't matter if you have 6 proverbial lascannons split over 6 squads, or all 6 on some super-lascannon-juggernaut.

In 40k, that D-weapon monster has only a 50% chance to go into ultrarape mode after you've at least got a turn to use your entire army. And, in theory (if points balanced), there wouldn't be a particular reason to take a multi-D-weapon ubertitan over several smaller individual D units, or a whole bunch of smaller units with similar killing power.

Much, much less so with the kind of AA system you're talking about.

Malifaux is able to contain this a tiny bit by completely destroying player freedom in list building, but even in that game, it seems like a nasty tendency to have the one ultrabadass surrounded by successively more pointless mooks.

 Ailaros wrote:

Hmm, that IS an interesting idea.

Though I wonder what effect it would have on a player and their decisions if they knew stuff was already dead before the moved/shot with it, etc. I mean, it completely negates the advantage of shooting first, but would it negate the advantage of moving second?

Also, it would be interesting, though unwieldy and annoying, if a player had to declare all of their targets before the first die was rolled.

It worked for this game as the ships each had their own individual tracking sheet for hull points, shields, systems, and the like, so the book-keeping was already part of the game and fairly easy to keep track of what needed attention at the end of the round.

As for moving, you had to write down orders for your ships, so as you were committed if you moved 'second'. Both players committed to their courses of action, and then played it out, removing casualties and dealing with repairs and such at the end of the turn.

Shooting was declared simultaneously as well. The game worked best fairly casually, and was expedited with a sort of mediator/helping hand to keep track and double check everything. The book keeping was tedious at times, but it was an interesting experience. Made for a pretty tactical game, considering the board was entirely empty and the game was decided on how well you maneouvred, predicted, and brought your guns to bear while maximizing your strengths and minimizing your weaknesses.

We also played blind lists, where we knew nothing of the enemies ships/fleet until a check was made to reveal its size/weaponry.

Good times.

Oh.

Well yeah, I guess it would work fine for that kind of game, but how could you possibly make that work for 40k? Write down where each of the 150 models in your green tide is going to run?

It feels like this would work better at a smaller scale, and with much less player freedom (especially in movement. Was this a hex-based game?)

Personally I LOVE the Alternating Activation system Dystopian Wars and Firestorm Armada use and if my local 40k group weren't asshats I'd love to try and port the mechanic over.

Basically at the start of each game turn both players roll for initiative. The winner picks who goes first that turn.

There are no phases, each player moves, shoots and boards (assaults) with 1 full squadron (unit) then the other does the same. If one side runs out of activations then the other simply finishes. Everything activates exactly once per turn, no exception.

I find it adds a TON of tactical depth to the game. Suddenly you're faced with the choice of alpha striking and leaving yourself vulnerable to counter attack or hold your units back and wait for an opening.

As an example in Dyst wars I will almost always go second on turn 1 and first every other turn. I want my opponent to bring his more valuable units forwards first since my fleet works at extreme range and close range, not in the middle. I go second then activate my corvettes and frigates while I wait for my opponent to run out of activations and be forced to move his battleship. I'll then use my own battleship, or destroyers, or gunships, or whatever is best suited to the task, to hit their battleship at range. Next turn I want first activation so I can run up beside their battleship and broadside it before it can activate.


Translating that over to 40k if I where to play a all comers list against a deathstar I can activate a few cheap units until my opponent is forced to bring his deathstar towards me and I can then unload everything into it because I out activate him. Or I can use most of my army before the drop pods fall and wipe half of it off the table. I've never had a problem in Dyst Wars where at the end of turn one one side has already lost enough units that the outcome is assured.

So I think the point we're all trying to make is any kind of alternating activation, or initiative based, or simultaneous move, or risk based activation, or whatever, would be an improvement on the current "Sit uninvolved for 40 minutes while your opponent does all their stuff, then do the same to them".

The problem is GW has, as far as I know, never done anything but full army IGO-UGO.
Mordheim, Necromunda, even Space Hulk (although it did at least have interrupts via command points). So I doubt they'd update their flagship product in such a large way. It's the same with the statline being built around fantasy melee (WS, I, A all for melee) instead of actual sci-fi small arms shooting. But they've used the same statline since the company was formed, so again, something we're probably stuck with.

Are you forgetting Lord of the Rings Bosky? I swear that would be a good system for 40K. Not perfect but at least better than what we have and what we are going to get in 2 weeks time.

*edit* I think a lot of people forget about LotR from GW.

 bosky wrote:
So I think the point we're all trying to make is any kind of alternating activation, or initiative based, or simultaneous move, or risk based activation, or whatever, would be an improvement on the current "Sit uninvolved for 40 minutes while your opponent does all their stuff, then do the same to them".

The problem is GW has, as far as I know, never done anything but full army IGO-UGO.
Mordheim, Necromunda, even Space Hulk (although it did at least have interrupts via command points). So I doubt they'd update their flagship product in such a large way. It's the same with the statline being built around fantasy melee (WS, I, A all for melee) instead of actual sci-fi small arms shooting. But they've used the same statline since the company was formed, so again, something we're probably stuck with.

Epic Armageddon and it's previous incarnations, LotR, The Hobbit, and possibly Battlefleet Gothic (though I'm not sure, I'll need to check with a friend who has the rules).

They had different methods. E:A specifically had unit-by-unit activation alternating between players, only moving an army by parts, never in full.

@Davor: Eh, never played it, but I guess I should have clarified to mean "anything using their standard statline", since LoTR didn't use WS/BS/S/T/etc. right? I never played LoTR, but yeah from what I've heard the activation system did sound a bit newer.

I guess to me the biggest culprit is that their skirmish scale games of Mordheim and Necromunda weren't unit-by-unit activation. If they aren't going to do it for a small scale game like that, I doubt we'll ever see anything but IGO-UGO for 40k.

@Selyum: I thought Epic was still UGO-IGO, just with a better system for deciding who goes first? Overall it sounded like a fast playing and fun game, I'm sad they discontinued it.

I glanced at the Battlefleet Gothic rules (since I had the free electronic copy from when GW had them on their site) and it seems like the entire fleet moves and acts in a turn before the opponent does. Maybe you're thinking of Firestorm Armada which has alternating ship squad-by-squad activation?

 bosky wrote:

@Selym: I thought Epic was still UGO-IGO, just with a better system for deciding who goes first? Overall it sounded like a fast playing and fun game, I'm sad they discontinued it.

I glanced at the Battlefleet Gothic rules (since I had the free electronic copy from when GW had them on their site) and it seems like the entire fleet moves and acts in a turn before the opponent does. Maybe you're thinking of Firestorm Armada which has alternating ship squad-by-squad activation?

Eh, I've never played either personally. My friend does, but he and I are not exactly strangers to modifying rulesets.

As for E:A, I have a print out of the rules, but I lost the PDF files in a data corruption, sadly. Ima check the papers if I can locate them, and I'll see if 4shared stored them.


EDIT: Scratch what I just said, but I can't be bothered to read if this is the full ruleset or just a summary:

http://onyxworkshop.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/ea-compendium-2-1_rules-only.pdf

 Selym wrote:
As for E:A, I have a print out of the rules, but I lost the PDF files in a data corruption, sadly. Ima check the papers if I can locate them, and I'll see if 4shared stored them.

Yeah you're right, it is unit-by-unit activation for Epic Armageddon. Hooray, there is hope! I have a copy of m1320000_EPIC_updated_rulebook-sections_1-4_Oct09.pdf, which I think is E:A from the GW site, and as you say they reference the alternating activation.

Do you happen to know who was the lead designer of Epic? I wonder if they're still at GW, and have any influence on 40k. EDIT: Wikipedia says it's Jervis Johnson, which seems surprising. Maybe it was a case of him getting to design a game without any pressure from management. Or heck, maybe GW doesn't even see UGO-IGO as a bad thing or outdated mechanic

@Bosky, there is stats. MOVEMENT stats which is so needed back into 40K (Can't have SM moving slower than anyone else eh? jk). It also has Strength, Defence, Wounds, Attacks and Leadership rolls as well. Also Leaders or Characters get Mana or Magic, an Might stat (I think to modify any dice roll) and a Will stat (how strong you are against magic).

So just like 40K/Fantasy but in my opinion better than 40K. (never played Fantasy so can't say on it)

Each mini is an individual unit. For 40K terms instead of individual units, just replace with squads/broods. Characters in 40K would still be individual units like they are now.

War of the Rings is squad based which I believe 8th edition of Fantasy took some stuff from that game into 8th.

Forgot to say, if you are Evil you can shoot into Close Combat, 50/50 hitting your own guy. Also another great rule is if you are taking cover from say a fence or what not, if you pass your save the fence gets hit. So this would be great for 40K. If you are using your gaunts or IG dudes or what ever unit for a cover save, if you pass it, then they get hit.

 bosky wrote:

 Selym wrote:
As for E:A, I have a print out of the rules, but I lost the PDF files in a data corruption, sadly. Ima check the papers if I can locate them, and I'll see if 4shared stored them.

Yeah you're right, it is unit-by-unit activation for Epic Armageddon. Hooray, there is hope! I have a copy of m1320000_EPIC_updated_rulebook-sections_1-4_Oct09.pdf, which I think is E:A from the GW site, and as you say they reference the alternating activation.

Do you happen to know who was the lead designer of Epic? I wonder if they're still at GW, and have any influence on 40k. EDIT: Wikipedia says it's Jervis Johnson, which seems surprising. Maybe it was a case of him getting to design a game without any pressure from management. Or heck, maybe GW doesn't even see UGO-IGO as a bad thing or outdated mechanic

It'll be somewhere on my printout, but it's either in a shed outside, where it's raining atm, or it's under stuff in my wardrobe, where a climate revolving around acid rain seems to exist...

Now the real question becomes has anyone tried playing a game of 40k with a modified Epic system? Similar rules to Epic but a "zoomed in" view? 28mm Epic I guess?

 bosky wrote:
Now the real question becomes has anyone tried playing a game of 40k with a modified Epic system? Similar rules to Epic but a "zoomed in" view? 28mm Epic I guess?

Well, the reverse occurred:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/450719.page

bosky wrote:So I think the point we're all trying to make is any kind of alternating activation, or initiative based, or simultaneous move, or risk based activation, or whatever, would be an improvement on the current "Sit uninvolved for 40 minutes while your opponent does all their stuff, then do the same to them".

No, it's not the point we're all trying to make.

Any way you slice it is going to incentivize certain player behavior and cause certain problems. The biggest problem with UGOIGO is that time lapse, but as mentioned, that can easily be worked around by playing at an appropriate points level and player experience.

So far, I'd rather have UGOIGO than what else has been presented as an alternative, either because it would be unworkable for a game like 40k, or because it would create it's own wonky problems worse than 40k. 40k may have its problems, but at least its turns are not a half an hour of the two of us silently strategizing and scribbling down notes before we reveal our plan rock-paper-scissors style and see if our two deathstars did what they were supposed to do while moving around a cloud of meaningless tiny units.

 Ailaros wrote:
No, it's not the point we're all trying to make.

Oh right, sorry, I forgot you were a grouch

Sure in an ideal world IGO-UGO turns take 10 minutes. In most real world situations I've seen it's 30-60 minutes.

Not sure how alternating activations ends up being "silently strategizing and scribbling down notes before we reveal our plan rock-paper-scissors style", but I guess it helps you make your point. There are a ton of activation systems besides UGO-IGO, but it's okay if you don't want to consider them. It's just fun to spitball a bit, it's not like 40k will ever change anyway.

bosky wrote: In most real world situations I've seen it's 30-60 minutes..

What "real world situations" are you seeing?

Play a 500 point game and tell me it takes an HOUR per turn. Because at 60 minutes a pop, you're talking about a six hour 40k game, which I've never seen outside of apocalypse. Unless you meant that there's a chance you've got to wait 60 minutes until you get to do something again, in which case you're talking about a TWELVE HOUR GAME OF 40k.

That seems a lot more like gross exaggeration than real world situation.

bosky wrote:Not sure how alternating activations ends up being "silently strategizing and scribbling down notes before we reveal our plan rock-paper-scissors style"

That was mentioned before with whichever ship game that was. Orders are done in secret, so that you're committed to your decisions once the turn begins. I can't imagine that would be terribly workable for 40k, much less all that social, or fun for a game of 40k's size. A fleet game with a handful of boats? Sure. 40k... not so much.

The problem with doing the alternative unit activation, and initiative based activation is that 40k was not designed with this in mind. And while there might not be any problems with it working this way, you can never really know unless you do a massive amount of play testing. Personally I think something similar to Infinities system would work well with 40k, considering that overwatch is little more than a shooting ARO. But the problem with it is that it would only increase the effectiveness of shooting while hurting close combat.

 bosky wrote:
In most real world situations I've seen it's 30-60 minutes.

I routinely play 5-7 turn 1500 point games in 90-120 minutes.

That time includes unpacking, set up table, clear table, and re-packing.

 Ailaros wrote:
What "real world situations" are you seeing?

Play a 500 point game and tell me it takes an HOUR per turn. Because at 60 minutes a pop, you're talking about a six hour 40k game, which I've never seen outside of apocalypse. Unless you meant that there's a chance you've got to wait 60 minutes until you get to do something again, in which case you're talking about a TWELVE HOUR GAME OF 40k.

That seems a lot more like gross exaggeration than real world situation.

I don't play a lot of pickup games, so my 40k experience has been limited to playing with the same 3 or 4 people. We tend to play 1,500 or 2k points. Between arguing about rules, re-reading codex specific rules, deciding what to do, rolling lots of dice, etc. turns CAN creep up to 60 minutes. Games very do often take from 6pm to midnight or 1am. Like I said it must be nice for you to have it otherwise. I've seen video battle reports of games being played faster (sometimes it seems like everyone is just rushing for the sake of time though, or playing incorrect rules because they're going from memory), but for whatever reason 40k just always ends up as a grinding slog for us.

And there are plenty of different activation systems besides secret orders. I think most of them are superior to UGO-IGO (even for a mass battle game), whereas you do not. :shrug:

bosky wrote:Between arguing about rules, re-reading codex specific rules, deciding what to do, rolling lots of dice, etc. turns CAN creep up to 60 minutes.

Sure. Throw in socializing, and it can take longer still.

However, just because it is possible to make a game of 40k seven hours long doesn't mean that there's a problem with 40k's rules. I'm sure it's possible to make a comparably-sized game of infinity or malifaux take that long if the main cause for length is player actions like deciding what to do and arguing about the rules, etc.

Put another way, just because you and your group are slow doesn't mean 40k is slow, and changing the turn structure won't necessarily make your group any faster.

 Ailaros wrote:
Put another way, just because you and your group are slow doesn't mean 40k is slow, and changing the turn structure won't necessarily make your group any faster.

I don't care about the games taking a long time, that's not my complaint at all.
I'll gladly sit down and play a tabletop game for an entire 12 hour stretch. The difference is I want that time to be fun and I want to be involved as a player. Right now, mainly due to the turn structure, that is not the case. Even in an ideal game of 5 turns at 2 hours, that's 20 minutes a turn. Which means for 20 minutes I'll be doing nothing but watching my opponent move units, while I roll the odd save dice here and there.
I'd prefer a 1-5 minute downtime before I, as a player, get to do something or have some involvement. Changing the turn structure WOULD achieve that.

 bosky wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
Put another way, just because you and your group are slow doesn't mean 40k is slow, and changing the turn structure won't necessarily make your group any faster.

I don't care about the games taking a long time, that's not my complaint at all.
I'll gladly sit down and play a tabletop game for an entire 12 hour stretch. The difference is I want that time to be fun and I want to be involved as a player. Right now, mainly due to the turn structure, that is not the case. Even in an ideal game of 5 turns at 2 hours, that's 20 minutes a turn. Which means for 20 minutes I'll be doing nothing but watching my opponent move units, while I roll the odd save dice here and there.
I'd prefer a 1-5 minute downtime before I, as a player, get to do something or have some involvement. Changing the turn structure WOULD achieve that.

Not trying to sound ignorant, but do you really have an attention span so short that you lose interest if your not doing something every five minutes?

 Jaceevoke wrote:
Not trying to sound ignorant, but do you really have an attention span so short that you lose interest if your not doing something every five minutes?

I figured someone would frame it as attention span (or say something along the lines of "Go play a video game then!" ), hehe.
To me player involvement is directly linked to a fun game. Sitting for 20 minutes watching an opponent isn't involving me as a player, and it isn't fun, and having to "endure" the opponent's turn isn't related to attention span. It just isn't a good game. Considering these 20 minute downtime periods happen 5 times in a 5 turn game (again at the 2 hour ideal), and the downtime grows even more with the group I play with, well, you get the idea. Especially when there ARE games that involve me as a player.
It's the same reason some dry Eurogame boardgames aren't for me. Watching another player strategize and act for 20+ minutes while doing nothing (or very minor actions) is dull there too. You can call it a failure of attention span, I just call it taste.

 bosky wrote:

 Jaceevoke wrote:
Not trying to sound ignorant, but do you really have an attention span so short that you lose interest if your not doing something every five minutes?

I figured someone would frame it as attention span (or say something along the lines of "Go play a video game then!" ), hehe.
To me player involvement is directly linked to a fun game. Sitting for 20 minutes watching an opponent isn't involving me as a player, and it isn't fun, and having to "endure" the opponent's turn isn't related to attention span. It just isn't a good game. Considering these 20 minute downtime periods happen 5 times in a 5 turn game (again at the 2 hour ideal), and the downtime grows even more with the group I play with, well, you get the idea. Especially when there ARE games that involve me as a player.
It's the same reason some dry Eurogame boardgames aren't for me. Watching another player strategize and act for 20+ minutes while doing nothing (or very minor actions) is dull there too. You can call it a failure of attention span, I just call it taste.

Alright I can understand that, just was curious because that was how it came off to me but you do make a good point. Like you said it is a matter of taste, though I am kind of curious why you choose a game like 40k if you don't like that. Was it more involved in earlier editions?

Well I started 40k in 2nd edition, back when I was a kid and didn't know of other games. As with today 40k was the biggest and most well known, so it was an easy gateway. I played a lot smaller scale back then, and in my youthful ignorance skipped any boring rules, tacked on my own creations, etc. so the problem wasn't as pronounced.
Once I found other games, basically before 3rd even came out, I stopped playing 40k. The 3 gaming friends I mentioned earlier got into it around the tail end of 5th, and I didn't have a steady wargame going at the time, so I figured some kind of tabletop game was better than nothing
Thankfully we've moved on to other games now (for the most part), so I actually don't play much 40k anymore. More Firestorm Armada, X-Wing, Netrunner, a mish mash of indie games, etc.

Still fun to post here though. And I would love 40k to be more my type of game, because I do have a lot of figures leftover, and enjoy some parts of the fluff.

bosky wrote:Even in an ideal game of 5 turns at 2 hours, that's 20 minutes a turn. Which means for 20 minutes I'll be doing nothing but watching my opponent move units, while I roll the odd save dice here and there.
I'd prefer a 1-5 minute downtime before I, as a player, get to do something or have some involvement. Changing the turn structure WOULD achieve that.

120 minutes divided by 5 is 24 minutes per game turn. That means 12 minutes per player turn. Given that you still are doing things in your opponent's turn (rolling armor saves, etc.), is it really so horribly awful?

If this is literally the only thing that matters, then yeah, you could play rock paper scissors and get to do stuff every six seconds. Rock paper scissors isn't 40k, though, and you'd have to make a LOT of compromises to make this time scale work. You'd be butchering the entire rest of the game for this one metric.

Now, bring it back from the extreme. Why is it worth it to compromise 40k to focus so much on this one metric?

If there was a way where you could get faster turnaround time without causing other problems, well sure, it would just be straight better. Haven't heard it, though.

 Ailaros wrote:
120 minutes divided by 5 is 24 minutes per game turn. That means 12 minutes per player turn. Given that you still are doing things in your opponent's turn (rolling armor saves, etc.), is it really so horribly awful?

Haha, whoops, math

Anyway I'm not finishing a game of 40k in 2 hours, so even with (correct ) math the 12 minute turn is still not what my games end up being :( And I doubt 12 minute turns are the norm, so I think my point still stands.

It's not "literally the only thing that matters", but I think having player involvement and a sense of dynamic back-and-forth during combat would help 40k.

I'm not saying just crudely tacking on a non-UGOIGO system is the solution (or "butchering the entire rest of the game" as you call it). In my daydream I think 40k needs a full rewrite from the ground up. Given GW's specialist games it seems like they CAN write fun games. I just wish they did that for 40k. If you like 40k and enjoy playing it, that's great. In it's current state I don't. But my point is I wish I did, because I have a bunch of minis and terrain that I'd like to use in their universe, instead of for other games I enjoy more.

 Ailaros wrote:


So far, I'd rather have UGOIGO than what else has been presented as an alternative, either because it would be unworkable for a game like 40k, or because it would create it's own wonky problems worse than 40k. 40k may have its problems, but at least its turns are not a half an hour of the two of us silently strategizing and scribbling down notes before we reveal our plan rock-paper-scissors style and see if our two deathstars did what they were supposed to do while moving around a cloud of meaningless tiny units.

Actually, I think the alternating activation mechanic from Epic: Armageddon would work for 40K quite well. It would not be anything like you describe, it would simply be activating by unit versus by formation. You could even have the army strategy value in place from Epic. Deathstar strategies are in every tabletop game, some just mitigate their use very well.

Also, never once had such a problem with AT-43 or Confrontation AoR, either, except where the latter has characters that are far too powerful. None of my army builds have ever been a Deathstar with a bunch of crappy units to fill out points.

 Ailaros wrote:
Oh.

Well yeah, I guess it would work fine for that kind of game, but how could you possibly make that work for 40k? Write down where each of the 150 models in your green tide is going to run?

It feels like this would work better at a smaller scale, and with much less player freedom (especially in movement. Was this a hex-based game?)

Well, obviously, I was just describing a different system for the sake of showing something like that exists.

This game has roughly 10-20 ships per side, at most. If playing with BFG-esque ships, that would go down to 5-10, so it was fairly manageable.

Definitely not fit for 40k though.

I suppose the question, then, is how do you design a system that balances shooting first vs. moving second (rather than awkwardly splitting it up between players while removing one but not the other) in a way that works for 40k. And also addresses the problems.

It's one thing to say "it can be done" or "I like this system", while it's another to say "how it can be done", or "why this system is just better".

 bosky wrote:

Yeah you're right, it is unit-by-unit activation for Epic Armageddon. Hooray, there is hope! I have a copy of m1320000_EPIC_updated_rulebook-sections_1-4_Oct09.pdf, which I think is E:A from the GW site, and as you say they reference the alternating activation.

Do you happen to know who was the lead designer of Epic? I wonder if they're still at GW, and have any influence on 40k. EDIT: Wikipedia says it's Jervis Johnson, which seems surprising. Maybe it was a case of him getting to design a game without any pressure from management. Or heck, maybe GW doesn't even see UGO-IGO as a bad thing or outdated mechanic

The original Epic games (Space Marine 1st edition and Adeptus Titanicus) gave sole Game Design credit to Jervis, the later editions were co-written by him and Mr 40k himself Andy Chambers. Chambers reputedly ended his employment at GW by storming out of the office on a Friday after a heated discussion with management about the new edition of 40k: He supposedly wanted to drastically alter the rules. I remember reading his designers notes for Epic Armageddon in that months issue of.. Fanatic Magazine I think, and thinking "Crumbs, this must be one of the last things he published for GW?"

 Ailaros wrote:
I suppose the question, then, is how do you design a system that balances shooting first vs. moving second (rather than awkwardly splitting it up between players while removing one but not the other) in a way that works for 40k. And also addresses the problems.

That really is the question...probably the million dollar question, since if you could create a better 40k (or convince GW to do it while getting credit) you'd probably be rolling in the dough. And I think any answer would change what the accepted view of 40k, as a rules system, really is. For example, why force units to move then shoot then assault. Why not let them go in any order?

 Gashrog wrote:
The original Epic games (Space Marine 1st edition and Adeptus Titanicus) gave sole Game Design credit to Jervis, the later editions were co-written by him and Mr 40k himself Andy Chambers. Chambers reputedly ended his employment at GW by storming out of the office on a Friday after a heated discussion with management about the new edition of 40k: He supposedly wanted to drastically alter the rules. I remember reading his designers notes for Epic Armageddon in that months issue of.. Fanatic Magazine I think, and thinking "Crumbs, this must be one of the last things he published for GW?"

Interesting tidbit. Very interesting indeed! Do you happen to know if the original Epic incarnations were as streamlined as Epic: Armageddon appears to be? Or was that purely Andy Chambers influence? Also do you have a source for the "Friday storm out" rumor?
I do think it's neat to see what some of the ex-GW staffers have done since they left, such as Bolt Action (Rick Priestley) and Deadzone (Jake Thornton) and Dust Warfare (Andy Chambers). As far as I know all of those have some interesting mechanics involved around activation.

 Ailaros wrote:
I suppose the question, then, is how do you design a system that balances shooting first vs. moving second (rather than awkwardly splitting it up between players while removing one but not the other) in a way that works for 40k. And also addresses the problems.

It's one thing to say "it can be done" or "I like this system", while it's another to say "how it can be done", or "why this system is just better".

How about you decide, if you want to move or shoot? So it's your turn phase, you pick a unit, you decide if this unit will shoot or move. Then I pick a unit and then decide If it moves, or shoots. Then next time its your turn phase you shoot. If you decide to shoot, then next turn phase you move.

This way you have a move turn and a shooting turn but you decide when you do it. Do you take that chance and fire and remain stationary so your opponent might be able to hit it or assault it, or do you move to get a better vantage point and then shoot?

The activation method, as I see it, would be too cumbersome, for 40K's size and diversity. Because, there could be an in balance of units per army. For example a Deathwing Terminator Army v.s. a Imperial Guard Army. The Deathwing army might have as little as 5 units (Independ Characters in squad) and the Imperial Guard having 15 units. If the activation method, did a 1 for 1 then the Imperial Guard player would get 11 units to move unchecked. If the units were divided i.e. the Deathwing player would moved 1 and the imperial guard play moved 3, would work till units are removed. For example if the deathwing play lost a unit and the imperial guard player lost 4. There would be then inequality, and they would have to recalculate the ratio. If there was any type if change in the number of units i.e. disembarking or embarking a transport, an independent character leaving a squad, reserves showing up. All of these things would gum up the works sort to speak.

I'll add my remedy later.

The activation method, as I see it, would be too cumbersome, for 40K's size and diversity. Because, there could be an in balance of units per army. For example a Deathwing Terminator Army v.s. a Imperial Guard Army. The Deathwing army might have as little as 5 units (Independ Characters in squad) and the Imperial Guard having 15 units. If the activation method, did a 1 for 1 then the Imperial Guard player would get 11 units to move unchecked.

Well, that's pretty much the same as it is now, except all 15 Imperial Guard units act unchecked during that player's turn.

The above reason is actually why alternating activation games don;t get overloaded with Deathstar tactics, as either the Deathstar unit moves early and then gets swarmed, or they wait and get hit first. So each activation is potentially important, so armies tend to get chosen to have synergy.

Bakedbeans wrote:
The activation method, as I see it, would be too cumbersome, for 40K's size and diversity. Because, there could be an in balance of units per army. For example a Deathwing Terminator Army v.s. a Imperial Guard Army. The Deathwing army might have as little as 5 units (Independ Characters in squad) and the Imperial Guard having 15 units. If the activation method, did a 1 for 1 then the Imperial Guard player would get 11 units to move unchecked. If the units were divided i.e. the Deathwing player would moved 1 and the imperial guard play moved 3, would work till units are removed. For example if the deathwing play lost a unit and the imperial guard player lost 4. There would be then inequality, and they would have to recalculate the ratio. If there was any type if change in the number of units i.e. disembarking or embarking a transport, an independent character leaving a squad, reserves showing up. All of these things would gum up the works sort to speak.

I'll add my remedy later.

Pretty simple I think. Back in the Battletech days, if say the ratio was 2:1 or 3:1, then you move 2 squads or 3 squads to the persons one squad.

One thing I am not understanding is, why are people saying the UgoIgo will take longer than what we have now? If anything it will be the same now or quicker because you can do something sooner rather than later. What I like is you are not waiting 15-30 minutes doing nothing. Your opponents move, you respond to if. It's almost like dog fighting you zig, your opponents zag.

I know when my buddy and I played AT-43, we were quite pleasantly surprised at how the alternating activations felt when we were both 40K veterans.

One of the reasons I am working on forces for Epic is so I can play with my wife and she doesn't have to wait my whole turn just to do anything other than roll armor saves, because I know that would bore her to death.

Davor wrote:How about you decide, if you want to move or shoot? So it's your turn phase, you pick a unit, you decide if this unit will shoot or move. Then I pick a unit and then decide If it moves, or shoots. Then next time its your turn phase you shoot. If you decide to shoot, then next turn phase you move.

What does this really fix, though?

AegisGrimm wrote:Well, that's pretty much the same as it is now, except all 15 Imperial Guard units act unchecked during that player's turn.

Except it doesn't matter that the guard player has 15 units. With UGOIGO, it literally doesn't matter if a person brings 1 unit or 100, because they get to do everything in a single group.

Needing to spam tiny pointless MSU so that you can abuse an initiative system better doesn't make the game better.

Davor wrote:One thing I am not understanding is, why are people saying the UgoIgo will take longer than what we have now? If anything it will be the same now or quicker because you can do something sooner rather than later.

Yeah.

Being able to plan during your opponent's turn is nice, rather than having to plan and then re-plan after every single move.

Not that it really matters either way, of course, but UGOIGO only appears to be more annoying.

I guess i just don't get the negativity. In my forays into AA games, I have neither spammed multiple small units, nor have I relied on Deathstars. My armies are always designed to get the most effectiveness out of each activation of a unit. They look like "normal" 40K armies, many times with units that are at or near their maximum size. My regular opponents do the same.

Several games (At43, Confrontation AoR) have even had alternating activation sequences, where you make an order of activations out of the units you have, and other than some tactical tweaks that the rules allow, have to activate those units in that order. And you keep your sequence separate from your opponent until the unit is activated, so there is a "fog of war" involved where you have to adapt with what you are activating, not just the best stuff at the perfect time.

Do people really sit and plan for 10+ minutes?

Alternating activations still gives you a minute here or there as your opponent activates to think, and you can take a bit of time in your turn to plan.

Ultimately for me it simply comes down to:
Pros
Less insta win deathstars
No long waits where you just roll saves and remove models
No alpha strikes wiping out half your army before you cam do anything

Cons
Its new and therefore scary

Sorry about my post it waste last 10 minutes of work and it took long to write then expected.

@Grimm and Davor

Not talking about Deathstar units but the "elite" armies like Grey Knights and Deathwing, Wolfwing and the like. These army types would have a decided disadvantage in a 1 for 1 style, no matter who had the initiative. Think of this the Deathwing player again with 5 units and the Imperial Guard Player again with 15 units. Say the DW players goes first 1DW 1IG, 1DW 1IG, 1DW 1IG, 1DW 1IG, 1DW 11IG. Now lets say the IG player goes first 1IG 1DW, 1IG 1DW, 1IG 1DW, 1IG 1DW, 1IG 1DW, 10IG or possibly 11IG 1DW.

Swarm armies would always have the advantage because they always out number. (Not a bad idea for GW, because you would have to have MOAR! units then your opponent to win)

If we/they did an ratio system like Davor suggested each turn there would be a rebalancing of the ratio as units die, disembark or come in from reserves, ect.

Going back to the Deathwing play and the Guard player, asuming that both players start with all their units on the field the DW play would move 1 unit per 3 of the IG player. The turn ends the DW player does not lose a unit but the IG player loses 2 units. So now the DW player moves 1 per 2 IG unit except for the last 3 DW units the IG player moves 3 units to make up the remaining units. Next turn the DW player loses a unit the IG player loses two more but also decides to embark a unit on a transport. Now the DW player has 4 units and IG player has 10. The new ratio would be 1dw 2ig, 1dw 2ig, 1dw 3ig, 1dw 3ig.

I'm of the opinion that this ratio system would be a drag.

My solution would be;

Top of the turn roll army wide initiative,

Lowest roll moves all units first, then highest moves.

Everyone shots that wants to shoot, all causalities are removed at the end of the shooting phase.

Resolve moral.

Assault phase, the highest initiative declares first, then lowest all causalities are removed.

Resolve moral.

Repeat.

Davor wrote:

Bakedbeans wrote:
The activation method, as I see it, would be too cumbersome, for 40K's size and diversity. Because, there could be an in balance of units per army. For example a Deathwing Terminator Army v.s. a Imperial Guard Army. The Deathwing army might have as little as 5 units (Independ Characters in squad) and the Imperial Guard having 15 units. If the activation method, did a 1 for 1 then the Imperial Guard player would get 11 units to move unchecked. If the units were divided i.e. the Deathwing player would moved 1 and the imperial guard play moved 3, would work till units are removed. For example if the deathwing play lost a unit and the imperial guard player lost 4. There would be then inequality, and they would have to recalculate the ratio. If there was any type if change in the number of units i.e. disembarking or embarking a transport, an independent character leaving a squad, reserves showing up. All of these things would gum up the works sort to speak.

I'll add my remedy later.

Pretty simple I think. Back in the Battletech days, if say the ratio was 2:1 or 3:1, then you move 2 squads or 3 squads to the persons one squad.

One thing I am not understanding is, why are people saying the UgoIgo will take longer than what we have now? If anything it will be the same now or quicker because you can do something sooner rather than later. What I like is you are not waiting 15-30 minutes doing nothing. Your opponents move, you respond to if. It's almost like dog fighting you zig, your opponents zag.

Well, I'm sold. Next battle that I get the chance, I'll try out alternating activation. Will start at 750, then move up in 250 pts battles up to 2k to see how it goes.

Looking forward to it Selym. Just wish my gaming group would have tried it but no go.

I don't but have to based on the mechanic of the game.